It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[HereWeGoAgain]

No need for that....they'd be on our side.

You're an idiot. Unanimous support from law enforcement and the military for a rightwing extremist insurrection?

You're dumber than I thought you were, and I didn't think that was possible.

Why would they need unanimous support? Even if 1/4 of them sided with the "rebels" in this hypothetical scenario, then the government would have a hell of a time re-establishing control.

Go back and read the question.

He didn't say they would "all' be on his side.

The question was:

Would killing American soldiers and law enforcement be morally legitimate in the name of 'revolution'?

If they are not defending the Constitution they no longer represent a legitimate force.
So yes I could see where it could become necessary,but I find it unlikely.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're an idiot. Unanimous support from law enforcement and the military for a rightwing extremist insurrection?

You're dumber than I thought you were, and I didn't think that was possible.

Why would they need unanimous support? Even if 1/4 of them sided with the "rebels" in this hypothetical scenario, then the government would have a hell of a time re-establishing control.

Go back and read the question.

He didn't say they would "all' be on his side.

The question was:

Would killing American soldiers and law enforcement be morally legitimate in the name of 'revolution'?

If they are not defending the Constitution they no longer represent a legitimate force.
So yes I could see where it could become necessary,but I find it unlikely.

So the 5 judges on the 'wrong' side of a 5-4 decision could be legitimately shot for the crime of not following the Constitution?

lol good one.

 

[Skylar]

You're an idiot. Unanimous support from law enforcement and the military for a rightwing extremist insurrection?

You're dumber than I thought you were, and I didn't think that was possible.

Why would they need unanimous support? Even if 1/4 of them sided with the "rebels" in this hypothetical scenario, then the government would have a hell of a time re-establishing control.

Go back and read the question.

He didn't say they would "all' be on his side.

The question was:

Would killing American soldiers and law enforcement be morally legitimate in the name of 'revolution'?

If they are not defending the Constitution they no longer represent a legitimate force.
So yes I could see where it could become necessary,but I find it unlikely.

And they aren't defending the constitution according to who.......?

Oh, and there won't be any revolution. As the folks that are trying to justify the murder of our cops and soldiers aren't willing to bleed.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why would they need unanimous support? Even if 1/4 of them sided with the "rebels" in this hypothetical scenario, then the government would have a hell of a time re-establishing control.

Go back and read the question.

He didn't say they would "all' be on his side.

The question was:

Would killing American soldiers and law enforcement be morally legitimate in the name of 'revolution'?

If they are not defending the Constitution they no longer represent a legitimate force.
So yes I could see where it could become necessary,but I find it unlikely.

So the 5 judges on the 'wrong' side of a 5-4 decision could be legitimately shot for the crime of not following the Constitution?

lol good one.

That would depend on the seriousness of the decision.

 

[Skylar]

Thank you Mr. Bundy.

No problem Benedict Arnold.

Would killing American soldiers and law enforcement be morally legitimate in the name of 'revolution'?

No need for that....they'd be on our side.

You're an idiot. Unanimous support from law enforcement and the military for a rightwing extremist insurrection?

You're dumber than I thought you were, and I didn't think that was possible.

If it gets to the point of armed resistance it would have to be something very serious like trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment.

Actually trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment? Or batshit conservative 'trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment'. You know, the kind of insane shit that Ted Cruz is accusing Trump of.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Start by getting registered and voting. Vote the ins out. Mrs. Bosnia Clinton is a definite in.

I'm way past that. I've even written, called, and e-mailed my representatives. Now it's time to do more.

What are you really revolting against?

No one has taken your guns away.

No one has really taken your freedom of speech away.

No one is making you attend any sort of religious organization.

Are you revolting against paying taxes which have not really changed a whole lot in many years?

Obamacare?

Gay marriage? Really?

When you really get down to it what is your bitch that is worth a revolution?

Me thinks your problem is the same problem that gets me riled up, things don't go the way I think they should. I just need to reign in my hubris and realize it is a really big world out there and for some reason there are a lot of folks that don't think as i do. Somehow we all have to learn to just get along. Too bad the left doesn't think anyone's opinion, other then their own, means a thing.

i see the budget deficits and really wonder if the country has gone mad. but then I think I don't really want them cutting medicare or Social Security. Which the latter still pays for itself but seems to be a target. Funny how SS funding is always questioned, although funding is petty clear, but welfare funding is NEVER questioned. Funny still is how SS didn't get a COLA this year but welfare will I am sure. And no, I am not on SS or medicare.

1. I'm not proposing a revolt, I am proposing resistance. Although if it comes to it then that's what will happen.
2. No one has taken my guns away ...yet. Am I supposed to wait until they do?
3. In fact, they are trying to take free speech away. Again, am I supposed to wait until they do?
4. I'm not allowed to practice my religion, unless they approve.
5. Some taxes maybe.
6. Obamacare certainly.
7. Gay marriage no.
8. Not yet worth a revolution but resistance is needed.

And you are saying that there has not been resistance to all of the above?

I am interested in number 4? Where does one get such approval?

No, there has been some, but there is even greater need for it and there can never be too much resistance.

If you practice your religion and they approve, no problem. If they don't approve, you get sued, possibly arrested, and/or run out of town.

The problem is you think your religion trumps the laws of the land. It doesn't, sorry. This isn't a theocracy. Religion trumps all else in Iran, and this isn't Iran.

 

[Skylar]

Go back and read the question.

He didn't say they would "all' be on his side.

The question was:

Would killing American soldiers and law enforcement be morally legitimate in the name of 'revolution'?

If they are not defending the Constitution they no longer represent a legitimate force.
So yes I could see where it could become necessary,but I find it unlikely.

So the 5 judges on the 'wrong' side of a 5-4 decision could be legitimately shot for the crime of not following the Constitution?

lol good one.

That would depend on the seriousness of the decision.

The 'seriousness of the decision' according to who? If its 'according to anyone', then you've just offered us a hapless justification for the murder of anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[BluesLegend]

Just relax these idiot liberals are destroying themselves, pull up a chair and enjoy the show.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Just relax these idiot liberals are destroying themselves, pull up a chair and enjoy the show.

Yes gazelles, pull up a chair and watch the gathering of lions around you.

 

[Nosmo King]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

How do you start? By voting.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

Start by getting registered and voting. Vote the ins out. Mrs. Bosnia Clinton is a definite in.

I'm way past that. I've even written, called, and e-mailed my representatives. Now it's time to do more.

What are you really revolting against?

No one has taken your guns away.

No one has really taken your freedom of speech away.

No one is making you attend any sort of religious organization.

Are you revolting against paying taxes which have not really changed a whole lot in many years?

Obamacare?

Gay marriage? Really?

When you really get down to it what is your bitch that is worth a revolution?

Me thinks your problem is the same problem that gets me riled up, things don't go the way I think they should. I just need to reign in my hubris and realize it is a really big world out there and for some reason there are a lot of folks that don't think as i do. Somehow we all have to learn to just get along. Too bad the left doesn't think anyone's opinion, other then their own, means a thing.

i see the budget deficits and really wonder if the country has gone mad. but then I think I don't really want them cutting medicare or Social Security. Which the latter still pays for itself but seems to be a target. Funny how SS funding is always questioned, although funding is petty clear, but welfare funding is NEVER questioned. Funny still is how SS didn't get a COLA this year but welfare will I am sure. And no, I am not on SS or medicare.

Our courts and law enforcement are corrupt and unconstitutional. I'd say thats a pretty good reason to force them to shape up.

Nonsense.

You're as ignorant as you are wrong.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

Let's roll.

Where's Stephanie?

 

[Toro]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

Armed revolution?

 

[martybegan]

No need for that....they'd be on our side.

You're an idiot. Unanimous support from law enforcement and the military for a rightwing extremist insurrection?

You're dumber than I thought you were, and I didn't think that was possible.

Why would they need unanimous support? Even if 1/4 of them sided with the "rebels" in this hypothetical scenario, then the government would have a hell of a time re-establishing control.

Go back and read the question.

He didn't say they would "all' be on his side.

The question was:

Would killing American soldiers and law enforcement be morally legitimate in the name of 'revolution'?

Like any revolution, only if the revolution succeeds.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Go back and read the question.

He didn't say they would "all' be on his side.

The question was:

Would killing American soldiers and law enforcement be morally legitimate in the name of 'revolution'?

If they are not defending the Constitution they no longer represent a legitimate force.
So yes I could see where it could become necessary,but I find it unlikely.

So the 5 judges on the 'wrong' side of a 5-4 decision could be legitimately shot for the crime of not following the Constitution?

lol good one.

That would depend on the seriousness of the decision.

You're the biggest bullshit artist on this forum.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Civil war? LOL

I think someone tried that already.

You have to wonder why a certain mindset always gravitates to killing other people when they don't get their way politically.

 

[Skylar]

You're an idiot. Unanimous support from law enforcement and the military for a rightwing extremist insurrection?

You're dumber than I thought you were, and I didn't think that was possible.

Why would they need unanimous support? Even if 1/4 of them sided with the "rebels" in this hypothetical scenario, then the government would have a hell of a time re-establishing control.

Go back and read the question.

He didn't say they would "all' be on his side.

The question was:

Would killing American soldiers and law enforcement be morally legitimate in the name of 'revolution'?

Like any revolution, only if the revolution succeeds.

Or in the case of this Gunz n' Ammo masterbation fantasy, even begins.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

He didn't say they would "all' be on his side.

The question was:

Would killing American soldiers and law enforcement be morally legitimate in the name of 'revolution'?

If they are not defending the Constitution they no longer represent a legitimate force.
So yes I could see where it could become necessary,but I find it unlikely.

So the 5 judges on the 'wrong' side of a 5-4 decision could be legitimately shot for the crime of not following the Constitution?

lol good one.

That would depend on the seriousness of the decision.

You're the biggest bullshit artist on this forum.

wow...that was scathing i'm not sure i'll ever recover.

 

[Avatar4321]

Civil war? LOL

I think someone tried that already.

You have to wonder why a certain mindset always gravitates to killing other people when they don't get their way politically.

I suppose that's better than the progressive mindset that gravitates to killing others when they do get their way politically

 

[Skylar]

Civil war? LOL

I think someone tried that already.

You have to wonder why a certain mindset always gravitates to killing other people when they don't get their way politically.

I suppose that's better than the progressive mindset that gravitates to killing others when they do get their way politically

Um, we're not the one's calling for armed rebellion. That would be conservatives.