a monopoly on force

[Whomever]

I believe that we agree on L I M I T E D government, just like the Founders.

And yet I will bet money that you supported the patriot act act at the time it happened.
And likely voted for Bush in 2004.

 

[Canceled2]

I can hear all those black fellows cheering "freedom" right now, can't you?

180 years ago I imagine they could hardly believe in freedom in England or in America.

Now in England those foreign nationals and ethnically diverse enjoy their freedom in your poor neighborhoods just like here. Clean up your own backyard Charv.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Our leaders are so fucked.

 

[charver]

If she'd have me.

You're a shoo-in, mate.

She already suspects her husband is an internationalist-fascist. A few words in her ear and you'd have her bent over double in the Irish State coach.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Sir, I have indeed served. That is why I hold the position I do.

what branch and what occupation? what time period as well, because I have a hard time believing you hold that position if you've served, as I have. Are our two experiences that much different?

Marking your targets will help cut down on the more obvious defenders. But attacking a heavily armed and fortified building with no air support is not going to be a quick or simple task.

again, nobody is trying to claim that it would be quick or simple. At least nobody that is being realistic.

Suppressing fire will help, but the revolutionaries will still have to cross a large open area against automatic weapons.

and we would also have our own automatic weapons to counter.

 

[DamnYankee]

....
and the revolution would grow by leaps and bounds as people who also mistrusted the feds, but continued to remain 'out of the fray' would see the overreach and decide to join against the gov. A self fulfilling prophecy you might say.

Exactly. Even if the WH and Congress survived an assault as described, there would be a huge movement to dismantle the government back down to its intended small size. Most likely this would take form of a tax revolt, and a simple refusal to ignore federal laws. We're already seeing the roots of this movement at the State political level, as well as movement of private citizens out of high tax states.

 

[charver]

180 years ago I imagine they could hardly believe in freedom in England or in America.

Now in England those foreign nationals and ethnically diverse enjoy their freedom in your poor neighborhoods just like here. Clean up your own backyard Charv.

I haven't got a back yard, i've got a nice garden thanks for asking.

By the way, you're in a thread in which we're discussing the nuts and bolts of a revolution on the Whitehouse lawn led by bloody Braveheart. Lighten up a bit.

 

[WinterBorn]

[youtube]YHm7WQ-060g[/youtube]

That might work if it was armored and you could surprise the security people.

But that is going to be hard to sneak into DC and even harder to have the massive number of trained personnel not see that it is armored.

 

[WinterBorn]

what branch and what occupation? what time period as well, because I have a hard time believing you hold that position if you've served, as I have. Are our two experiences that much different?

again, nobody is trying to claim that it would be quick or simple. At least nobody that is being realistic.



and we would also have our own automatic weapons to counter.

I served from Oct 1976 to Oct 1985. When I mustered out I was a GM/G2. My last command was the USS Guam.


I am not saying that an armed revolution is impossible. This all started because I responded to the post concerning overrunning the White House and Congress. Any military assault plan must take into account the probable losses and weigh that against the probable gains.

I do not believe that the president would be taken so the gov't would retain its top leader.




If the assault started with taking the media outlets in order to communicate with and inform the population the revolution would stand a much greater chance of success.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

WOw. Solitary really is "on our side". Not.

 

[WinterBorn]

Then you're a bigger fool than I originally took you for.


I suggest googling 3 percenters and oath keepers.

The media will learn quickly that they would need to shut the hell up or suffer consequences.

nobody is saying that simply taking those two buildings would end anything.

I am not a fool. I am a student of history and know of numerous examples of situations in which well trained, organized, motivated men repelled attacks by forces with far greater numbers. The Secret Service and the marine guards fit that description. Given their placement at the start and the security measures in place, I do not believe the president could be taken by a massive armed mob.

And in order to take it from mob to army you would need training and more training. "The more you sweat in training the less you bleed in combat" The ability to train a large number of people without having a security leak is a huge longshot.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I am not a fool. I am a student of history and know of numerous examples of situations in which well trained, organized, motivated men repelled attacks by forces with far greater numbers. The Secret Service and the marine guards fit that description. Given their placement at the start and the security measures in place, I do not believe the president could be taken by a massive armed mob.

And in order to take it from mob to army you would need training and more training. "The more you sweat in training the less you bleed in combat" The ability to train a large number of people without having a security leak is a huge longshot.

We have massive numbers to throw at the problem. It's worth it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Exactly. Even if the WH and Congress survived an assault as described, there would be a huge movement to dismantle the government back down to its intended small size. Most likely this would take form of a tax revolt, and a simple refusal to ignore federal laws. We're already seeing the roots of this movement at the State political level, as well as movement of private citizens out of high tax states.

I think that it is far more likely that martial law would be declared. This would make the continued revolt much tougher.

 

[charver]

I am not a fool. I am a student of history and know of numerous examples of situations in which well trained, organized, motivated men repelled attacks by forces with far greater numbers. The Secret Service and the marine guards fit that description. Given their placement at the start and the security measures in place, I do not believe the president could be taken by a massive armed mob.

And in order to take it from mob to army you would need training and more training. "The more you sweat in training the less you bleed in combat" The ability to train a large number of people without having a security leak is a huge longshot.

I counter that argument with the power of the internets (probably something secure like IM) and pitchforks.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I think that it is far more likely that martial law would be declared. This would make the continued revolt much tougher.

But the resolve and hatred of the populace toward the government would be increased accordingly. Bring it. Freedom always wins in the end.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I think that it is far more likely that martial law would be declared. This would make the continued revolt much tougher.

martial law would be worthless. there simply isn't enough military and national guard (stationed in this nation) to maintain it. They'd be tremendously outnumbered and then they'd have to deal with the oathkeepers.

 

[WinterBorn]

But the resolve and hatred of the populace toward the government would be increased accordingly. Bring it. Freedom always wins in the end.

If you could control the media outlets even for only a short while you would have much better chances.

Leave DC to founder and fold when its followers desert it.

The leadership is not what you want. You want to communicate with the people. Get them behind the revolt and there would be no stopping it. Fail to get them behind it and the chances of success are slim.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If you could control the media outlets even for only a short while you would have much better chances.

Leave DC to founder and fold when its followers desert it.

The leadership is not what you want. You want to communicate with the people. Get them behind the revolt and there would be no stopping it. Fail to get them behind it and the chances of success are slim.

the media wouldn't be an issue. as i said before, once they report on the 'extremists and terrorists fanaticals', they become military targets as the media in serbia had. The one thing I can thank Clinton for.

 

[WinterBorn]

martial law would be worthless. there simply isn't enough military and national guard (stationed in this nation) to maintain it. They'd be tremendously outnumbered and then they'd have to deal with the oathkeepers.

It would be enough to commandeer the media outlets under the pretense of national security.

Then the video tape of american soldiers dying at the hands of "militia nutjobs" would be in living rooms nationwide. Sob stories of people having loved ones slaughtered. Reports of a tiny minority of the population trying to overthrow the duly elected government would cause more outrage.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

If you could control the media outlets even for only a short while you would have much better chances.

Leave DC to founder and fold when its followers desert it.

The leadership is not what you want. You want to communicate with the people. Get them behind the revolt and there would be no stopping it. Fail to get them behind it and the chances of success are slim.

Don't tell me what I want. Without taking out the government's ability to use forcet The station owners will just call security and have us ousted.