Would Americans Actually Dare Revolt Against This Abusive Government?

America’s Founding Fathers spelled it out pretty clearly: The purpose of government is to secure the God-given, inalienable rights of men. They put that exact language into The Declaration of Independence.

They also spelled out, exactly, that when government becomes abusive, and “destructive of these ends,” it is mankind’s right and duty to alter, abolish, or overthrow it.

The question that comes to my mind foremost is not whether such outright revolt is justified or warranted. The question is whether enough of us have the will and the wherewithal to carry it out.

Given what millions of us see as plainly egregious high crimes and misdemeanors by Obama and his agents, without adequate redress of our grievances by those who we believe are also largely corrupt–our representatives in Congress–a large chunk of the American population easily pays lip service to the idea of actual revolution, as opposed to more of the same-old, same-old election cycle shenanigans.

I realize that by typing these words and sending them out over the cyber-clothesline, I’m somewhat risking a visit from the gestapo. So what. Let them throw me in jail. My wife and son would suffer, but if I’ve learned anything about that woman in the eight years we’ve been married, it’s that she can catch fish just as well or even better than I can on any given day, and probably live off the land if she has to. She was pretty much raised that way.

Have we as a society become so soft and accustomed to the comforts of technology and of various government checks & subsidies that too few of us would ever forcefully resist the tyranny that is growing from the power-mad panderers of the Left?

Life certainly is much different today than in the days of the American Revolution. Not only are people generally much more dependent on vast, highly-advanced, complex, specialized, and bureaucratic systems and technology which have removed them so much from the concept and practice of self-reliance in nature of those more primitive times, but anyone contemplating some kind of active defiance of the status quo has to consider also the comparatively extremely lopsided scenario such a prospect involves where it comes to actual weapons systems, intelligence networks, command and control operations, and logistics.

George Washington’s regulars, guerrillas, mercenaries, and Minutemen were long-shot underdogs against a formidable foe, of course, in the vastly better equipped, funded, and armed redcoats of King George. However, the muskets, horses, and cannon of our Revolutionary fighters were somewhat comparable, in technological sophistication and array, to the similarly primitive (by modern standards) hardware deployed by the crown. Furthermore, having “home field advantage,” all the colonists really had to do was make things so horrible for the king’s forces, much of which had come all the way from across the ocean, that the King eventually just relented rather than continue to try to keep control from all those thousands of miles away.

Nowadays, however, we’re talking about guys (and gals) with handguns, hunting rifles, carbines, and really not much more than that at all, up against the most space-age, entrenched, home-grown federal leviathan of lasers and satellites, nuclear missiles and bomber planes, tanks, aircraft carrier ships, helicopters, jet fighters and cargo planes, AWACS and close-air support planes, refueling tanker planes, smart bombs, infrared and laser-guided weird weapons that can zap and vaporize entire city blocks (I’ve been out of the military too long to even know what the hell these new weapons are), not to mention truly spooky, virtually omniscient surveillance and communications technology along with the government’s presumed ability to shut down any kind of tech networks we might employ.

Y’all think we should just stick to trying to vote the bastards out? Or am I missing something?

I don’t think we’ll ever revolt against the government no matter how tyrannical it beocomes. As a nation, as a people, we’re too fat, lazy and comfortable. Not all of us...but as a nation this is true.

you are 100% correct. We are so far from revolt that those advocating it are merely keyboard warriors of the first order. My grandfather fought in the Mexican Revolution and the Cristero War that followed. His reason for fighting was that the soldiers put his friend against the wall and shot him because they were out hunting rabbits and his friend had a .22 rifle. He said that they were starving and that the bandits were the only ones giving food. The reason he fought for El Cristo Rey was because he was a devout Catholic and the government burned a church and murdered the priests with several members of the church. By then he'd been fighting for about 3-4 years.

He said to never take food from the government or let your family be fed from "the man". It makes him your "patron" and you owe him your life.

We have so far to descend to actually make he middle class desperate enough for violence that it's a joke. Sure, there will be the occasional outrage like Waco or some TSA nonsense or even a growth in local police thuggery, but in general you have to be willing to die and lose all your home and savings in order to fight. So we are headed or should I say, sliding towards a socialist republic that will probably resemble some European hybrid with patches of "crazy" American freedom loving anachronisms.

You may have seen the recent news about prominent and well-spoken experts testifying before Congress regarding the Obama administration’s shocking usurpations and out-of-control excesses, especially the utter lack of regard for Constitutional limits on the powers of the executive branch. The testimony was remarkable in that the prospect of possible citizen uprising and revolt was brought up repeatedly. I can’t recall in my lifetime this ever having happened before, in such an official, high-level on-the-record context before the cameras and klieg lights.

Grandstanding for the cameras. While those giving such testimony are likely grounded in the American ideological basis for armed insurrection against the governing power, I am sanguine that they are, even though testifying, considering themselves as potentially so engaged. Hence mere pageantry.

The question that comes to my mind foremost is not whether such outright revolt is justified or warranted. The question is whether enough of us have the will and the wherewithal to carry it out.

Virtually all human beings have the will and wherewithal for lethal aggression against agents of the State if their conditions are sufficiently oppressive, despairing, hopeless and brutal. Create conditions where there is nothing left to lose and any human has the capacity for exiting the world with a bang of vengeance against the deservingly hated. What most fail to grasp is the banality of the process.

It is not through virtuous indignation and aroused ideology, adherence to political fantasy or even religious duty that people revolt. It comes through desperation. When your child is shot in front of you, your wife bayoneted as she crawls to him, your property burnt and your daughter passed around in front of you... then the human heart forces the hand to action. This is why dictatorships and tyrannies that maintain efficient locomotive schedules and minimal nutritional support for their populations tend to survive. When State agents commit horror and genocide you'll have your revolution. Shooting family pets and destroying 1/6th of the national economy is not going to trigger it.

Given what millions of us see as plainly egregious high crimes and misdemeanors by Obama and his agents, without adequate redress of our grievances by those who we believe are also largely corrupt–our representatives in Congress–a large chunk of the American population easily pays lip service to the idea of actual revolution, as opposed to more of the same-old, same-old election cycle shenanigans.

Mere talk.

But talking and doing are, of course, two very different things.

Of course. No one wants to be first precisely because being "first" means "being involuntarily motivated by firsthand experience of horror and genocide". And who the hell wants to put their loved ones through that in order to satisfy an imaginary revolutionary glory?

I realize that by typing these words and sending them out over the cyber-clothesline, I’m somewhat risking a visit from the gestapo.

Ridiculous. If nothing else, those charged with the duty of organic indigenous threat analysis can tell the difference between onanistic fantasy and operational planning. Furthermore, to equate the current tactics of the American state leviathan with the actual systematic murderous conduct of the Geheim Staatspolizei is premature.

Have we as a society become so soft and accustomed to the comforts of technology and of various government checks & subsidies that too few of us would ever forcefully resist the tyranny that is growing from the power-mad panderers of the Left?

Certainly not. Start shelling ethnic subdivisions; confiscating wealth (taxation is not confiscation); relocating masses of citizenry into sex-segregated lagers; eliminating the legal existence of alternate political parties; absconding with females from targeted populations; carry out extrajudicial killings publicly; and you'll have your revolution.

Life certainly is much different today than in the days of the American Revolution. Not only are people generally much more dependent on vast, highly-advanced, complex, specialized, and bureaucratic systems and technology which have removed them so much from the concept and practice of self-reliance in nature of those more primitive times, but anyone contemplating some kind of active defiance of the status quo has to consider also the comparatively extremely lopsided scenario such a prospect involves where it comes to actual weapons systems, intelligence networks, command and control operations, and logistics.

One human being tearing another apart with raw hands and teeth always remains an irremediable option. The trick is simply getting close enough and thereby effecting gameshift impact.

George Washington’s regulars, guerrillas, mercenaries, and Minutemen were long-shot underdogs against a formidable foe, of course, in the vastly better equipped, funded, and armed redcoats of King George. However, the muskets, horses, and cannon of our Revolutionary fighters were somewhat comparable, in technological sophistication and array, to the similarly primitive (by modern standards) hardware deployed by the crown. Furthermore, having “home field advantage,” all the colonists really had to do was make things so horrible for the king’s forces, much of which had come all the way from across the ocean, that the King eventually just relented rather than continue to try to keep control from all those thousands of miles away.

The Third Amendment means that the revolutionary in 21st century America has to go a little further than the bedroom down the hall to get to work, but the revolutionary's commute really does end in his own neighborhood.

The agents of the State have elderly parents, children, and other vulnerable noncombatants. "That's disgusting," you may say. Yes, absolutely, and that is how civil war is waged. I refer the outraged back to the primary point I proffer: that violent revolution is, in fact, produced in reaction to precisely that murderous action by the State against the vulnerable noncombatants of the People.

"All's fair in love and war" is not a cliche without reason.

Nowadays, however, we’re talking about guys (and gals) with handguns, hunting rifles, carbines, and really not much more than that at all, up against the most space-age, entrenched, home-grown federal leviathan of lasers and satellites, nuclear missiles and bomber planes, tanks, aircraft carrier ships, helicopters, jet fighters and cargo planes, AWACS and close-air support planes, refueling tanker planes, smart bombs, infrared and laser-guided weird weapons that can zap and vaporize entire city blocks (I’ve been out of the military too long to even know what the hell these new weapons are), not to mention truly spooky, virtually omniscient surveillance and communications technology along with the government’s presumed ability to shut down any kind of tech networks we might employ.

Real encouraging, isn’t it?

Shrug. Nothing good is easy. Violent overthrow and subsequent seizure of the State is the most risky and catastrophically dangerous human activity undertaken. Of course, the rewards of utter seizure of State power are unlimited, and thus the enticing lure it presents to all.

Y’all think we should just stick to trying to vote the bastards out? Or am I missing something?

Unless you're prepared to sacrifice your children to being gut-shot on the street for what you believe, don't even try anything else.

It's really time for fantasizing to stop, and reality to set in. If violent overthrow of the State is warranted by the true imperative of human conscience, begin it. If not, better to adhere to the political process than to trigger apocalyptic social revision. It causes less property damage and when the winds of fortune shift against you and your cause, you may find less blood spattering through it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.