[url]http://www.lizmichael.com/armedrev.htm[/url]

ARMED REVOLUTION POSSIBLE AND NOT SO DIFFICULT
By Bill Bridgewater

The only "newsies" that I have ever met that I didn't believe wasted oxygen by breathing were Dickey Chappell and Bernie Fall, both of whom were killed in Viet Nam because they believed that you couldn't report battles in the field from a bar in Saigon.

It is not easy to admit that a newsie stopped me cold the other day in the middle of one of their silly interviews. He had asked me to enumerate the reasons that I believed to be valid to support the private ownership of firearms.

We did not disagree over personal protection; he even admitted that hunting is legal in every state. But, when I stated that I believed that the founding fathers intended that we be armed against the possibility of our own central government overstepping its bounds, he quite bluntly asked me if I thought that an armed American citizenry had a snowball's chance in hell in an uprising against our own federal government.

Now, when was the last time you put some really serious thought into that proposition? Not counting the slaughter of the American Indians, we have not seen a serious effort to pit Americans against Americans since the end of the War Between the States that ended 130 years ago.

Is there even a shred of possibility that an armed citizenry could succeed against the strongest military power on Earth today?

Perhaps we should review the years 1960-1975 again. The United States blindly stuck its oar in the muddied waters of Viet Nam very shortly after the French got their heads handed to them on a platter and were invited not to be a colonial power in Viet Nam any more.

Finally, we found ourselves in the position of guaranteeing the survival of an independent South Viet Nam when the Northern part of the country made it clear that they were interested in reuniting the country under their particular brand of socialism.

For a decade and a half, we changed the leadership of South Viet Nam quite regularly; increased the pressure on the Johnson thumbscrews; bombed, quit, bombed, quit, ad infinitum; quantified the war; and finally turned it into an electronic war. At home we kept telling the citizens that we were just about to win decisively and elected another president to drive crazy with this goofy little war.

Finally the president declared that all was over and the troops could come home.

But they did not return home in triumph with the bugles blaring. They came home with their tails between their legs just like every other defeated army in the history of the world. And the reason that they did so, my friends, was that the world's most powerful nation got its backside severely whipped by a small, backward, agrarian nation who started the war against us with an assortment of ancient bolt-action rifles, no lines of support, no manufacturing base, and no infrastructure that the country absolutely depended upon.

It is not a joke that they made sandals from cut-up truck tires - it's the truth. They fought the only kind of war they could hope to fight and win successfully - a guerrilla war.

They had two good models: the American colonies against the British in our war for independence, and the American Indian wars, where the value of slash-and-run against a superior foe was escalated to a fine art by the world's finest light cavalry.

Twice the North Vietnamese allowed themselves to be suckere

-cont-

We very patiently fought a European theater-type of warfare against a steadfast foe who fought a completely different kind of war that simply made our complex weapons systems useless. By inflexibly insisting on doing it our way, we lost the whole shooting match to a man who played it his way and won.

Meanwhile, on the exact opposite side of the globe, another shooting match was gearing up that pitted the second most powerful nation in the world against an enemy whose armament consisted of ancient bolt-action rifles, who had no lines of support, no manufacturing base and no infrastructure that the nation depended upon.

Though the Russians were determined that *they* would not be sent home with their tails between their legs, the Afghans were paying particular attention to those tactics that had worked so well for General Giap against the American forces. Even with the advantage of being able to totally ignore world opinion and to essentially ignore the opinions of its own citizens, Russia followed us down the long winding trail to disgrace by doing exactly what we had done in Viet Nam.

High-ranking politicians (some of them in uniform), with absolutely no idea what was going on in the day-to-day conduct of both wars, made stupid decisions and then stuck by them despite advice to the contrary from both American and Russian on-scene commanders.

The Russian methods of combat - mass maneuver and firepower - that were developed against Napoleon and Hitler proved no more successful than our methods against an aggressively waged guerrilla war.

Both major enemies failed to fight the enemy that they faced. Both, in fact, fought an historical enemy who was not present on the field of battle. Both of these superior armies truly believed that superior strength and technical abilities would win the day. Both major armies believed that time was on their side and was working against their foe. Both were totally wrong because they underestimated the growing dislike of the supposedly neutral or "friendly" indigenous forces whose cities, villages, towns and homes were being destroyed by the ongoing flow of large-scale battles by the two major armies.

Whatever the levels of dispute between the Vietnamese, the American forces eventually became the common enemy simply because of the massive damage they were doing in behalf of the south. Exactly the same thing transpired in Afghanistan. The Russians became the common enemy and went home in defeat.

Our armed forces used everything in our weapons inventory in our effort to win except nuclear devices. So did the Russians. They even used some chemical weapons that we didn't try.

What does all this have to do with the question the newsy asked me?
Everything.

A revolution could be waged against the current American government far easier than you might imagine without careful examination. Consider:

* The sheer numbers of firearms of all kinds in the hands of the American public would have made the American commanders in Viet Nam quake in their boots. We're not talking junk equipment here, either. The average deer hunter with a .270 or .308 could give a platoon of regular troops more grief than they want. There was a special on the tube recently about military armaments on sale in the black market (including Stingers).

* The population base from which evolutionaries could be recruited is *massive* - 250 million.

* There are literally millions of well-traine

Amen!

Utterly ridiculous.

The Vietnamese had been suffering - and I mean [i]suffering[/i] - under the colonial boot for years.  By suffering, i don't mean cheesy poofs go up in price by 10%.  I mean slavery.

We, as Americans, are fat, soft, spoiled and lazy.  We wouldn't stand a chance.

You aren't factoring in the massive desertion rate that would surely result from a command to attack American citizens. Hell, half of the army, navy, Air Force, and marines would be on the patriots side from jump. Might even bring some goodies with them.

Could never happen. Not in today's Amerika. Anyone who would try to make a stand, would immediately be labelled a "crazy militia person" by the media (just as happened in the past) I there is ever a CHANCE, we would have to be talking about some powerful leader.

I agree with Cible. We are a society of shitbags.

And after this revolution what would we have? a different group of tyrants ruling over us..human nature being as it is...america has its faults granted many of them...but is still far ahead of what else is out there ..Im for working with what we got...been in a war have no desire what so ever to be in another one

If you think the south vietnamese suffered under us and the french they suffered more under the north commies...the north didnt seek to unite the south they came to conquer it...after they arrested our allies they began systematic illimination of the souths viet cong infrastructure..and  vc came here as boat people.and later as refugees from the camps in Tailand

Where's Henry Bowman?

Semper Fi
Jarhead out.

Good grief you guys!  If there's anything that you can say about the American character, it's that, while we may be a 'fat, soft, spoiled and lazy''society of shitbags', we have something that all of the preceding civilizations of mankind, including the Vietnamese and American Indians, never had - a common history of personal freedom, a belief that such personal freedom is a birthright, and a common interest in seeing that this personal freedom is exended to as many others as possible.

There are, of course, great disparities in the amount of perceived personal freedom that some of the population may feel they have in relation to others.  Their goal, however, is not to deny that personal freedom to the others, but simply to obtain the same for themselves.

Further, the fact that the Americans are well-armed in relation to past civilizations, simply makes it even more likely that they could not easily be subdued by a Tyrant, even if that Tyrant were wrappped in an American Flag and supported by American Troops.

While we may [b]not[/b] all be combat-scarred veterans well versed in 'light calvary, hit and run tactics', the other side of that coin is [b]that neither are they![/b]

I believe that Mr. Bridgewater makes some very good points in his article.  Points that have not been adequately rebutted here.

BTW, I further believe that the Henry Bowmans are simply biding their time until needed to come to the aid....

Eric The Hun

Amen.

I agree that American society is largely made up of lazy pricks.

I disagree with the notion that this negatively affects "the revolutionary cause."

Most of the lazy sh*tbags I know of are liberal fuks. That just cuts down on THEIR numbers, NOT OURS.

Where is that charismatic leader we're looking for?

Goblin is correct. What is required is leadership. Much of the rest is in place. Would battle with the government be costly? you bet. I believe we could be victorious in the end for reasons noted in the above posts, however. As for Nam, consider for a moment that we never had any intent on defeating the communists. Had we made such a commitment the result may have been far different. But also consider that every war we become engaged in is not VietNam.
Our ability to defeat an oppressive regime would be directly proportional to our resolve. Are the liberals(Tories) going to have what it takes to defeat us? I think not. I don't think most have the balls to fight for anything. As such we would fight the current military. If we were united, many of them would come to our side. I've convinced many of my friends over the past decade to arm themselves and prepare-at least those who would ever be willing to fight. Most of these are vets. Do not underestimate our resolve. It will simply take leadership to pull it all together.

THAT'S JUST THE KIND OF GUY PEOPLE WILL WANT TO FOLLOW.

Someone who knows hard work, how to budget on limited funds, and KNOWS THE VALUE OF FAMILY.

I, for one, do not want my children to live under tyranny. I do not want them to have less freedom and liberty than God intended them to have.

It is the obligation of good men to fight evil(of course, that goes for good women too).

Flame me if you want, but: Where's our leadership? = J. Ventura


[flag]
Tyler

Isn't he living in the White House?

Ventura? I would be inclined to think he is in this gig more for him than for anyone else. If I am correct, people will perceive the same thing and not trust him with their lives.

Bush? I like the man and appreciate the fact that he is fairly conservative, republican, and pro-life. However, he is NOT charismatic and he has NO clue how most of us live day-to-day.

I believe THE leader we are looking for will come from the lower or middle class ranks. He (or she) will pick himself up by the bootstraps and make something of his life only to realize he has to fight in order to keep it.

THAT IS THE LEADER WE WILL FOLLOW.

Interesting line of thought, but...

Wonder what would have happened to the Vietnamese and the Afghans if they had not received extensive support from an outside weapons supplier, the Russians in the Vietnam example, and us in the Afghan example.

The Russians provided the SAM anti-air support that helped diminish the American air efforts.  We provided tactical intelligence, and Stinger missles to negate the Russian helicopter gunships introduced in that conflict.

I can't help but wonder how different each of those examples could have been without the external support provided.  I doubt either group of guerrilla fighters would have achieved their goals.

As you are well aware, as Americans, we have a right to arm ourselves and many of us have taken advantage of this.

We would start off a whole lot better than either the Vietnamese or Afghans.

Your revolution may be closer than you think, the players in this case know the game! For almost a year now the media is tight lipped about what has been, and is, going on right now in Florida while America sleeps in a complacent stuper!

Visit http://www.fsdf.org/no-justice.htm
scroll down the page and see for yourselves what was filed today in the State Court in Palm Beach by a militiaman, real SHTF with real men, not whiners and wankers!

I agree totally with Mr. Bridgewater!  Enough said.

If you are looking to President Bush for a restoration of Constitutionality in this country, you are sorely mistaken.  He is a Republican, the lesser of two evils.  I have no doubt that he is a man with good intentions, but as a Republican he is interested only in furthering the cause of Republican agendas.  Republican politicians want big government just the same as Democrats do, but just with not as much control over the people at large as the Democrats would like.  For examples of this, just look at the issues currently separating the parties; Taxes and freedom of speech issues embedded in the campaign reform bills being considered.  The Republicans want to take away some of the burden of taxes off America, and are worried about infringement of freedom of speech.  Of course the Democrats have no problems with taxing us to death and infringement on our rights, as it is in the "best interest of Americans".  The bottom line is that Republicans have forgotten what is contained in our founding documents, and the Democrats seem to be outrightly acting against them.

Cible is correct in stating that Americans, in general, are fat, spoiled, and lazy.  But does that preclude those of us who are not spoiled and lazy, but who are motivated by the possibility of restoration, from acting in behalf of the rest of the masses?  Absolutely not!  I would guess the situation was much the same in the time immediately bofore the Revolution.  A very small segment of the population was highly motivated to act on behalf of the indifferent masses to secure freedom for all.  What has changed?  


If you're looking for a leader to start action, don't hold your breath.  If you remember in the above article, the reason that the Vietnamese and even the colonists succeeded was what amounts to leaderless resistance, ie guerilla warfare.  A large scale tightly organized resistance is assured failure because of the military's extended experience in that type of warfare.  But guerilla warfare, on the other hand, is almost guaranteed success.  


This really doesn't apply to our situation, because of the proliferation of weapons in our society.  We have more than enough to get a good start.  In the case of the Afghans though, they used what they had until better weapons were obtained from the defeated enemy.  The same still applies now, but we have plenty to start.  

[b]Disclaimer[/b] All contents of this post are presented as theory, and should be treated as such. Advocating overthrow of government is unlawful per Title 18, sec. 2385 US Code.[:D]

WTF!!! why in the bloody hell would you need a "charasmatic leader"??

i dont need one. the american revolution did not need any. the revolutionaries were all heroes!!

i personally would not trust someone who is "charasmatic". if i had to fight in a SHTF scenario i will follow my heart. not somebody who makes pretty speeches.

most americans will not stand up for their rights now. even "conservatives" will sacrifice them for government provided security. the statists in our government will never do any thing rash to instigate a coup. they are very intelligent people with all the time in the world. they have waited this long and have gotten this far. they will wait several generations after plenty of "programming" and spreading totalrian propaganda on this country's youth's. they will not have to fight us, just breed and program us out!!!

if i were them this is how i would do it. straight from the pages of the war manual of sun tzu. make your enemies into your allies.

you people will not live to see a SHTF unless it is a minor riot or the like, but nothing major.

the best way to resist tyranny and secure freedom is to teach your friends, family, and especially young people what freedom means. tell them that their life "IS" their PROPERTY!!!!!


lib out...

No rebellion has been succesful w/o outside support.
1) American Revolution, the French
2) Vietnam, Chinese & Russian
3) Afghan, Paki's & America
I think everyone has a different breaking poit to start revolting.
Rigth now combined taxes are the highest they have ever been, the Constituion is in tatters, and both parties are the tools of corporations.
[pistol]
The only people I see in the streets fighting are the WTO protesters.
Our side must be too busy typing.

AMEN!

Son of Liberty is right, be careful what you say. We have freedom of speech but we can't say anything we want.

Americans didn't lose in Vietnam because of those shady NVA regulars and their sneaky strategies, nor did the Russians lose because the Afghans are too smart for them.  We lost because politics and the media were the forces we didn't want to reckon with.

You don't "mine" Haiphong Harbor.  You bomb and sink every ship in it and level the entire city surrounding it.  You don't "bomb" Hanoi.  You firestorm it a la Dresden, killing as many people as possible and reducing the entire thing to ashes.  If we had had the will to unleash everything we've got, Vietnam would have quickly been crushed.  There were some nice dams in the north that would have made good targets, but some politician put them on the off-limits list.

Likewise, the Russians could have paved Afghanistan, but lacked the political will to do it.

War is not a Hallmark greeting card.  War is war.  Some people, including people in leadership, apparently don't get this concept.  So you get "feel good" war, which fails to accomplish the objective.

Title 18, Sec. 2385 US Code:
[i]Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms ''organizes'' and ''organize'', with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons. [/i]

This law, even though passed, is unconstitutional!  It regulates Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of the Press.  It also flies in the face of the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. [pissed]

No it's not- take a remedial conlaw class and you'll understand.  This law is not even borderline unconstitutional for a whole host of reasons.  

Not all speech is protected, however, the majority of it is.  You, along with the rest of us "oppressed" US citizens have more freedoms than any other non-US person on the planet- stop whinning!

The comparison to the Vietnamese and the Afghans is not worth comment.  This country will not, in its present state, resort to an uprising, not because we are fat and lazy, but because IT'S NOT WARRANTED.  If our country came to that state of degradation and oppression, I guarantee a bunch of cyber-surfers would not be in a position to cozy up to a keyboard, log-on and collectively get wood in a frenzied dialogue with each other about the "new revolution".  Our forefathers who were true patriots and fought and died against real tyranny are probably rolling over in their graves.  Are things bad with our government?  Sure, as usual, there is a lot of bad with the good.  Is it "tyranny" that warrants an uprising? F*ck no!  

BTW, there's no such thing as "Freedom of the Press".  Makes for a neat liberal catch phrase and one-liners in Hollywood, however, it does not exist nor even hinted at in the Constitution.  The press enjoys no greater freedom of speech than you and I.

[i]Amendment I [1791]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [/i]

Shall not abridge...  What's unclear about that?  Either it's protected or it's not!




But do we still retain all those freedoms that the founders fought for? No!  They are slowly being taken away and regulated to the point of nonexistance.



What then warrants an uprising to you?  The murder of civilians by government?  Done.  Regulation of rights enumerated in the Constitution?  Done.  



I agree.



Yes, absolutely it is.  Read the various documents written by the authors of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.



[i]Amendment I [1791]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, [b]or of the press[/b]; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [/i]

Hmmm..... Do I see the words "of the press" there in the First Amendment?

I suggest you research what you write.  Obviously you have never read the Constitution!  

Damn there is a US Code that will thwart any effort anyway.

How the hell did the Government get that by us??

Oh well game over!


Hunter out..

You'd be suprised at all the crap that is in the US Code!  I would guess that Americans through content and ignorance, and the lack of real teaching in schools, is how it got by us.  

There are many sections of US Code that violate the Constitution, and therefore are Constitutionally null and void.  But it would not be to the advantage of the government, lawyers, judges, etc. to declare them unconstitutional.  Monies gained by enforcement and prosecution relating to these laws are reason enough to keep them alive.  The problem is, most people don't even know about some of them, and worse yet, don't even know that they violate the Constitution.  

I can't, in good concience, declare the game to be over when, in fact, it has yet to begin.

Oops. Edited for spelling

Oppppps did I forget my sarcasm tag?


Hunter out...

I took your post as sarcasm. [:D]  Sorry if I came across as putting you down.  That was not my intention.

No offence taken.





Hunter out...

Your statements on protected speech are so ignorant that I would not know where to begin.  You first need to understand that not all speech is protected.  Next, somehow get to a law library and read these cases:  Musser v. Utah, 333 U.S. 95, 68 S. Ct. 397 (1948); Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 68 S. Ct. 665 (1948;  U.S. v. Fletcher, 98 F.3d 155 (1997) and from my beloved state, Thomas v. City of Danville, 207 Va. 656, 152 S.E.2d 265 (1967) (relying on federal Constitutional principals).

The right to free speech contemplates the advocacy of legal and constitutional means to bring about changes in governments; the right is lost when it is abused by urging the use of illegal and unconstitutional methods, like, incitement of violence or "breach of the peace"  (I argue, quite often, in Disorderly cases that mere speech alone, not coupled with physical getures or threats, is in fact protected and not a breach of the peace).  So, you "revolutionary" you, the 1st amendmented is not so cut-and-dry as your simple mind would like it to be.

Try and take your time reading that caselaw.  My guess is you won't understand it, however, that is beyond my control.

The rest of your respones are similar to your status quo cyber-rhetoric.  You are certainly a "revolutionary" in your own mind but when, and if, you ever grow up, you'll realize your nothin but a spoiled little baby who has nothing better to do but fantasize over the net about how bad his life is from his mom's computer.  

Get a grown up to help you with the big words in the research I've referenced for you.  You cyber-tough guy you.

Son of Liberty,

You are correct, it is mentioned.  My point, poorly stated, was that they enjoy NO GREATER protection than the rest of us.  I have heard liberals argue, quite often, that the press is protected more than a citizen's individual speech.  That is what I was getting at in my response.

Sorry about the confusion, you "revolutionary" you.

 

I view the Constitution as the Supreme law of the land, and if other laws conflict with it, then those laws are void.  These laws were not passed as Amendements to the Constitution, and therefore do not supercede it.  Your stance on this issue only reinforces my view of the corruption of the system.  It is attitudes such as yours that are slowly degrading our rights.  The Bill of Rights enumerates these rights as being absolute and God-given, and not subject to permit or regulation by government.  A "right" regulated is not a right at all.

I would be interested to see what those court cases have to say.  I'll look them up.



I guess if believing in my rights, and working to keep them at all cost classifies me as a "revolutionary", then so be it.  I'll gladly assume the title.  As for the rest of the above quote, I don't really know what to say.  You know nothing about me, and to post something like that is equated to childish name-calling at best.  FYI, as a kid I was anything but spoiled, and generally lead a happy life but with concern to the subjects argued here.

Edited for label

SOL-tagged as Revolutionary

Screw caselaw!  Does Dred Scot (or any of his descendants) still go about in chains?  Did Mr. Plessy ever get to ride in that first class [b]whites only[/b] railroad coach?

Did attorney Thurgood Marshall explain to the 'Negro children' whom he represented in Brown vs. Board of Education, that such 'caselaw' as [u]Plessy vs. Ferguson[/u] precluded a successful appeal of the 'separate but equal' argument in their case?

If something has been wrongly decided by the Courts in the past, even by [u]all[/u] Courts in the past, we are governed by a system of laws that can correct such judicial errors.
Either by Courts overruling themselves (as the US Supreme Ct. did in [u]Brown[/u]), by   corrective legislation, or by popular initiatives in some States.

Hopefully you don't need to be a lawyer to understand that.

Now, it might be imprudent, not feasible, overly  time-consuming, too costly, too late, too soon, too unpopular, or too [i]whatever[/i] to challenge an erroneous judicial decision, but at least the way is provided in our laws.

The question then becomes - [i]Is the game worth the candle?[/i]

Usually, the answer is no. But, sometimes....

BTW, of course not all speech is protected, but there had better be a [b]G.D.[/b] good reason that the particular speech is [b]not[/b] protected!

Eric The Hun

Maybe I should clarify myself.  Freedoms enumerated in the Constitution are absolute except to the extent of harm to another person.  

SOL-tagged as a Revolutionary

 A revolution is definately possible.  It may not be today or even w/i the next year, but it is deffinately on the minds of many Americans.
 If Gore would have succeeded in stuffing the boxes then I think it would be even more present of a thought and possiblity to people.  Fortunatly we recieved the lesser evil.  I don't think Bush will be the leader of a revolution, but maybe he will be able to undo some past wrongs - maybe not.
 Getting back on topic.  If there is a revolution leadership will not be the problem.  How many of you would not step up to share knowledge guidence and support for a cause that attempts to reclaim God given rights that many of us hold dear.  In the event that the government gets even more out of control I believe the learders will step up.  They may not be seen right away, and there may be one or many hundred - but the job will be filled.
 I personally don't care that things are not that bad in America yet.  In the last 4 years how much has this nation degraded.  How much has been given up by people who would be led blindly into a dark room where every basic need may be provided, but the door is forever locked.
 The threat does not need to be close at hand in order to contemplate and prepare oneself.  If you were told that sometime in the future your household would be taken over your family killed or enslaved and your land taken from you, would you sit and wait or would you prepare to protect what is yours? ( I do not mean to say that this is what will happen, I only intend to make a point.)
 Being prepared does not mean that you have to follow through if the threat never comes.  Isn't this part of the reason we have the second ammendment.
 As for Americans being Fat, Dumb, Lazy, etc...
Unfortunatly this society has become very sedintary.  But that does not mean that it is uncapable.  I don't know many people who will not at least try to run away from a deadly threat.  Plus while these out of shape lazy a..es
are being overrun the rest of us can get positioned.
 These are just my thougts feel free to disagree... at least freedom of thought has not been sensored yet.
[rocket]
Gies

You would be suprized just how wrong you are- I argue constitutional law on a weekly basis in the context, for the most part, of the 4th amendment and it's continued protections that are under constant attack.



It's just not that simple.  I wish it were.  Your notion of a rights being absolute without limits is akin to anarchy, plain and simple.  It's also naive.



Don't stop there, feel free to email me and I can direct you to hundreds of different cases that take on a whole host of issues in this area.  But, it will do you no good if you persist in this elitist diatribe of alleged oppression and voided rights.



Relax- that was a joke to prove a point.  Of course I don't know anything about you.  With that said, I think rhetoric like yours is baseless and unfounded when viewed in a historical perspective.  We are NOT in a position our forefathers were prior to the Rev. War and to throw such affirmations around as you have and others in this thread is just plain silly.  It's also an insult to those who suffered and died under real dire straights.  

Is it possible in the future?  Yes, of course it is; 10 years from now or a hundred years from now.  But NOT AT PRESENT.

No, we are in a WORSE position than our forefathers.

Taxes are higher.

We probably have less representation.  Our income tax amendment wasn't even ratified.

I'll wager that King Georges men didn't roam the country side stealing nearly as much money and property as our Gestapho do now.  Back before the Revolution, would the King's men steal your money because you are carrying too much?  Try getting caught with $8k cash today.  It's gone, the Man will take it.

Did the King's men steal your house w/out due process over a little bit of marijuana?  No.

We are in worse shape today, IMO.  And we did it to ourselves.

[i]Q. Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?

A.  A Republic, IF you can keep it.[/i]

Right, and if I disagreed with the caselaw in this area I would say so.  There are dozens of Sup. Ct. cases, both landmark and their progeny, that I disagree with.  For example, long ago, the Sup. Ct. wisely declared that warrantless entries into a home are per se violative of the constitution (4th amendment) and the burden rests on the government to prove otherwise.  Then, over the years, It has carved out around 11 enumerated exceptions to the warrant requirement to entry of your home.  Some I agree with and others I laugh at.  I could type all day about rediculous decisions in the area of the 4th amendment that have come down over the years- and some I applaud (especially recently in the road-block cases and some recent "custody" cases).  

My point is, the present limits on free speech, in my opinion, are usually right on.  If I take what I think your logic is and that of Son of Liberty (aka "Revolutionary"), then there are NO limits simply because the Constitution is silent on what would be a limit.  So, some pedophile can walk up to your 8 year old son and tell him what a sexy a$$ he has and how it arouses him.  Is that protected speech?  Then there's the cliched "FIRE!" shouted in a crowded movie theatre.  And no, it does not take a lawyer to figure out the reasons for these limits and, no, they are not found in the Constitution, only interpreted so by the highest court in the land.  Sometimes they do get it right.

One of the best quotes form that book is aplicable here:

"The first one is expensive, after that they are all free."

I doubt we will ever see a another revolution within my lifetime.

Kyle

Let's see - they can seize my house, my car, my guns, my bank accounts and my dog without a warrant.

They don't have to charge me with a crime.

If they do charge me with a crime, they can lose in court after I'm found innocent - yet THEY CAN STILL KEEP MY PROPERTY!

I then have to ask permission to spend tens of thousands of dollars I don't have to try and prove that my property was innocent and wasn't used in a crime.  If I'm lucky, I can get my sh*t back.

Yeah, that sounds like the Supreme Court is really doing a great job.

It seems that we are getting nowhere here.  I am arguing my side based on what the Constitution says, and you are basing yours on the very laws that I question the validity of.  I say the law is wrong according to the Constitution, and you say the law is not wrong, because the law says so.  And so I degress.  This will be my last post on the subject.

SOL aka the Revolutionary

Revolutionary,

Fair enough, except that I happen to agree with the caselaw based on pricipal, not merely because they exist.  With that said, I respect your disagreement with them and will sign off this thread as well.

if you were to go by caselaw (espicially if HCI interepts it) then you would have to believe that the 2 amendment applies to the national guard created in 1917.

a judges rule is actually quite arbitrary. how one judges reaches a conclusion another concludes differently.

i am a law-abiding us citizen. but if i were to stick with caselaws only i would be FUBAR.

the first amendment should be absolute. except in cases that it would violate another persons right to life and property. such as bearing false witness against someone or yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

the left uses the "fire" in a crowded theatre as their excuse for limiting free speech. this is dangerouse reasoning. the reason you should not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre is because you are on someone elses property. it is disrespectfull to the theatre owner and to your fellow movie gowers. so to yell "fire" in a theatre infringes upon somebody elses property rights. including movie tickets holders.

the law should exists to protect peoples rights as described in our bill of rights.

to believe that we have no reason to rebel at this point in the "game" is delusional. fight4yourrights has already pointed out why.
the citizens of the us have constitutional athority to ablosish a form of government that they do not consent to. to believe that this is "revolutionary" thinking...well it IS!! its the same "revolutionary" thinking that this countries founding fathers did.

i agree that nothing is perfect. i dont believe in going off half-cocked just because you feel like your being stepped on. but just when is too much "tyranny" enough to take?

i agree with title 18, sec.2385 of the us code to degree. not all people who would wish to do our government harm would be people who believe in our constitution. such as terroists from the middle-east, pro-active communists, and invading armies.

i am not anti-government, only anti-corrupt government. who wants corruption?
we are already a socialist democracy
we already redistribute wealth
we already have high peace-time taxes
we already have a move towards civil disarmament
we already have treaties that supercede us soverignty
we already have a government that sends our soldiers off to die for somebody elses proplems
we already have violations of the fourth amendment=for the sake of "fighting" drugs
we already have violations of the first amendmet=hate thought laws
we already have violations of the tenth amendment=elian gonzales, waco, almost our electoral process

 Wow, what a thread!  One of my associates often says that what this country needs is a good revolution.  Liberterian has said it all, as for reasons.  As for myself, IMHO it's inevitable.  A socialist democracy and a Conststutional republic CANNOT co-exist.  I hope that it happens sooner rather than later. Before I get too old and while my son is too young, to participate,