~30% of Americans advocate armed apostasy

[Colpy]

Coward. That's not an answer. As you should already know, you change your various levels of government all the time.

.

The only think I will pick out of your post, but you are being more than a little disingenuous here, as the quote -"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" refers directly to armed rebellion against the English government of America.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The only think I will pick out of your post, but you are being more than a little disingenuous here, as the quote -"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" refers directly to armed rebellion against the English government of America.

And of course the Americans had neither votes nor representatives in Parliament. So they had no democracy.

Nice fail.

 

[hunboldt]

I would say that a lot of Right wing Americans were disappointed that Obama was elected to a second term, - and are expressing their revolt desires in a strange way.

The Latest edition of Scientific American contains a fantastic article on the science of gun control & is well worth reading

 

[Colpy]

And of course the Americans had neither votes nor representatives in Parliament. So they had no democracy.

Nice fail.

No fail

You should engage in a little reading comprehension........

They were talking about armed rebellion, whereas Tonnington treated it as if they were talking about elections.

Perhaps you missed this piece "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends"

I would say that a lot of Right wing Americans were disappointed that Obama was elected to a second term, - and are expressing their revolt desires in a strange way.

The Latest edition of Scientific American contains a fantastic article on the science of gun control & is well worth reading

That "fantastic article"???

It is from last July, and I found three factual errors in the first paragraph after the introduction.

Now there's a FAIL.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

No fail

You should engage in a little reading comprehension........

They were talking about armed rebellion, whereas Tonnington treated it as if they were talking about elections.

Perhaps you missed this piece "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends"

They were talking about elections. For most of the lead-up to the revolution, Americans were demanding their rights as British subject, including their right of representation. If you read the whole Declaration, instead of just cherry-picking the parts you can use out of context, you'll find the first half-dozen of the "indictments" refer to the democratic process and how the Crown denied or interfered with it.

But I tell you what. If you think the U.S. government is no longer a democracy, how 'bout you grab a flag and a rifle and get stuck in?

No?

Didn't think so.

 

[Colpy]

They were talking about elections. For most of the lead-up to the revolution, Americans were demanding their rights as British subject, including their right of representation. If you read the whole Declaration, instead of just cherry-picking the parts you can use out of context, you'll find the first half-dozen of the "indictments" refer to the democratic process and how the Crown denied or interfered with it.

But I tell you what. If you think the U.S. government is no longer a democracy, how 'bout you grab a flag and a rifle and get stuck in?

No?

Didn't think so.

oh Good Lord!

Yeah, that's right, they voted the English Army off the island.

Do me a favour, and don't bother defending positions you have already lost, it is just irritating.

And if you could read, you would already understand that I said there is no cause for armed rebellion in the USA at this time nor in the immediate future.

 

[hunboldt]

No fail

You should engage in a little reading comprehension........

They were talking about armed rebellion, whereas Tonnington treated it as if they were talking about elections.

Perhaps you missed this piece "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends"



That "fantastic article"???

It is from last July, and I found three factual errors in the first paragraph after the introduction.

Now there's a FAIL.

Now, Mr Colpy:
I must remind you that the currnet month is May 2013, and the article I am referringn to is in the May 2013 edition.
I have no ide\as what article you read,but since you are posting to two different posters in one mega reply, I can only assume that you are committing the common on line error known as 'blunderbussing', and not just trying to rile the newbie..

 

[Cliffy]

Armed revolts always lead to greater tyranny, or at least, a different brand of tyranny.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

Try reading slower. I never said it was. What I said is that once you can justify acts of armed rebellion that it becomes easy to justify greater acts of terrorism. Do you actually disagree with that?

Yes, I do.

Talk about being all over the map. The 'whole Revolution of 1776 thing' was because an unelected king was acting as a tyrant, since then you have gained the right to choose your own government. Not comparable at all.

Very comparable, when a system fails a people, it isn't unthinkable that revolution may be the answer.

I suppose you're of the opinion that governments "do bad"? No, I tend to think it's somewhere between those two polar opposites.

I'm of the opinion that governments should never be trusted.

The whole idea of an armed rebellion is to attempt to take control. The why and how aren't set in stone.

The whole idea of a revolution is to change the status quo, not necessarily to take control.

Coward. That's not an answer. As you should already know, you change your various levels of government all the time.

I think you just can't accept you're wrong, hence you start name calling, I mean really try and be an adult.

So, what is a justified target for an armed rebellion? Do you have a real answer? Who or what is a legitimate target if you feel your liberties are being destroyed?

I tried to explain to you before what our Declaration of Independence said, and you called me a coward. I could not have put it in any better words.

I'll say again, when you can elect a different government, justifying an armed rebellion is crazy.

Changing a government doesn't always solve the problem, the system in place may need to change.

All I am trying to explain to you is when the politicians reach a point and care only for themselves and whomever is elected no real change takes place, rebellion shouldn't be out of the question.

And if you could read, you would already understand that I said there is no cause for armed rebellion in the USA at this time nor in the immediate future.

No there isn't, but you never know what the future holds.

 

[Tonington]

Very comparable, when a system fails a people, it isn't unthinkable that revolution may be the answer.

How is the present system of government comparable to the government in 1776? Women can vote, there is no slavery, you can own weapons, you elect your government to fixed terms, you are free to associate with whom you will, you can speak out against government actions...really what is it you think is comparable?

The whole idea of a revolution is to change the status quo, not necessarily to take control.

Who said anything about revolution? You're changing definitions, which is understandable given that you're conflating the present day with 1776.

I think you just can't accept you're wrong, hence you start name calling, I mean really try and be an adult.

I tried to explain to you before what our Declaration of Independence said, and you called me a coward. I could not have put it in any better words.

Sure you could, because I explicitly asked what would be a justified target, not what legal justification you could come up with for an armed rebellion. Your answer isn't an answer to a question I ever asked.

Considering your goal post moves and changing definitions on the fly, I don't really expect you'll be brave enough to give an example of what you feel a justified target of violence would be. That would put you in league with some unsavory people. Do you identify politically with Bill Ayers?

 

[Sons of Liberty]

How is the present system of government comparable to the government in 1776? Women can vote, there is no slavery, you can own weapons, you elect your government to fixed terms, you are free to associate with whom you will, you can speak out against government actions...really what is it you think is comparable?

The present system of government is exactly the same as it has been since 1781, the players have changed and with that, the politicians occupying their position for too long have lost their way. They have forgotten they are not their for themselves, they are there for The People.

Who said anything about revolution? You're changing definitions, which is understandable given that you're conflating the present day with 1776.

You only read the headline, didn't you? Read the article, revolution is splattered all over it.

Sure you could, because I explicitly asked what would be a justified target, not what legal justification you could come up with for an armed rebellion. Your answer isn't an answer to a question I ever asked.

Considering your goal post moves and changing definitions on the fly, I don't really expect you'll be brave enough to give an example of what you feel a justified target of violence would be. That would put you in league with some unsavory people. Do you identify politically with Bill Ayers?

I'm not a strategist, I don't know what would be an acceptable target, I can however tell you what I would find an unacceptable target. Anything targeting the general populace.

Look don't get me wrong, it is highly unlikely it would ever occur, at least in the foreseeable future, but it should never be off the table.