>>>11816626
16 year old gooks and camel fucking mudslime can sop the US in its tracks
>and we cant

File: 1338707878383.jpg-(199 KB, 1391x406, 1316060126296.jpg)

>>11816626
>You must admit he has somewhat of a point in saying the US government would be close to impossible to overthrow.
This has been covered numerous times on here.

Also this: >>11816642
If the Taliban and the Vietcong can hold their own, so can we.

the US cannot into asymmetric warfare

>>11816660
Sorry, I'm new here. I imagined you guys had something to say about it so that's why I made the thread.

>>11816642

no one here tries. no one has the balls to because they think they will be alone and cut down instantly, and trying to plan such a thing as a group is impossible with the CIAs intelligence drag net and FBI informants.

So they wait. wait for the spark that ignites the bbq

File: 1338708263036.gif-(30 KB, 245x245, 2011.gif)

a violent revolution would only result in the total destruction of the United States of America. The only way to change the system is to corrupt it from within.

OP is a troll this thread is jank.

File: 1338708289145.jpg-(117 KB, 960x720, 1320683288600.jpg)

>>11816626

>>11816690
Do we have a reason to fight our government yet?

I think what many people fail to realize as far as the 2nd Amendment goes is that it's not like it'd be the weak, untrained American public with their semi-automatics and bolt-actions against the most well-trained, technologically advanced military in the world; take a look at Libya. We'd most likely see mass military defections and takeover of military bases/munitions. Trust me, if the American public wanted a revolution, we'd have ourselves a revolution.

That being said, I do personally believe that a lot of bullshit federal and state law limits what we truly should have according to the 2nd Amendment. At the VERY least, we should have full access to small arms and small arms technology; full autos, suppressors, etc. None of this NFA tax stamp bullshit or waiting periods or anything like that.

>>11816715
(cont.)
Now, even the most sturdy of gun advocates get a little bit nervous at the thought of the average civilian being able to own military arms BEYOND small arms; tanks, artillery, etc. Personally, I think that public should be able to own every weapon the military can (preferably without tax stamp bullshit and available on a larger scale). I mean, back during the Revolutionary War, most of the cannons utilized by the Patriots were civilian-owned. Back in those days, you could duel somebody if they looked at you funny, but yet you didn't see people regularly blast down towns with cannons. Even today, you never see people who legally own full autos or suppressors go on rampages. Another thing to consider would be cost; it's not like every average Joe could own a howitzer. The Founding Fathers wanted the public to be able to own every weapon the military could. Back in the day, that was the case. Not anymore.

Now, as far as WMDs go (nukes, chemical weapons, etc.), I am somewhat inclined to agree that one man shouldn't be able to be trusted with that much power. Still, at the very least, I think the National Guard should have access to WMDs; they are, after all, our nation's organized militia.

when it happens we, the US, will not be fighting our own military. how many veterans, or people currently serving, do you know that would take up arms against the people they enlisted to protect? we will be fighting the UN, NATO, and private contractors

>>11816626
>pretty much impossible to overthrow
Implying the american military will fight american citizens.
Also >>>/pol/

>>11816711
Well, laws are becoming increasingly unconstitutional as politicians continue to gradually strip away our freedoms.

Do I expect a revolution any time soon? No.

Do I think there will be another revolution in this country's lifetime? Maybe. What worries me is that the destruction of our freedom might be so gradual that we don't even notice it until its too late.

Well.. The national guard is sworn to serve the people.. Not the government, so in the unlikely event ov revolution the nat guard would be on the revolutionarys side

Actually, the last time citizens took up arms and overthrew a corrupt government in America was....1946.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

>>11816721
the national guard isnt being used as a national guard. they are being deployed overseas, which is technically unconstitutional.

>Part of the reason this amendment was added was in case a tyrannical government ever established itself over the US
>Part of the reason
>part

You hit the nail on the head right there. It's part of the reason, not the full reason. It's now pretty unlikely due to restrictions on what can be owned and organization, not to mention costs... I mean people don't really own anything other than small arms... not to say that they're not effective, but it's kind of hard to compete against tanks and the like.

I'd say that's a small part of it. People who say the second amendment is for sporting purposes are full of fucking shit.

>>11816715
That's a great point that people often forget. The military isn't comprised of robots, they're human and they could easily defect

Another thing people forget about is the possibility of other countries intervening and supporting this revolution, just as we have done in countless other countries.

>>11816745
What? The national guard has been used as reserves since the spanish-american war. It's rare, but how is it unconstitutional?

>>11816752 over the us

Or became one itself (this is crucial)

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/7v2fEW/quoteunquote.webs.com/

>>11816743
How have I never heard of this. This is fucking awesome.

It isn't about overthrowing shit. In third world fucking nations people are smart enough to stand up and fight and die for what they believe. If we have to die, then we die. If the gov't wins then we'll all be unable to suffer their bullshit.

"I can't win" is a shit excuse not to do something.

Plus, niggers, white trash, messy skins, mudslimes etc.

Remember my frends, you the people and citizens have the power, the political leverage to change this country (look at sopa.... A perfect example of the poeple creating political posion) you just need to find, and use that leverage

>>11816723
>Implying that there won't be a rush of kids to enlist to help put down those american hating huatree domestic terrorists.

Trust me, a civil war will be messier than you think. Don't think that everyone will suddenly be siding with the hicks and the man will just topple over. Assad is making a mess of things over in Syria with really 1% of the population solidly supporting them and the rebels are nowhere near able to do anything.

There's a good chance I'll pick up a gun and join a US Government militia. I know most of my friends who will do the same.

I really doubt that American soldiers would willingly assault their homeland.

There would probably be mass desertion and revolt within the military itself.

>>11816771
I know, right? Blew my mind when I found out about it.

>Battle of Athens

>M1 Garands

Fuck yeah. Get off mah lawn.

>>11816793
I think you need Syrian-style atrocities before GIs start switching sides. Aka the govt. sending troops out to execute civilians.

Before that happens all you get are rednecks trying to stir up shit and talking about Kenyan-born Muslim Communists.

>>11816839
well I'm not a fan of mudslimes

but still, soldiers have families all over the country, do you really think they would happily terrorize the streets they grew up on?

>>11816789
wait, why would you join a gov't militia?

>>11816853
Hence Syrian-style atrocities. No one is going to pick up a gun and start a war over the national debt.

The "resistance" won't snowball until the government starts committing atrocities. And the US Government isn't stupid enough to start committing atrocities like Assad. Thus you have a chicken and egg problem in jump-starting a rebellion.

>>11816863
To defend the USA from those trying to destroy it.

If people were going around shooting black folk, catholics, and other minorities, I won't stand for that. It doesn't matter if they believe in chemtrails or FEMA death camps. Tyranny by militia is still tyranny.

>>11816916
How does it feel knowing that, in the case of an actual revolution, you would not succeed? The revolutionaries might not win, but if they didn't, America would cease to exist.

>>11816916
So what if these revolutionaries were only using force when necessary and were merciful to their adversaries, like the GIs in the Battle of Athens?

>>11816916
You lost me. When did people start murdering minorities, again? We went from a civil war to join the gov't side cause lynch mobs somehow, and I really don't know where.

whichever militia controls the farmers will win.
i think the treaty of paris effect is working well in the world today - everything is too inter-dependent; the balance of everything is so in sync. if there was some war then the distribution and fuel supply chains would break down and everyone would lose =p

>>11816998
>>11816928
I know there is corruption and shit over in Washington D.C. and I know those politicians are selfishly looking out for themselves while shafting the citizens. However you must be smoking something potent to think that the Government is planning to do something big and crazy instead being the usual inefficient bureaucracy it always was. In spite of all that we are still better than those shitholes in the Third World by miles.

I see those conspiracy theorists talking about burning down the whole house instead of fixing it up because they don't like the condition it is in. There's this thing called the political process for god's sake. Destroying the country and enforcing the rule of the gun on your neighbors is not at all Constitutional.

>>11817036
I agree with, there is still plenty of time left for the public to clean the White House up with the political process even if the government is working toward some Police State. But the thread deals with a hypothetical scenario. Should the political process fail us in the short term, how would a violent overthrow of the government go down?

One thing you guys are all missing is the purpose of the second amendment has been modified by the 14th amendment.

The 2nd amendment was introduced as a restriction on the power of the Federal government to disarm the people who were the unorganised & organised state militia. Note the original constitution allows the Feds to make provision for the arming off the militia, but the officers were to be appointed by the states.

>>11817130
This was to prevent a tyrannical federal govt.
The civil war and its aftermath showed the problem of a tyrannical state govt was just as bad, with the disarmament of freed blacks by local militias and the subsequent murder of the same blacks by the same militia men in their second job at the KKK.

Gee whiz. A group of rag-tag militant visionaries going against a better-armed military force that would utterly destroy them in ground combat? If only there was some kind of general warfare archetype that those soldiers could use to multiply their combat effectiveness to an infinite extent by using ambushes and remote attack devices to take down the large army when they least expect it. That would be great!

>>11817143
So the 14th amendment was introduced, imposing the restrictions of the bill of rights, including the 2nd amendment on the states, with the expressed intention of allowing individual blacks to have arms for self defence, including against their state and local govt. if needed.

This is why the SCOTUS in the Heller & Mc Donald decisions was able to parse the second amendment as allowing the keeping and bearing of arms in common usage, in case of confrontation, especially in the home. At the same time they held that restrictions on especially dangerous weapons (military grade) was still legal.

Why? Apart from personal prejudice? After the civil war the southern state militia's were disarmed. They had their personal weapons but issued cannons, etc were seized by the Feds.
So at the time of the 14th amendment, the writers of the amendment would not have considered such weapons covered by the amendment as they had already seized them!

As handguns are wide spread in the USA for the purpose of home defence, especially over the last 20 years, SCOTUS ruled that handguns were specifically covered by the 2nd & 14th amendments.

20 years ago the AR15 was quite rare and probably would be held to be not covered. Now that it is the most popular rifle in the USA, by the time an assault rifle ban case makes its way to SCOTUS it should pass muster.

>>11817199
At this point in time a repeal of the machine gun registry will almost certainly not pass SCOTUS. Their dicta in the Heller case pretty much said as much.
The only way it is likely to be reopened is if a case is brought by someone who makes an ilelgal machine gun and tries to register it and pay the tax.
Only after being charged would he have standing to challenge the registry and make the feds accept his tax payment, thus re-opening the registry.
Anyone willing to accept a felony conviction and 14 years in jail to mount a challenge?

The US government will be overthrown if they try to take the average person's television. Anything less and people just won't care.

>>11817219
Also, for the last four years SCOTUS have refused to hear any 2nd amendment cases brought by convicted felons on appeal.
It's obvious they are only willing to make case law based on completely law abiding citizens who have been obviously stiffed by the govt. Such as Heller & McDonald. All of the original plaintiffs in Heller who had not actually been stiffed (applied for a firearms license and been rejected) were rejected.

Second Amendment Foundation & Alan Gura are on the right track. They are applying the 2nd, as modified by the 14th, to bring back the right to carry in no carry states.

>>11817239
People who live for their TV will never rise up, they are too far gone.

People who live on social networking sites will rise up and be manipulated into overthrowing the old regime and letting a worse one take power.
Example, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. So much for the twitter revolution.
The trick is to be the manipulator, not the manipulated.

Goat fuckers in pajamas have been fucking up Americans in Afghanistan for over 10 years now. So yes, I think it's still valid.

Bump

File: 1338718216939.jpg-(115 KB, 500x726, 1336169942867.jpg)

Revolution = Bad Idea
Rebellion = Bad Idea

RESTORATION of the U.S., back to before the "New Deal" needs to be what we're aiming foru.

Revolution and rebellion leave too much to chance, with a worse outcome ptactically gaurunteed.

A restoration of our Republic is the most terrifying thing that could happen to the parasites are in the process of turning the U.S. over to U.N. control.

Also: FU Captcha... F - Fucking - U!

>>11816766
The milita isn't supposed to be deployed in foreign wars I thought.

File: 1338729526660.jpg-(99 KB, 280x360, Photo May 05, 8 38 24.jpg)

>>11817587
Problem being that those same interests have worked their way into every legitimate channel for change.
Reform wont be allowed. Not by the bureaucrats and not by the courts. They will misread every law and argument just to be sure it doesn't happen.

The founding fathers weren't fools. They'd faced similar kinds of authoritarian trickery in the past and realized that government was no good without a check and balance.
The 2nd amendment became the final safety valve to their plan. If its all gone to shit, you have the power to take back your society by force.

I think what they didn't plan was on how much we would allow that power to be restricted in violation of its own wording. Its to the point where the government just has to declare every reformist to be some kind of criminal and your last resort is closed off by a new version of terror watch list.

We aren't too far removed from the situation that Syria has developed. Our government still respects the vote... but that's a temporary thing until some billionaire figures out how to simply buy his way into a lifetime presidency.

I'm sure the courts will decide that its constitutionally legitimate for the right price.