Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Paul Revere, Aug 27, 2009.
Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
Constitution (and specifically the Bill of Rights) weren't written or ratified until well after the American Revolution.
thanks for ruining my party
Nonetheless, he didn't win the war by talking.
That is win.
i often wonder what their mentality was back then. ppl now say, "it could never happen now, no how, no way"
but i'm sure it was just the same back then, just as they complained about the youth. nothing's changed, it's all probable
i think the entire country rallied behind firearms. i recently read The Biography of the American Rifle (good read), and back in the day we held major shooting competitions in NYC and shit like that
people had a deep respect for firearms since they were used, literally, to defend everything we believe in.
Never heard of it.
Congratulations, you can count to potato. What's your point?
You'll have to fact check for yourself, but I seem to recall something less than 50% of the colonial population was involved in the Revolutionary War at the peak, and less than 5% were credited with actually speaking in public, printing leaflets, and inciting revolution. That is to say, in the early 1770's, 95% of the colonial population still thought the idea of a small band of colonies rising against one of the world's superpowers was an insane and futile endeavor.
It doesn't take a majority to change the world, just a dedicated and decisive core.
good point bacon boy
Congratulations, you can quote wikipedia. What's your point?
Don't get your vag all sandy. It's right here:
Yes, let's erode this country's power base even further through pointless, fruitless revolution.
The biggest thing that's changed, besides general public opinion towards individual freedoms, is the Civil War. The CSA seceding from the Union was an exact mirror of the Revolutionary war, only it was clouded by the fact that we weren't fighting foreigners. "You're not governing us right, we're going to go over here and have our own leadership, you keep doing what you're doing but without us." Lincoln's idea that the country could/did not exist separately pretty much put an end to any "modern" ideas of revolution. That pretty much led the way to the idea that the fed gov't will pretty much put the smack down on anyone trying to forcibly change the country, be they revolutionaries or patriots or whatever.
That's a little offtrack but the point is that since a secession, taking place in precisely the way that the founding fathers laid out the constitution to allow, did not succeed, then any sort of "uprising" or revolution will most likely end the same. That is bloody, complicated, and unsuccessful.
Im sure thatll sound great to you until the bombs start dropping...
i didn't say i wanted it, sounds pretty bad either way, was just curious if anyone had insight into the minds of 250yr old dead guys
There are some states whose constitution allows for this kind of succession. Texas, Alaska and I THINK Montana. There's always some noob sate legislator that brings it up every term and it never goes anywhere. Alaska has it's own defense force separate from the National Guard and federal service as well.
Which further proves that protection for a tyrannous government is why it was incorporated and one of the first 10 fundamental rights.
The framers didn't believe that they were giving people these rights, they believed that the rights naturally existed, and their inclusion in the Bill of Rights was added as a legal protection for these rights that already existed. The rights we enjoy don't come from the constitution, they are (supposedly at least) simply protected by the constitution.
SickOfItAll's view ignores the historical reality. The caption on the image is not saying that Washington used his second amendment rights to defeat the British, it's saying that the legal protection for that natural right exists because it was a deciding factor in our victory, and the realization that it is something important as we moved forward into an unknown future.
Any other discussion that SickOfItAll wants to have is beside the point, since his premise is totally false.
Maybe, maybe not. Obviously rebels marching against federal troops wasn't a good idea then and its not modern warfare today anyway. Guerilla tactics however seem to stand up quite well to our mighty military, one doesn't need to look further than iraq and vietnam to see that. I think today it would come down to a matter of dedication on both side. Would both sides believe in their cause equally? You really have to believe in what you're doing to risk your life for it.
All that said we're obviously nowhere near needing a revolution in the US today, I just don't think the civil war is necessarily any indicator of the likely success of one.
The Texas State Guard is pretty much a fucking joke.
So, Alaska has, it's own militia?