Anyone seen the new movie "Eagle Eye"? [VANITY]

VANITY ^ | 12/13/2008 | Stockpirate

[stockpirate]

My daughter just watched it. She told me it about our founding documents and she said that the movie basically says it is not illegal to stage a revolution to overthrow our corrupt government.

I'd like to hear what fellow freeper's think about this topic.

I am not advocating the overthrow of our governement, only a discussion about the topic.

And has anyone else seen the movie? I will be going this weekend to a movie near me.

[MountainWoman]

This is a good question...but what is it going to take for people to take up their arms and start a revolution? Whose blood is spilled first?

[Melas]

That's so simple even a 1st year government student could answer it.

Successful revolution = legal.

Unsuccessful revolutions = treason

[the long march]

I believe in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson enumerated the times and causes by which a nation is required to throw off the shakles of an oppressive government. (When in the course of human events, it becomes NECESSARY...)

[stockpirate]

Well who is John galt?

First blood will not be planned, it will just happen.

I could envision several instances that may provoke the right to arms.

[bamahead]

The 'right of revolution' as sometimes called is very succintly enshrined in our founding document:

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Note the care the founders took, however, to indicate the extreme transgression of human rights that must take place before such a right should be excercised.

[stockpirate]

And that means it is codified into our law, so therefore is it illegal?

[stockpirate]

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

So, as the child on the long car rides says 400 times, “are we there yet”?

[MountainWoman]

what are they?

[fortunate sun]

Civic responsibility.
Acceptable triggers? I would probably say the standard could be quite flexible. A “Vichy” situation could be acceptable or taxation issues or anything in between.
I think there would be a severe, palpable change in national mood that would precede it.

[ConservaTexan]

"...and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." DOI, 1776

Rampant crimmigration, confiscatory taxation, RKBA infringements, free speech restrictions, and unresponsive representation for starters, sure seem to be a modern day "long train of abuses and usurpations." The question is when will all this become insufferable?

[count-your-change]

The founders of this country did not want to overthrow the government they felt oppressed them but rather to to get from under it and be independent.
Their justification was that they as a people had the right to dissolve political bonds with another people and exercise their God given rights.

The individual states hewed to this understanding until some tried to actually dissolve their political bonds to another people during the Civil War and discovered that the Declaration of Independence only applied to the people who won their war.

[toomuchcoffee]

It’s already been overthrown. Now we have to get it back.

[stockpirate]

1. Conservatives form large protests in several cities at the onset of a tax revolt. The government in an effort to stop the tax revolt and shut conservatives up orders government troops to open fire on the crowds at some point.

This could result in the troops refusing the order which would result in the collapse of the govenment in power. Or if the troops fired on the crowds, the next time they met the protestors there would be a different outcome as the crowds would be armed.

Actually there may even be armed patriots in the crowds the first go around and return fire.

[MountainWoman]

i’m glad you mentioned the troops...what are your thoughts on their role in a revolution?? i would like to think that they would dissent if they were asked to fire upon the people they are supposed to protect...

[stockpirate]

Yes, we have already been overthrown by the communists within our own country.

We recently IMHO had a coup, considering ACORN voter fraud, Illegal campaign funds from overseas, COLB, nationalizing most of the imoportant sectors of our economy.

[stockpirate]

‘i would like to think that they would dissent if they were asked to fire upon the people they are supposed to protect..”

Yes I would like to think that too. And I think that is why O wants a National Police Force as well funded, trained, and equiped as our military.

However, I think troops are more likely to support the people and the constitution than the government. The question is do they understand the difference?

BTW- I’m involved in a startup that makes a super strong Mg alloy that is 35% lighter than Al. Only it isn’t green.

[Yo-Yo]

When I enlisted in the Air Force, I swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [and] that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

Note that I didn't bear true faith and allegiance to the United States, but to the Constitution of the United States.

[Big_Monkey]

"It’s already been overthrown. Now we have to get it back."

Hear, Hear!

[stockpirate]

Thanks for letting us know that point. Thanks for your service.