• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it possible to overthrow the US government

Is it possible?

  • Total voters
    39
Orion said:
My tank in 2010 beats your musket in.... whenever you are talking about.
Click to expand...


I assume that was tongue in cheek. We have much better weapons than muskets these days.

Tanks, btw, are not invincible gods of war. They have vulnerabilities that can be exploited by those who are aware of them.
 
kali said:
of course it is! And it may happen soon..

Best be careful what ya post about this as the gov. Web bots are out in full force and you really do not want them showing up to ya door. Be very careful what you say online in reguards to this.
Click to expand...

death to satanist america dirka dirka mohammed jihad!!!!
 
Redress said:
No one has mentioned anything about banning guns in this thread that I saw...
Click to expand...

It'd be the most likely scenario under which an armed revolt would occur, so it is germane to the discussion. That Hazlnut and Hatuey are both anti-Second Amendment is a matter of fact.

...and you are the only one being insulting.
Click to expand...

Towards two people who are notoriously abrasive and inflammatory. I never said anything about you, though, and do not consider you inflammatory or abrasive.

Gunships in fact would be used, and I think you know that. He may not be entirely accurate, but he is not as far off as you have been.
Click to expand...

Of course they would be used, but that doesn't mean the entire argument can be encapsulated by a picture of a gunship and four fat-ass hillbillies. Hazlnut is the one who is being intellectually dishonest. He's just hear to carry out his marching orders from Media Matters.
 
Ethereal said:
It'd be the most likely scenario under which an armed revolt would occur, so it is germane to the discussion. That Hazlnut and Hatuey are both anti-Second Amendment is a matter of fact.
Click to expand...

I actually am not so sure that is the most likely scenario. Guns simply are not that important to the vast majority of the population. For those who they are important to, they are very important, but it's not really that big an issue.

I think if I had to name the most likely scenario resulting in an armed revolution in the US, it would be in response to a president deciding to escalate his role into dictator.

Did either of the two mention banning guns?

Towards two people who are notoriously abrasive and inflammatory. I never said anything about you, though, and do not consider you inflammatory or abrasive.
Click to expand...

They where not particularly abusive or abrasive in this case.

Of course they would be used, but that doesn't mean the entire argument can be encapsulated by a picture of a gunship and four fat-ass hillbillies. Hazlnut is the one who is being intellectually dishonest. He's just hear to carry out his marching orders from Media Matters.
Click to expand...

Have you ever met any militia types? I live in Michigan(remember the Michigan militia?), and have met a few. The picture is not that inaccurate.

I doubt highly that Media Matters even knows about this thread, or that they care, since it has nothing to do with their purpose.
 
Hatuey said:
Well it is representative of 2.5 in every 4 Americans.
Click to expand...

Only in your deluded mind are sixty-two percent of Americans a fat, retarded redneck.

We can't win the war in Iraq because Arabs have been fighting each other and other people for the past 900 years. In a war between "Americans" and the U.S. military the U.S. military would win simply because 66 of this country is overweight.
Click to expand...

Wow. What a brilliant military analysis. Are you sure you're not a CIA field operative, or perhaps a retired general? Man, Hat, you really blew me away with that profound and reasoned commentary. Really, bravo.
 
Hatuey said:
I don't know what is worse. That a historically ignorant Libertarian thinks that 30 million Americans rebelling is any kind of hypothetical possibility. Or that a historically ignorant Libertarian thinks it is unlikely that a country's military would turn against its people. To my knowledge the latter is not only a 'possibility' but historically proven to happen more often than the first. How many military dictatorships have there been South of the border alone? Mexico? Guatemala? Chile? Argentina? And those are all just off the top of my head. Now show me the last time "30 million Americans" went to war against their government? But as long as we can live fantasies where 66% of this grossly overweight country rises up and fights a war against the government and wins.
Click to expand...

Dude, are you going to cry or something? Seriously, get of my jockstrap. Your obsession with me is pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Orion said:
In a time of war, the only person who matters is POTUS and his generals. If you think they are going to be accessible to the public for assassination, you're barking up the wrong tree. It doesn't matter if congress is shot or not. POTUS would just declare a state of emergency and use all the powers therein, including the military.

I'm not saying that insurgency couldn't put up a resistance, but it would be fighting a losing battle, especially if the revolt is fueled by a relatively small percentage of the population... like 10%, as you mentioned. The government could easily use a media campaign to demonize those people, gain the support of the military, and the complacency of the rest of the population.

Unless 50% of the U.S., from ALL partisan leanings, is willing to lay down its life to overthrow the government, there is no point.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but I'm not sure if that would be a very likely scenario. The President can only effectuate command of the military and government if it supports his or her agenda. The problem with having a single command element is that it can be cut off relatively easily.

I also think the military has become over-reliant on technology, and would be a relatively easily exploited weakness. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mattis"]General James Mattis[/ame] has discussed this concept at length. From cdr salamander's blog:

Though the detailed definition is still being refined, in essence Antitransformationalism encompasses the concept that there needs to be an active opposition to those very smart, but modestly ignorant/arrogant people who seem to have decided that they either do not need to study history or the hard-won lessons of those who have come before them – are they are just so much smarter than anyone else who has ever lived that they simply do not need the past.

Founded on the bedrock assumption that there is nothing new under the sun – that most any problem you can encounter in the POLMIL world would be quickly understood by Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Frederick the Great, Nelson, Sun Tsu, and even the Great Khan. The technology and tools have improved, but the base of everything, the human condition, has changed little. Evolve into a more perfect professional. Don’t Transform into irrelevance.

With that bedrock, you must embrace new technology and concepts, but use them in a manner consistent with established avenues to success and within the constraints of financial, physical, and political realities. Evolutionary progress (US Navy vs. Confederate Navy) in numbers will defeat revolutionary perfection (US tanks vs. German tanks in WWII) in smaller numbers. Victory in the future is reliant on a firm knowledge of the past (US rediscovering counter-insurgency – again).

CDR Salamander: Search results for antitransformationalism
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
I actually am not so sure that is the most likely scenario. Guns simply are not that important to the vast majority of the population. For those who they are important to, they are very important, but it's not really that big an issue.
Click to expand...

I think you're sorely mistaken about this. The Second Amendment is extremely important to many Americans, just as the First Amendment is extremely important to many Americans. I guarantee you there would be an armed and persistent revolt if the Federal government went around confiscating weapons from gun owners, just as there would be an armed and persistent revolt if the government went around silencing dissidents.

I think if I had to name the most likely scenario resulting in an armed revolution in the US, it would be in response to a president deciding to escalate his role into dictator.
Click to expand...

Which is what he would be if he ordered the confiscation of arms.

They where not particularly abusive or abrasive in this case.

Have you ever met any militia types? I live in Michigan(remember the Michigan militia?), and have met a few. The picture is not that inaccurate.

I doubt highly that Media Matters even knows about this thread, or that they care, since it has nothing to do with their purpose.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to apologize or feel bad about my treatment of Hat or the Media Matters lackey. I'm not sure why it matters, though, as I have nothing bad to say about you.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
I think you're sorely mistaken about this. The Second Amendment is extremely important to many Americans, just as the First Amendment is extremely important to many Americans. I guarantee you there would be an armed and persistent revolt if the Federal government went around confiscating weapons from gun owners, just as there would be an armed and persistent revolt if the government went around silencing dissidents.
Click to expand...

I did not try and suggest it was not an important issue to many. I just don't think it is an important enough issue with enough people.
 
spud_meister said:
i reckon everyone who's participated in this thread is now:2razz:
Click to expand...
Fine, the question was for an opinion and they were stated, and besides, most people here would pass the initial question, in that no one would advocate an overthrow unless absolutely necessary and all other options were eliminated.
 
Redress said:
I did not try and suggest it was not an important issue to many. I just don't think it is an important enough issue with enough people.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

An estimated 34 percent of the citizens in the United States own firearms, and there are thought to be more than 200 million firearms in private hands.

FACTBOX: Guns and gun ownership in the United States | Reuters
Click to expand...

NRA - 4,000,000 members.

National Rifle Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a gun rights organization in the United States with over 300,000 members.

Gun Owners of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 
Ethereal said:
I disagree.
Click to expand...

None of those disprove what I said. There is a difference between owning a gun, and being willing to revolt over being allowed to own guns.
 
Redress said:
None of those disprove what I said. There is a difference between owning a gun, and being willing to revolt over being allowed to own guns.
Click to expand...
Here's my thing, I own guns, I have done nothing wrong with my guns, and have no future intention of doing anything wrong with my guns, so no one should be trying to take my guns by force and that would not be a good idea if it crossed someone's mind.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Here's my thing, I own guns, I have done nothing wrong with my guns, and have no future intention of doing anything wrong with my guns, so no one should be trying to take my guns by force and that would not be a good idea if it crossed someone's mind.
Click to expand...

And this has what to do with what I said?
 
Redress said:
None of those disprove what I said.
Click to expand...

And nothing you said is proof of anything. That you think most gun owners would be unwilling to revolt in the event of a mass confiscation is nothing more than an opinion. There are, however, millions of Americans that are members of gun rights groups, which would suggest they have more than a passing interest in gun rights.

There is a difference between owning a gun, and being willing to revolt over being allowed to own guns.
Click to expand...

This is true, and I'm sure there would be plenty of people that just rolled over, but I think a sizable portion of gun owners would resist. Even if only a million of them resisted it would present massive problems for the government.
 
Redress said:
And this has what to do with what I said?
Click to expand...
It was about the overall point that gun owners who would defend that right are rare, or that the second isn't that important to enough people. I would wager it is and that many more of us would die defending it than you would think, even to the point of considering revolution. Although I don't know if it could be accurately quantified
 
Ethereal said:
And nothing you said is proof of anything. That you think most gun owners would be unwilling to revolt in the event of a mass confiscation is nothing more than an opinion. There are, however, millions of Americans that are members of gun rights groups, which would suggest they have more than a passing interest in gun rights.



This is true, and I'm sure there would be plenty of people that just rolled over, but I think a sizable portion of gun owners would resist. Even if only a million of them resisted it would present massive problems for the government.
Click to expand...

The thing is, you are showing data to prove things I have never denied. Alot of people own guns. I know this, I live in a rural area, and most people here own guns. My point is that it's a large step from being pissed, to revolting. No one knows what would happen, and hopefully we will never find out.
 
Redress said:
The thing is, you are showing data to prove things I have never denied. Alot of people own guns. I know this, I live in a rural area, and most people here own guns. My point is that it's a large step from being pissed, to revolting. No one knows what would happen, and hopefully we will never find out.
Click to expand...
I join you in hoping we never find out.
 
Redress said:
The thing is, you are showing data to prove things I have never denied. Alot of people own guns. I know this, I live in a rural area, and most people here own guns. My point is that it's a large step from being pissed, to revolting. No one knows what would happen, and hopefully we will never find out.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to know one way or the other. I'm just discussing the thread topic. I think a sizable portion of gun owners would violently resist Federal confiscation of arms.
 
LaMidRighter said:
It was about the overall point that gun owners who would defend that right are rare, or that the second isn't that important to enough people. I would wager it is and that many more of us would die defending it than you would think, even to the point of considering revolution. Although I don't know if it could be accurately quantified
Click to expand...

I want to be clear, since your first post in this sequence leads me to think you may be under a mistaken idea...I do not advocate taking any ones guns. I do not advocate more restrictive guns laws. I am not after your guns.
 
Redress said:
I want to be clear, since your first post in this sequence leads me to think you may be under a mistaken idea...I do not advocate taking any ones guns. I do not advocate more restrictive guns laws. I am not after your guns.
Click to expand...
No Redress, none of that crossed my mind. I was thinking along the lines of what might send people into a revolution, I know you are aren't advocating for those things.
 
Yes, it could be done. Not easily, but it could be done. I suspect that some elements of the military would assist in the rebellion if the cause were just.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom