5 votes

Only Neocon Scum Desire Civil War

I admit my title is a little trolling, but I have a point. Please read and don't immediately downvote.

I read stuff about an armed uprising, or a regiment of patriots cutting off the head in Washington.

What the hell would that accomplish? Raising a mob to take out the current government, then impose a new one on everybody is called insurrection and it deserves to be put down.

The ownership of guns, that is because we acknowledge the private ownership of guns, is why we have rules pertaining to insurrection. If no one held guns privately, there would not be a possibility of insurrection. Why then make insurrection a crime?

Here's the LIBERTY based way to employ 2nd amendment rights to restrict an encroaching federal government:

-Form local political societies: Whether it be in the town hall, community center, or someone's basement. Tracking the opinions of the people and the spread of ideas, debates, and information between them need to be their responsibility! Basic community rules and viewpoints should be the product of communities, not the media or the government.

-Bring the local political societies to bear on local and state government: Resist unjust laws, advocate against unjust practices, document and publicize corruption.

-Use the apparatus of local government to compete with and stand against central power: nullification, constitutionalism, devolution of power.

Guns and armed revolt come into play to defend the local political societies against the centralized ones. Specifically, state governments receive pressure from above. Guns are leverage that the people have to reconstitute unjust local government captured by the federal power.

IN OTHER WORDS THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS PROTECTS THE RIGHT ESTABLISHED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT: PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY, AS IT EVOLVES INTO THE FORMATION OF LOCAL POLITICAL SOCIETIES. GUNS PROTECT THESE POLITICAL SOCIETIES FROM THE CENTRAL POWER.

A massive uprising is chaos which may lead to a continental congress and a Washington. Or it might lead to violent suppression and the delegitimization of patriot ideas for a century.

If an uprising did result in success guess who would lead it: GUYS LIKE GLENN BECK AND BILL O'REILLY.

What we need to do is form political societies
- Correspondence committees
- Community forums with parliamentary rules and record keeping and an inclusive scope (lefties and patriots)
- Organized militias
- Common purposes: manifestos, doctrines.

We all, even at DP have vastly different points of view, but we can agree on basic things like the scope of federal power. OWS and the Tea Party opposed the bailout. The principles of constitutionalism are shared by the neo-con influenced tea party populace and liberty loving patriots.

NEXT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART

The reason why we haven't formed these political societies is because we are all deluding ourselves. We imagine that the political process will still effectively lead to liberty. We are dependent on federal programs, many of us, and aren't ready for what comes next. We talk about organic/free farming, gardens, but only a few of us have them. We talk about banking corruption, but few of us try meaningful alternatives (community currencies, bitcoin, etc.).

ALL OF US ARE WAITING FOR A GRAND CIVIL WAR, LUSTING AS NEOCONS DO FOR NATIONAL GREATNESS IN BATTLE, AND THEN AFTER VICTORY WE'LL HAVE OUR FREE SOCIETY.

This is not a good plan, we need to act, to start the revolution today. Not a violent revolution, but begin to grow our own food, use our own currencies. Many of us have done this, but we need to think of it as a war. Not a violent fight, but a willingness to kind of go out on the line to change our lifestyles.

We need to grow up, become bigger people. Less willing to be paranoid of those who might help us. More inclusive. We need mission statements, lines in the sand, magnanimity. We need to be more willing to spend time helping the less fortunate, more comfortable engaging socially with people very different from and awkward to us.

ONCE WE FORM TRUE LOCAL POLITICAL SOCIETIES, THEN WE CAN MEANINGFULLY EXPRESS OURSELVES POLITICALLY. WE DON'T HAVE TO WIN ELECTIONS NATIONALLY TO GET OUR FREEDOM. MERELY ACT IN CONCERT. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE, BACKED BY A VOTING MACHINE THAT HAS LOCAL IMPACT.

AND WHEN THE FEDERAL, CENTRAL POWER GROWS WEARY OF OUR INFLUENCE AND COMES AFTER US WITH HANDCUFFS AND BULLETS, THEN OUR GUNS AND OUR MILITIAS CAN HAVE A ROLE. BUT WE MUST NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER INITIATE VIOLENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, the time is now I say. Enough of the bullcrap. I'm ready for a revolution. I'm sick of the direction our country is going. No violence, no fighting. Organizing, sacrificing, resisting encroachment, educating. Independence within our rights. We don't even need a new constitution.

We talk about it, but we're not doing a good enough job of doing it! I think we're getting better, but we need to double down, and do it now.

What do you think?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I think an offensive

insurrection wouldn't work because then what do we do? Hold free elections? Diebolds and voting irregularities don't account for how outnumbered you were by statists at Thanksgiving. The battle to educate our peers is too far from won.

Now, if those in the seat of power refused to vacate in accordance with the results of an election, an armed populace could then go on the offensive to unseat them. That still wouldn't be an insurrection. It would be legal arrests.

Defend Liberty!

My interpretation

The OP seems to be saying that the use of firearms in defense of freedom is not in revolution (France, Russia, etc.), but in defense of a free area.

For instance, say North Carolina nullifies a bunch of Federal laws. Then let's say the Feds try to crack down with martial law. To systematically eliminate its enforcers and throw out the thugs is a legitimate use of 2nd Amendment rights.

On the other hand, to march on Washington, line up Senators and Representatives, and begin executing them is decidedly not.

Is that a correct interpretation? If so, I agree; nullification and secession are the two lines of defense just before the Second Amendment becomes necessary.

Either one of those examples could be the proper response

2nd Amendment didn't come with guidelines or rules of engagement. I would imagine, it's "Just get the job done"..

Besides.. other than a show of force and determination for the media and therefore the Nation... marching on DC would be fruitless and potentially dangerous for the "protestors".

That is of course one could muster up a huge enough group at one time without being cut off at the pass, so to speak.

And I'm even talking about a peaceful march as was promoted a day or so ago.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

No.7's picture

gun registration/confiscation = act of war

They are the ones inciting the violence. No one wants a civil war, we are just making our intentions crystal clear in case of attempted gun confiscation.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Bump!

Violent revolution is a BAD thing. Not only the revolution itself, but the outcome in the country as divided as ours. Most Americans are NOT awake to liberty. Many of the people who would fight for the Second Amendment are also neocons in other ways.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

i don't hear many

lusting for an uprising.
i do hear many affirming that line in the sand.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

So, based on what you've said..

We should all give up our guns, right?

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Cliff Notes Version

I concur with your assessment of the OP diatribe.

During the first American Revolution, it began as local rebellion.

How dare the OP insinuate that direct defiance of federal over-reach be deemed as a useless cur, that "deserves to be put down".

I'm all for doing it the peaceful way or I was

up until they did the one thing that guaranteed, we'd fail.. Call for banning guns. If we let them do that, we won't have a plan B.. and Plan A will become impossible without the threat of the 2nd..

So in the sweetest words I can muster for them at that thought.. Fuck them.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

No, taking guns IS a line in the sand

And in fact, historically it IS the line in the sand.

However, people should act to prevent seizure, not march on Washington.

Bury guns, hide them, keep with friends. If they register, call for sudden seizure, yep THAT would be a showdown. YES on the issue of guns there is a line in the sand.

My point was that the USE of guns to defend liberty is through locally organized political societies as a last defense against encroaching central power.

As opposed to a French Revolution style march on Versailles, or the Bastille, or Paris what have you.

If we are truly revolutionary liberals than we must form and harden these local political societies.

But the central power can invoke violent conflict if they suddenly seize guns, yes, that would probably happen.

I would appreciate it of you'd use "classical" or some other

word before "liberal".. I know what you mean or at least I THINK I do, but if the whole nation could read what you just said.. Most would see Pelosi or the like.. I would not want to ever make that mistake.

Anyway, in some of your points, we aren't off and I think you're painting many wrongly..

The resistance in the form of hiding guns is shortsighted... They KNOW you have them.. Law says register/hand them in.. you say what.. "I lost them"

Nothing you say to them is going to keep you out of court and jail, except..maybe, telling them where they are.. so they win.. end of story. You've essentially put on a show that went nowhere and they STILL might charge you for obstruction and refusing a "lawful order"..

Go ask "Lt" on here.. He'll tell you.

One has to understand how things work in the real world and history before you can give answers to it's problems

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I don't see it as such

King George III never proposed any limits, whether physical or psychological of the Colonials to ownership and usage of Arms.

The first American Revolution was about tyranny... and compared to the American Society today, we are closer to living under the style of governance of Idi Amin than under the Crown of Great Britain.

The lies, distortions and tireless demonizations of gun and their owners is THE TELL.
Every person with any snense of integrity can understand that the Oligarchy wants nothing more than to disarm the American People.

Defense might win football games, but this isn't a football game.
The pawn can take the most powerful chess pieces on the board... but only when it is on Offense.

The first shots of the

The first shots of the American Revolution were fired when the British came to confiscate gunpowder and muskets.

Blessings )o(

indeed

There was NEVER a law that disarmed the people, though.
LtCol Smith's men were going to disarm the rebellion at Concord and not the general population.

If there were no Arms available to the Colonials (as the Oligarchy plans for us) - there would have been no Revolution.

Organizing is definitely a good thing...

We should hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and always be ready and willing to defend ourselves and our property.

Be weary of new people that may approach you and try to get you to initiate any kind of violence. It needs to be made abundantly clear that we are peaceful people that only wish that the government respect the rule of law and operate within the limits of the Constitution.

Those under the illusion that the government is benign need to be informed that Hitler was named Times Man of the Year and was loved by much of the world before he ensued to disarm the Jews, enslave them, and murder them. Hindsight is 20/20. Let's not allow people to disregard history so easily. People always think things are different when it's their government, their life, or their family.

It must be made clear that we will not tolerate tyranny, and we need to work actively to head it off before it becomes reality and be prepared to die fighting against it if/when it becomes unbearable.

.

1