I said it before. I'll say it again. Revolution in our lifetime!

[rateyes]

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[TomClash]

1. ...

:popcorn:

[Countdown_3_2_1]

2. Count me out. People say that way too often.

Its said so often with nothing to back it up, that its meaningless anymore.

I would rather throw my efforts behind an idea like, "Obama is going to be reelected, so lets focus on getting congress back."

people make this sound like its gonna be fun or something. Bullets fly both ways. I'm not gonna watch brothers in arms dies for a half-assed idea.

if you're going to support armed revolution, gimmie some details.
What kind of govt are you going to set up?
What are you going to do with the losers?

just shouting, "Revolution!" does nothing for me.

[roguevalley]

36. I have my pitchfork. call me. truly. :-|

[MedleyMisty]

37. Why assume armed?

I see nothing in the OP to indicate that arms would be needed. The Tunisians and Egyptians did not need arms, and while the US military is insanely funded and huge I don't think our government would turn it on us the way Gaddafi has turned on the Libyans.

[stevenleser]

50. Because those of us who say that, know the people on the far right who own all the guns here

if you think for one minute they will sit idly by while we usher in a progressive paradise in a bloodless revolution, you dont know a thing about them.

They would love to shoot every one of us. Spend some time on a conservative discussion website and you will know what I am saying is true.

[spin]

53. Democrats also own firearms ...

Although more Republicans own firearms than Democrats.

Gun Ownership and Use in America
November 22, 2005

How many Americans personally own guns, and what do they use them for? A recent Gallup Poll* shows that 3 in 10 Americans personally own a gun; most gun owners say they use their guns to protect themselves against crime, for hunting, and for target shooting. Gun ownership varies by different groups in the country, with men more likely to be gun owners than women, Southerners and Midwesterners more likely than Easterners or Westerners, Republicans more so than Democrats, and older rather than younger Americans.

Gun Ownership

The poll, conducted Oct. 13-16, finds that 4 in 10 Americans report they have a gun in their homes, including 30% who say they personally own a gun and 12% who say another member of their household owns it. These results show essentially no change since this question was last asked in 2000. At that time, 27% of Americans said they personally owned a gun and 14% said another household member owned one.

***snip***

Forty-one percent of Republicans say they own a gun, compared with 27% of independents and 23% of Democrats.


source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

[SDuderstadt]

56. Are you suggesting anyone will...

win a gunfight?

[spin]

109. I'm not suggesting a gunfight at all ...

the last thing that I or any other rational and responsible gun owner would ever want to do is to use a firearm in self defense. We never go looking for a fight.

However, if attacked, many of us have the tools and the skills to effectively defend ourselves.

[SDuderstadt]

111. I don't think the OP is advocating...

mere defense.

[spin]

116. Armed revolution should be reserved for a dictatorship or tyranny ...

that oppresses the people without allowing them the chance to change the government.

There is much wrong in our country today but I don't feel we are anywhere near to the point that we have to take up arms. We can still vote and make a difference.

We were able to elect Obama and put him in the White House and we also gained control of both houses. Many Democrats have been somewhat disappointed with the results but the reality is that our party inherited a real mess left by the Republicans and Bush the Junior.

I personally feel we should have passed a better heathcare plan and that to a great extent what was passed was a sell out to the insurance industry. We had the most expensive heathcare program in the world before the new version passed and this version might prove to be even more expensive and deliver less. Hopefully I am wrong and we will eventually end up with a far better heathcare system.

But if the people we elect to represent us fail to listen to us and instead seem to be bought and owned by big corporations, we can still vote them out and find better representatives. It takes time but throughout our history we have accomplished change without resorting to an armed rebellion.

We have the longest lasting written Constitution in the world. It worked far better than even the founding fathers hoped. It was written to prevent rapid change but still allows improvements to be implemented over time.

We need to work to get our vision accepted by more voters. This we can do.

[stevenleser]

60. I'm surprised it is that high among Democrats, its still has us down almost 2-1 AND that does not

count willingness to use the weapon. Many Republicans would LOVE to shoot a Liberal. I am not sure the reverse is true.

[spin]

115. Part of the reason for the difference in firearm ownership ...

is the fact that many Democrats live in large urban areas with laws that make owning firearms difficult or expensive. Chicago, New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles are examples of cities where laws often prohibit or make owning handguns or having a concealed carry permit difficult.

Many citizens in such areas often have a very negative view of those who responsibly own firearms and use them for legitimate purposes. Having little familiarity with firearms and firearm owners and far more experience with those who misuse firearms to commit crime, this is understandable.

However, some large cities have gun laws which don't place significant hurdles in the path of a person who wants to own a firearm. For example, I lived in the Tampa Bay area of Florida for many years and firearm ownership was common for both Republicans and Democrats. Guns are still misused by criminals but the average person didn't tend to view all gun owners with suspicion as they personally know many people who own these weapons and handle them responsibly. The majority of my co-workers owned firearms and many had concealed weapons permits. Some of my co-workers had a personal hatred of the weapons and would never consider owning one, but they didn't dislike or distrust those co-workers who did own firearms.

At the pistol range I shot at, the majority of the members were Republican and if you were a Democrat you got your share of good natured razing. We often would sit around a table in the lobby of the pistol range and discuss computers, politics and occasionally firearms. Often the Republican members would agree with many of the comments that Democrats made but they always felt that electing a Democrat might lead to draconian guns laws. People who don't own firearms might argue that gun laws shouldn't be the only item that a person should consider when making a decision on whom to vote for, but the regular members who sat at the table and participated in the discussion were regular shooters who had a significant amount of money and time invested in a hobby that they enjoyed. When you have so much invested it may note be wise but it's easy to show up at the polls and vote for your favorite single issue.

The regular shooters at the table were a diverse group which included from time to time several retired police officers, a doctor, a banker, an engineer, several business owners, a retired factory supervisor, electronic technicians, medical technicians and factory workers. There were people who were obviously wealthy as well as people who lived pay check to pay check. The conversations were always lively and interesting and often filled with good humor. Some members just stopped by to talk and rarely went on the range to shoot.

I never witnessed any hatred directed toward range members who happened to be Democrats, nor did I ever hear any mention of using firearms to overthrow the government we currently have. Many mentioned that they would not turn in their firearms willingly if they were banned. The regular shooters were most definitely strong believers in the Second Amendment, but they did not oppose all firearm law. Florida has what they considered to be basically reasonable gun laws which they agreed with but which are far more liberal than many other states.

There was one time an unusual individual stopped by and joined the discussion and appeared to be recruiting for a militia type group. After realizing that no one was interested in his radial views, he left and never returned. He was basically made to feel uncomfortable but the members did made an effort to be polite.

While there may be a very few Republicans or radical conservatives who as you suggest "would LOVE to shoot a Liberal", it's my feeling that such people have severe mental problems. The absolute last thing the majority of gun owners, Republican, Democrat or Independent would ever want to do is to shoot another individual. The only time I and the gun owners I personally know would ever take such action is if we or someone we loved were attacked in a manner that could lead to serious injury or death. Shooting another person simply because of a political disagreement would never enter our minds.

[stevenleser]

118. You are making an assumption about people who live in cities

A lot of them know very well how to use a gun. They just dont want to be surrounded by them. I've met a lot of fellow former military here in NYC who are Democrats and don't want guns in their communities no matter who is holding them. We know how to use guns.

I'm glad your experiences at the gun range were positive. They are not representative of the Conservatives who would be participating in an ideological civil war. Usually only a small percentage of a country fights.

[spin]

121. This may be caused by a difference in the cultures of the areas ...

I was in the military and many of the people I know who have served also have firearms and enjoy shooting. The majority of the regular members of the pistol range I shot at in Tampa before I retired and moved were ex-military. Many of the ex-vets I know also have concealed weapons permits.

But I'm not saying that the cultural differences are a North - South thing. I'm a transplanted Yankee as were most of my co-workers.

One of my close shooting buddies and co-workers grew up in NYC, served in the Navy and moved to Florida. He has a concealed weapons permit and carries a Starfire 9mm semi-auto pistol. One time on the way to work on the graveyard shift he managed to irritate another driver. He stopped at a red light with cars in front of him and beside him and a deep hurricane ditch to his right. The road raged driver got out his car and approached my friends car with a tire iron in his hand. My friend retrieved his pistol from the glove box and place it in his hand across his steering wheel. The angry man noticed the pistol as he walked up to the drivers door. He muttered a few cuss words and returned to his vehicle.

My friend told me that he would have just drove off if he could have.

I suspect that people in NYC prefer the status quo as legal firearm ownership is far more expensive and complicated and therefore far rarer than in Florida. It is difficult and challenging for most individuals who are not wealthy, famous or politically connected to get a firearms license or a concealed carry permit.

If the laws eventually become more favorable to firearm ownership in the Big Apple, I feel that many more people will discover the enjoyment of target shooting as a hobby and if it becomes easier and less expensive to get a concealed weapons permit many will be issued. Eventually, the ownership of handguns and other firearms will be common and the views toward firearm owners will change in a positive manner.

But that may well be up to the voters in New York state and New York City unless the local laws are overturned by the Supreme Court. I have no problems with this as I personally believe firearm laws should be a local decision and eventually even the voters in New York City will wish to become first rate citizens like others all across this nation.

A look at this map will show you how out of step New York State and New York City is.

[MilesColtrane]

110. "I don't think our government would turn it on us the way Gaddafi has turned on the Libyans."

It already has, many times.

Baltimore Railroad Strike of 1877
Pullman Strike of 1894
The Ludlow Massacre of 1914
The Memorial Day Massacre of 1937
Kent State
etc...

[Fuzz]

3. I smoke a lot, so better hurry.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Are you calling for revolution outside...

the electoral process and 1st Amendment guarantees of free speech and peaceful assembly?

That's called "insurrection", dude.

[white_wolf]

10. While I don't completely disagree with you, it could be argued that by using your logic

the colonialists during the revolutionary war should have simply stayed loyal to the Throne.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Ummm, no it couldn't...

The colonists were aggrieved subjects with no constitutional protections. The Constitution was not adopted so that people could decide to summarily overthrow it.

[NYC Liberal]

28. Not to mention, the colonists knew full well they were

engaging in insurrection/treason and that they would be hanged or severely punished if they tried and failed.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Absolutely...

in the case of the OP, we would be waging revolution/insurrection against ourselves.

[davidthegnome]

6. What sort of revolution?

I think a large peaceful revolution like the one once led by Gandhi would be a disaster. Not only would the powers that be - or at the very least the tea baggers shoot us - they'd have no problem at all with torturing us. In that event I suspect that the peaceful revolution would quickly become violent.

A violent revolution... would be a complete disaster. We're talking very, very ugly. People killing each other in the streets without anyone having any idea who most of their "enemies" are or what they want. Looting on a massive scale, plenty of innocents just getting caught in crossfire. Ultimately, if it became dangerous enough, military intervention right here in the USA. If ordered to put down a civilian revolt, some in our military would be willing to follow such orders. Some would not. Infighting in the military would be likely, with government officials choosing their own sides along with the corporate elites doing whatever they could to profit from it.

Frankly, the idea of a revolution scares the crap out of me. I won't rule out the possibility, but I think it would be... terrible, beyond anything we have experienced for many generations in this Country. Perhaps the worst disaster in our history altogether. What would rise from the rubble? You can never predict the outcome of a revolution... ask the Russians, ask the French, or consider our own history.

I'd rather die quietly in bed, an old man. Even if I'm poor and that bed is simply a blanket of leaves in the forest.

[brooklynite]

7. I'll say it now: no

Setting aside whether "revolution" would achieve anything appreciably better, I think you wildly overestimate the share of the population that's both economically impacted AND politically engaged to do anything more than grumble.

Oh, and a question - as one of the top 1% in household income (forget about what I do in the way of community service and my support for Democratic Party principles like progressive taxation), will you be sending me to a re-eduction camp, or just lining me up against a wall?

[MineralMan]

8. Not going to happen.

[MedleyMisty]

42. What is going to happen?

A feudal state where we're all serfs to the nobles? Because that's where we're headed if we don't stand up to the corporations.

[suston96]

9. Now list the transgressions of the present form of government.....

You cannot plagiarize, I mean quote, the 1776 version of the US Declaration of Independence without listing all the grievances.

You have a beef with one or more of the political parties? Then do something about it. Proclaim your beliefs and rally your supporters and form your own party.

Don't like this form of government? You don't need an armed revolution. You need 38 states to call a constitutional convention.

You have the means for a bloodless revolution. That's what you meant, no?

[white_wolf]

12. Well if you search my username

you'll see my post for a new declaration where I list my grievances.

[SDuderstadt]

15. A "new" declaration does not...

trump the Constitution, dude. There are numerous remedies spelled out there. Insurrection is not one of them.

[prolesunited]

11. So, tell me about your revolution

How will you carry it out? What are the goals? What do you see as the end result?

[cali]

13. I love you rateyes but

:rofl:

[BOG PERSON]

14. people will get behind a civil war for any kind of decent reason

like abolishing slavery, or feudalism, implementing land reform, throwing out a foreign presence who is an obstacle to doing that stuff, etc. all you did was quote the declaration of independence though. that's pretty lazy.

[stevedeshazer]

16. I think you're right.

It would not surprise me in the least.

[virgogal]

17. "Our lifetime?" There could be approx. a 50 year age difference

between some DU'ers.

Our lifetime indeed.

[slackmaster]

105. We're still waiting for the South to rise again

http://www.theonion.com/articles/south-postpones-rising-again-for-yet-another-year,377/

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Youth Uprising]

20. What about a peaceful secession?

[Davis_X_Machina]

21. The level of immiseration..

...needed hasn't even been approached.

We went into, and out of the Great Depression with U3 over 20% U6 near 45%, and still didn't change our economic system, just tinkered with it.

France, UK, all Scandinavia, all of the Low Countries, ditto.

Just as a good war is worse than all but the worst peace, the best revolution is worse than all but the worst status quo.

People get killed, and stuff.

[JoePhilly]

22. Ok general, you kick thngs off, I have a few loose end to tie up and I'l catch up with you.

[stevenleser]

54. Yeah, first sign progressives are trying to pull something like this, and I am in Europe or Central

America so fast your heads will spin. I'll lament the passing of my progressive bretheren here but I am not going to get killed for their stupidity.

[JoePhilly]

67. Try to picture a vegan pacifist wielding an assault rifle while holding a peace sign.

[WinkyDink]

23. Revolutions are for other nations. We have no history of any. ....Oh, wait.

[SDuderstadt]

24. A revolution to...

overthrow the British versus overthrowing our own constitution aren't even remotely comparable.

I can't believe have to keep having this conversation.

[white_wolf]

25. Yeah me either.

Doesn't it suck that things are so bad that some people have to entertain the thought of revolution? Perhaps the blame should lie on our corporate owned Congress, instead of people just trying to figure out a solution.

[SDuderstadt]

29. No...

People have to do tangible things, rather than invent thread topics that don't tackle the real issues.

[white_wolf]

31. When Congress is owned by corporations

who ignore and spit on it, the Constitution is a weak shield.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Dude...

corporations don't "own" Congress. As bad as things are, if they actually did, things would be far worse. Overheated overgeneralizations don't foster productive debate.

[white_wolf]

33. They own the majorites of both

parties, including the White House.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Dude...

corporations do not "own" the White House. Study the concept of "complex cause",

As I said before, overheated overgeneralizations don't foster productive debate.

[white_wolf]

35. Every single repubican

is in the pockets of big corporations, the vast majority of democrats are owned by those same companies. The president gets millions of dollars from Wall St. for his reelection campaign. No one gives you millions and not expect something in return. I'm willing to bet the majority of people on this board will agree with this post.

[SDuderstadt]

38. The question of whether corporations "own Congress" isn't...

settled by a vote of DU.

If what you claim is true, what we'd experience would be far worse than it actually is, dude.

[NoBlueDogs]

62. How much worse does it have to get?

16 million people out of work, even more working the lowest wage jobs, people dying because they're being denied funding for an organ transplant...

Must we become like Mexico?

[SDuderstadt]

68. That doesn't mean that corporations...

"own" Congress.

It also doesn't make sense that corporations' end goal would be to destroy their market.

[NoBlueDogs]

69. Corporations don't own Congress?

What the Corporations want they've almost always gotten with Congress in the last few years.

We the people didn't get what we wanted with the Public Option. We didn't get taxes for the rich. We don't get anything we want.

This is no longer the United States of America. It's Kochland.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Read the first line of your post. Notice the contradiction?

[NoBlueDogs]

76. Nope, no contradiction.

What the Corporations want they've almost always get. Republicans in Congress vote 100% corporate interests. The rest, the Democrats, simply cave.

100% corporate owned. Except Bernie Sanders.

[SDuderstadt]

77. "What the corporations want they almost always get"

If corporations "owned" Congress, they'd ALWAYS get what they wanted.

Beyond that, how do you know what "corporations" want? Do ALL corporations want that? Do they have daily meetings and decide that?

Overgeneralize much?

[NoBlueDogs]

81. Still no contradiction.

You don't have to always get what you want when you own something. Employees don't always obey you.

You can tell what corporations want by what their lobbyists push for. And you can pretty much tell what lobbyists are pushing for by how Congress votes. And it is just about ALWAYS against the interests of the people and for the benefit of corporations. You may in fact be the only DUer here who doesn't see this happening on a daily basis.

The only exaggeration here would be to say they mind control Congress. Maybe.

[SDuderstadt]

82. So corporations operate as a bloc?

There is no conflict between corporations?

This is getting silly.

[NoBlueDogs]

90. Pretty much. Citizens United is what did us in for a long time to come.

n/t

[Common Sense Party]

119. Things aren't "so bad". Not compared to the way things have been

in the distant and not-so-distant past.

And definitely not when compared to many, many other places on the planet even now.

Read "The Rational Optimist."

[WinkyDink]

65. We were British subjects at the time, you might recall. DUDE.

[SDuderstadt]

70. That was my point...

dude.

There's a huge difference between overthrowing oppressive British rule and overthrowing our own constitutional government.

[dionysus]

74. why SDuderstadt, are you cross?

;)

[SDuderstadt]

75. Why, dionysus!

You madam! Where're you going with that shotgun?

[dionysus]

78. SDuderstadt? i didn't know you was back in town!

[SDuderstadt]

79. Why, dionysus!

I'm sorry. I forgot you were there. You may go now.

[dionysus]

85. this thread is like playing cards with my sisters kids.

[SDuderstadt]

87. You nerveracking...

sons of bitches.

[dionysus]

88. is that the same bottle of laudanum Lou gave you SDuderstadt?

[SDuderstadt]

89. Well...

are you going to do something or just stand there and bleed?

[dionysus]

91. get to fighting or get to runnin!

[SDuderstadt]

92. Go ahead, boy...

skin that smokewagon and see what happens.

[dionysus]

96. BILLYY!!! NNNNOOoooooo!!!!

[SDuderstadt]

99. I don't think I'm gonna let you...

arrest us today, Behan.

[dionysus]

101. why SDuderstadt, I'm right as the mail. ah have not yet begun to defile myself... *thud*

[SDuderstadt]

102. That is a nocturne...

you know...Frederick Fucking Chopin

[WinkyDink]

98. I believe that's where the revolution comes in.

NOT a dude, but whatever.

[SDuderstadt]

114. Are you saying you want a revolution to...

overthrow our Constitution?

I hope not.

[leeroysphitz]

26. Who's revolting this time?

[Recovered Repug]

120. Sire, the peasants are revolting.

You said it, they stink on ice.

[onenote]

27. From your mouth to the teabaggers ears

[Luminous Animal]

39. I went to the largest pro-union rally today in San Francisco. We are a pro-union town

and largely respect strikes and boycotts so union rallies don't often hold pro-union protests. But we did today and targeted B of A, the Hyatt, and the Federal Reserve.

It felt good to sing "We Shall Not Be Moved" with a crowd of a couple of thousand.

[SDuderstadt]

40. I get...

BofA and the Hyatt, but I don't get the Federal Reserve. Was it targeted because it's across from the Hyatt?

[Luminous Animal]

43. The Federal Reserve is the institution from which the banks receive their bailouts.

It is instrumental in administrating our "banks first" policy.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Huh?

You do realize how the Federal Reserve works, right?

[Luminous Animal]

41. Apparently, (based on comments) the right wing has gotten us all frightened of revolution. Pathetic

The labor movement was a revolution. The civil rights movement was a revolution. The women's rights movement was a revolution.

It looks like we are re-fighting the labor rights revolution. Hopefully, we get it right this time.

[SDuderstadt]

45. "right wing has gotten us all frightened of revolution"

Not really. Read the OP...it's not talking about the civil rights movement, the labor movement or the women's rights movement. Each of those "revolutions" left us with the same form of government and, in factm the same government that was there.

Read the OP. That's not what he's talking about.

[stevenleser]

52. And even in some of those movements there were killings and casualties.

I dont understand folks whose head is buried that far in the sand. The rhetoric at the tea parties should have been enough for anyone here to know the truth. The gun-toters of the far right would not sit there while we usher in a progressive revolution. They would shoot us and then THEY would be the ones creating a new Constitution and government, not us.

[Posteritatis]

103. I'm not frightened of revolution as much as disdainful of people's wilpower to actually engage in it

Folks in Wisconsin notwithstanding there's not much of the latter around, and probably even less comprehension of its implications from the people throwing the Declaration of Independence's preamble around as though following through on that will be simple and painless and glorious or something.

[BOG PERSON]

112. no, those were reform movements

[cottonseed]

46. Nope. I thought that 10 years ago. It won't go down that way.

[liberal life]

47. The peaceful revolution is happening as we type

Wisconsin gave it a big kick start :applause:



http://fucorporatemedia.com/

[Sheepshank]

48. nope...not going there

since you didn't clarify, I'm assuming you meant armed insurrection. Not my cup of coffee.

[stevenleser]

49. Great. That means the Far Right is going to take over. You do realize that, right?

There is no way that the gun-toting right is going to stand by while you attempt to usher in a progressive paradise. They will happily kill every one of us if it comes to revolution. And the military will not side with us. They will either sit idle or either wholly or in part support the far right.

Then we get a new Constitution written by Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and the Christian Right. Are you still excited about this?

If you dont believe me than you have spent no time examining just who these people on the far right are who own all the guns.

[Initech]

58. Going to? Like they haven't already?

[stevenleser]

59. Nope. not even close to what would happen. First off...

you and I would be rounded up for the temerity of posting on a website like this and thrown into jail probably for a long time (5-20 years depending on the whims of our captors.) Skinner and EarlG, well, lets not even talk about what would happen to them in the first week or two. The LGBT community would probably be subjected to genocide.

The new right wing constitution would get rid of most of the first 12 amendments other than the second. We might get some version of the article/amendment discussed at the end of Atlas Shrugged, i.e. no social programs and no restrictions on business written right into the text.

The Democratic Party would be outlawed as would the greens and everything further left. Illegal immigrants would be rounded up and deported. Unions would be outlawed. Our web usage would be monitored and controlled. Any postings that were subversive would result in arrest. The definition of 'subversive' would become extremely broad. Virtually all posts here at DU would be considered 'subversive'

Thats just the beginning, so no, nothing like what we have now.

[NoBlueDogs]

73. You're surrendering way too fast.

There's a lot of independents who would rise up against the Right, too.

Plus we'd probably get TONS of materiel aid from abroad. Or, less desirable in my opinion, the rest of the world would step in and go to war with the Right.

Also, few people out there like the American Right. They'd probably starve them out with embargoes. This happened to the Confederates.

The other issue is time. In 40 years Conservatism in America simply won't have enough support due to changing demographics. A revolution then would leave them outnumbered.

[stevenleser]

117. The rest of the world would stay as far away as they could from this.

We're a country armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and it is very possible some crazies could seize power who would nuke anyone who helped those opposed to them.

When progressives talk about Revolution, I am always reminded of the scene early on in Gone With the Wind where Rhett Butler and the rest of the men of the South are discussing the prospects of war with the south. Progressives advocating revolution play the part of Charles and I always seem to be playin the part of Rhett:

Mr. O'HARA: Now gentlemen, Mr. Butler has been up North I hear. Don't you agree with us, Mr. Butler?

RHETT BUTLER: I think it's hard winning a war with words, gentlemen.

CHARLES: What do you mean, sir?

RHETT: I mean, Mr. Hamilton, there's not a cannon factory in the whole South.

MAN: What difference does that make, sir, to a gentleman?

RHETT: I'm afraid it's going to make a great deal of difference to a great many gentlemen, sir.

CHARLES: Are you hinting, Mr. Butler, that the Yankees can lick us?

RHETT: No, I'm not hinting. I'm saying very plainly that the Yankees are better equipped than we. They've got factories, shipyards, coal-mines . . . and a fleet to bottle up our harbors and starve us to death. All we've got is cotton, and slaves and . . . arrogance.

MAN: That's treacherous!

CHARLES: I refuse to listen to any renegade talk!

RHETT: Well, I'm sorry if the truth offends you.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Progressives have far fewer guns and have much less experience with how to use them. The right has much more sympathy in the military and many more people with military experience. Those of us on the left who have military experience, like me, are far too smart to get caught in what you would unleash on us.

[rufus dog]

51. somewhat agree

although I believe it will be somewhat peaceful.

I can see the donor states in the NE and West Coast giving a big FU to the rest of the Country. While the states of Dumbshitistan will be looking for a fight, the other states may grant independence. Thus a win/win. Dumbshitistan will claim victory while the producer states will move on leaving Dumbshitistan as a minor annoyance to be swatted down.

[inna]

55. i'm pretty certain there will be one in the next 60 years, so... i believe your op is factually corr

ect... :) kr

[SDuderstadt]

57. I don't care which side it comes from...

I am on the side of the Constitution vs a revolution by force or violence.

[sofa king]

61. I wouldn't recommend such a course.

I teach a goofy little adult ed. class on Civil War battlefields, and I think it's fair to say that most of my students are armed to the teeth and are now unusually comfortable with the concepts of cover and concealment, surprise, mass and maneuver, and focused firepower.

Lest you think that such amateurs would be unable to hold themselves together on the battlefield, recall that for four long years the Confederacy held off an army twice as large as it and technologically superior to its own. They did it with weapons and tactics that their great-grandfathers would have been comfortable with four score and some years previously.

A revolution would be bloody, tragic, and divisive to an extent that makes today look like an era of comity and cooperation. It would be fueled by 100 million firearms of all descriptions and millions of Americans fully trained in their use, all motivated by a storm of disinformation and artificially created fear. It would be easy to get them to fight one another. It would be much less easy to get them to fight for a cause that is not deeply stupid at its core and ultimately totally destructive, for once started, literally millions would have to die in order to clear the decks for a return to reasonable action.

One primary objective of the Constitution is routinely overlooked: it was built with the purpose of being able to defuse the next revolution from within its own framework. Let us focus on that course, with the intention of using that wonderful document to our advantage, as the framers intended.

[Vinee]

63. maybe...if we don't end up in another civil war first. eom

[joentokyo]

64. The time has come for the People to get up off their knees and fight back!

[lunatica]

66. Inspired words

I bet the people in the Middle East would agree with them. So would all freedom loving people.

[caliguy]

72. great

I hope so! I am tired as are many of my friends of the big Oil companies and corporations running the government.

[tjwash]

80. Don't you have a local cable access channel you can spend all your free time on?

There does tend to be an annoying side to the internet...

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. It is FAR more like that there will a right-wing uprising than a left-wing uprising

When I listen to many ordinary Americans, sad as it is - I hear a lot more animosity and blame directed against blacks, the poor, Mexicans, Arabs, Muslim - immigrants; then I hear directed against Wall Street.

Remember the last great depression didn't only create the great society and social-democracy it also created Fascism, Nazism and other forms of totalitarianism.
.

[slackmaster]

84. Whenever I read a subject line like that, I imagine it being spoken in a cloud of smoke

Preceded by gurgling, and followed by a coughing fit.

[Shagbark Hickory]

86. Can you be more specific?

[Le Taz Hot]

93. Ah, all the handwringers on this thread.

I see the "keep the powder dry" contingent is in full force. FWIW, I recced.

[Javaman]

94. Meh...

It won't happen the way you think it will happen.

the nation is divided by the people in power.

They keep us divided to prevent us from just what you claim will happen.

They know full well the power of the people. And as such do their best to make sure that we are distracted on a daily basis with one shiny object or another.

But...

what they haven't figured out or what hasn't become obvious to them is the fact that the price of gas going up will be the uniting factor.

Just about everyone drives and everyone eats.

there is no republican gas or democratic gas, there is just gasoline.

So when that price at the pump goes up, as it surely will, look out.

While various other revolutions and civil wars have started over much less, gasoline will be the igniter of what ever popular uprising is to be taken place in this nation.

[Fire1]

95. It won't be started by democrats that's for sure. n/t

[AsahinaKimi]

97. You say you want a revolution

Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

=======================================
oops sorry, I was singing to my self...

[EstimatedProphet]

100. I'm not calling for one. I don't want one.

However, I'm afraid we may have one, whether we want it or not.

[SDuderstadt]

104. "That I will preserve, protect and defend...

the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

Kind of has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

[EstimatedProphet]

107. I thought so when I took it.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EstimatedProphet]

108. Uh...

?

[BOG PERSON]

113. so

fourth wave feminism is a total rejection of gender politics. that is actually a regression, theory-wise.