• 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
Redress said:
In this scenario? A pain, but doable in a fairly quick way. Ships can load and make the trip in under 2 weeks, C-5's can bring surprising amounts of people and equipment. Unless the rebels could interdict ports and airstrips, which would be hard for a rebel force since it would play to their weakness, it would be doable.
Click to expand...


As I recall, it took a lot more than 2 weeks to build up our troop levels in the middle-east for Gulf I (liberate Kuwait) and Gulf II (liberate Iraq) to the point we were ready to go in.

Just sayin'.
 
Ethereal said:
I used to fantasize about the zombie apocalypse when I was sitting behind a fifty cal or mark-19. Every grunt's wet dream...
Click to expand...

I hope, if such a thing were to come, that they are Romero zombies and not 28 days later zombies.

The later and we would be screwed.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not convinced.
I think Homeland Security has prepared for things like this.
Click to expand...

Homeland security is literally made up of mostly retired security and police officers. They are not a force to be reckoned with.

I know it's hard to believe someone who actually worked in and with the government, but take my word for it. Our government is not even close to as prepared as people think.

Hell, with all the improvements etc. on airport security. We just recently had a guy try to take down a plane with his underwear, almost succeeded.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Homeland security is literally made up of mostly retired security and police officers. They are not a force to be reckoned with.

I know it's hard to believe someone who actually worked in and with the government, but take my word for it. Our government is not even close to as prepared as people think.

Hell, with all the improvements etc. on airport security. We just recently had a guy try to take down a plane with his underwear, almost succeeded.
Click to expand...
That's comforting and disturbing all at the same time.
 
Goshin said:
As I recall, it took a lot more than 2 weeks to build up our troop levels in the middle-east for Gulf I (liberate Kuwait) and Gulf II (liberate Iraq) to the point we were ready to go in.

Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Yes, but different scenario. We have not place to put our people in the middle east when we first deployed. We did however have the Eisenhower battle group on station in 3 days, with ~8k personal, ~100 aircraft, cruise missiles etc. Going the other direction would be a lot less difficult from a logistic standpoint. Another part of the problem was political in the first gulf war, getting permission, and making the decision. I know a little on this due to personal interest, I was part of the Eisenhower battle group when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
 
Blackdog said:
Homeland security is literally made up of mostly retired security and police officers. They are not a force to be reckoned with.

I know it's hard to believe someone who actually worked in and with the government, but take my word for it. Our government is not even close to as prepared as people think.

Hell, with all the improvements etc. on airport security. We just recently had a guy try to take down a plane with his underwear, almost succeeded.
Click to expand...

Good point, I figured at least with this kind of stuff, they would be more prepared.

I have to remember that this is our government.
 
Coronado said:
From the looks of the wall behind you I'd say they were right about Karma being a bitch.
Click to expand...

It was a bitch. I just wish there were more firefights and less sandbags...:cool:

Let me guess, you're the guy on the right with the ****-eatin' grin?
Click to expand...

Hehe. I'm the guy with high-speed rig...:thumbs:
 
Here's a little bedtime reading for those who are so inclined:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Guerrilla-Warfare-Special-Forces-Operations/dp/0975900919/ref=pd_sim_b_4]Amazon.com: Guerrilla Warfare And Special Forces Operations: FM31-21 (9780975900918): Department of Defense: Books[/ame]

DOD manuals are the best!
 
It's very possible. We outnumber them. The problem is getting people off their asses and into the streets.
 
Redress said:
We have never given in to terrorism before, I don't see that changing. There is no evidence it would. Sorry, but we are not a country of cowards.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on whether or not you consider an armed insurrection the same thing as terrorism. The military doesn't define all combatants in Iraq as terrorists, in fact, most of them receive the distinction of insurgents. Why would it be any different for a domestic revolt in the US?
 
As someone pointed out, the point of the 2A is less about overthrowing the government by sheer armed might, as it is about what it would cost the government to subdue an armed citizenry and deprive them of their liberty en-mass, and that the end result would be far more in doubt than if the citizenry were disarmed.

An armed person is a a citizen. An unarmed person is a serf, subject to his master's whims. Push a citizen too far and he will push back... perhaps far more effectively than you'd think.

I know some retired Rangers, Force Recon operators, and the like who would be a one-man hellfire-and-damnation force if they ever got sufficiently pissed off to take action. Now imagine pissing off tens of thousands of such men, and give them nine million armed citizens to train and lead...
 
Ethereal said:
Well, it depends on whether or not you consider an armed insurrection the same thing as terrorism. The military doesn't define all combatants in Iraq as terrorists, in fact, most of them receive the distinction of insurgents. Why would it be any different for a domestic revolt in the US?
Click to expand...

The very methods you describe. Call it what you will, we are still not that cowardly. Every time some one in our government has been murdered, some one has stepped up.
 
Goshin said:
As someone pointed out, the point of the 2A is less about overthrowing the government by sheer armed might, as it is about what it would cost the government to subdue an armed citizenry and deprive them of their liberty en-mass, and that the end result would be far more in doubt than if the citizenry were disarmed.

An armed person is a a citizen. An unarmed person is a serf, subject to his master's whims. Push a citizen too far and he will push back... perhaps far more effectively than you'd think.

I know some retired Rangers, Force Recon operators, and the like who would be a one-man hellfire-and-damnation force if they ever got sufficiently pissed off to take action. Now imagine pissing off tens of thousands of such men, and give them nine million armed citizens to train and lead...
Click to expand...

Sorry Goshin, but bull****. I am unarmed, have no interest in being armed, and I am far from some "serf". I can push back, and I don't need to do it with a gun. Our whole system of government is designed so that citizens can push back with out having to resort to rebellion. Don't like what the government is doing, then vote em out of office.
 
Ethereal said:
And that picture is totally representative of every American...:roll:
Click to expand...

Well it is representative of 2.5 in every 4 Americans.

It's funny how you liberals like to talk about how invincible our military is while simultaneously telling us they can't win in Iraq or Afghanistan. Make up your mind already.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Redress said:
Sorry Goshin, but bull****. I am unarmed, have no interest in being armed, and I am far from some "serf". I can push back, and I don't need to do it with a gun. Our whole system of government is designed so that citizens can push back with out having to resort to rebellion. Don't like what the government is doing, then vote em out of office.
Click to expand...
Of course, and this works as long as we have free and honest elections. Obviously armed revolt would be the last available option.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Sorry Goshin, but bull****. I am unarmed, have no interest in being armed, and I am far from some "serf". I can push back, and I don't need to do it with a gun. Our whole system of government is designed so that citizens can push back with out having to resort to rebellion. Don't like what the government is doing, then vote em out of office.
Click to expand...


You misunderstand me. I am not advocating armed rebellion or gleefully anticipating it; at this point in time I see no need for it. Our system actually works fairly well for the most part, up to this point. I do not desire to see it overthrown.

If it ever occurred, it would be a last-ditch desperate effort that would take place because the system broke down... because voting out the scoundrels was no longer a practical option.

My observation about citizens and serfs was not intended to be taken personally... but I firmly believe that governments tend to tread more carefully when a great many of their citizens are armed and capable of effective rebellion. I believe, along with the Founders, that an armed citizenry, by its very existence, acts as a constraint against tyranny.
 
Ethereal said:
Why would they replace them when they're likely to get killed?

Gee, the last guy who held this position got killed by a sniper, but I'm sure it'll be different for me...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
More than likely, nothing like that would happen.
Click to expand...

If the Federal government went around trying to collect weapons from gun owners, I think much more than 10% of them would have a serious problem with it.

That is why a successful insurgency is mostly psychology.
Click to expand...

Agree, which is why a small but determined force like AQ can cause such big problems for a hard military power like the US. The American military is actually starting to become over-reliant on technology. It's a critical weakness that could be exploited to great effect.

You have to also remember that police and military wouldn't necessarily do as they say they would.
They would weigh that against losing pay, their own freedom and possibly making their families destitute by doing so.
Click to expand...

lead.jpg
salad.jpg
 
Orion said:
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...


Yet, this was not the case in the American Revolution. I have read that in the early days of the Revolution, only 3% of the population actively supported it.

It grew over time (years), as people began to believe that the rag-tag band of lightly-armed rebels we know know as the Founding Fathers could actually pull it off.
 
Goshin said:
Yet, this was not the case in the American Revolution. I have read that in the early days of the Revolution, only 3% of the population actively supported it.

It grew over time (years), as people began to believe that the rag-tag band of lightly-armed rebels we know know as the Founding Fathers could actually pull it off.
Click to expand...

My tank in 2010 beats your musket in.... whenever you are talking about.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom