My response to this Progressive article talking about Revolution:

[jasonnfree]

Robert Reich: Why There?s No Outcry for a Revolution in America - Truthdig

Reform is less risky than revolution, but the longer we wait the more likely it will be the latter.

People ask me all the time why we don’t have a revolution in America, or at least a major wave of reform similar to that of the Progressive Era or the New Deal or the Great Society.

Middle incomes are sinking, the ranks of the poor are swelling, almost all the economic gains are going to the top, and big money is corrupting our democracy. So why isn’t there more of a ruckus?

........

It’s possible. of course, that rightwing Republicans, corporate executives, and Wall Street moguls intentionally cut jobs and wages in order to cow average workers, buried students under so much debt they’d never take to the streets, and made most Americans so cynical about government they wouldn’t even try for change.

.........

At some point, working people, students, and the broad public will have had enough. They will reclaim our economy and our democracy. This has been the central lesson of American history.

Here's my response to the article; enjoy:

"What makes you think that a bunch of sissy males who despise and fear guns are going to entertain a revolution? You've disarmed yourselves physically and psychologically. You are slaves to the system your created. I hope you enjoy the NSA breathing down your neck.

The Enlightenment, the idea of Popular Sovereignty, was the REFORM against BIG GOVERNMENT. You Progressives RESTORED Big Government and REBUKED the Enlightenment. Our Bill of Rights was designed to PROTECT us against the GOVERNMENT, and you Progressives cheer as the Bill of RIghts are stripped away, most importantly, the Second Amendment.

You cannot revolt, because any man with a sense of dignity has left your movement. We will not surrender our firearms --- you already have. We will not surrender the Fourth Amendment, you already have. We will not surrender our right to Free Speech, you have have under the guise of "political correctness."

The Government has devoured Progressives like Kronos devoured his children. You surrendered your rights, now you're slaves, why are you surprised?"

bush, ted nugent, and cheney were a couple or three sissy males that despised and feared guns in the 60's when their country called. bush cried and hid behind daddy's skirts, got a nice billet stateside in the national guard where he didn't have to show up. cheney got deferments. Nugent stooped and pooped and stunk. That's ok. Liberals John Kerry and Oliver Stone went and did the man's work instead, not like like some macho gun lovers who would probably poop their pants if the going got tough.

 

[hazlnut]

Progressives designed a system that destroyed themselves.

Damn them!!

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Progressives designed a system that destroyed themselves.

Damn them!!

???

These men fought to reduce Government, not expand it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I don't see you taking up arms or committing violence to break your chains

There is no justification for revolt against the United States Government. The primary method of peaceful resistance still remains --- Trial by Jury.

There sure is justification for revolt. Trial by Jury as a solution is dependent upon having laws in place which address the problem. If the problem is, for instance, the political class and they insure that no laws are passed which hold them accountable, then you can have all the trial by jury that your heart desires and not one single trial will address the issue(s).

Until Trial by Jury is abolished or suspended, the People can only blame themselves as they are convicting each other.

The OJ Trial is a classic case of what happens when A PEOPLE become divided. White America saw OJ's guilt. Black America saw a hero being railroaded.

What other justification for revolt against the United States can even hypothetically exist?

Purposeful intent to create a Brazilian style racial caste system. Purposeful intent to flood the labor market in order to structurally advantage Capital over Labor. Purposeful suppression of civil rights in order to make multiculturalism function. Increasing levels of income redistribution in order to make multiculturalism function.

Multiculturalism is a goal which must be protected and Civil Liberties and the Constitution are expendable in furtherance of that goal.

Don't comply with their laws, and Juries will often acquit you. They can't institute this system upon us if Juries nullify their laws.

Guaranteed the first militia group that mows down drug cartels and jihadists invading our borders will be acquitted by a Jury of their Peers.

Guaranteed the first man who shoots down a drone will be acquitted by a Jury of his Peers.

What could the Government possibly do at that point, unless they use the NDAA to side step jury trials altogether (and then the fight really is on)?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Guaranteed the first man who shoots down a drone will be acquitted by a Jury of his Peers.

What could the Government possibly do at that point, unless they use the NDAA to side step jury trials altogether (and then the fight really is on)?

Are you arguing that the factors causing strain within the US are external actors, like Drug Cartels and Jihadists?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Guaranteed the first man who shoots down a drone will be acquitted by a Jury of his Peers.

What could the Government possibly do at that point, unless they use the NDAA to side step jury trials altogether (and then the fight really is on)?

Are you arguing that the factors causing strain within the US are external actors, like Drug Cartels and Jihadists?

No. Drug Cartels and Jihadists are in fact being aided and abetted by Obama. Fast and Furious is one example, and arming Al Nusra insurgents in Syria is another.

The drug cartels and the jihadis are just puppets of the elites. However, these external factors are in fact ERASING our border. A Nation cannot exist without borders, and the Constitution cannot exist without a Nation. The Militias, being necessary for the Security of a FREE State, must reestablish our Border. Let the Government try to prosecute them after they've defended it, and watch the Juries either acquit or hang. The Juries will never convict.

Trial by Jury and the Right to Bear Arms go hand in hand. This was evidenced at the Battle of Athens, Tennessee. No branch of Government, local, state or federal, even bothered to bring charges against the WWII veterans, because acquittal was guaranteed.

The FORCE behind the Battle of Athens wasn't the firearms, it was the Jury System. This movie (see the video clip) only showed the power of the 2nd Amendment, it forgot to show the aftermath, where the power of 5th and 6th Amendments came into play.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Apparently you didn't my above post. Yes, there are many Neocons who "cling to their guns" whilst clinging to serfdom at the same time. Without a doubt, Dick Cheney (the real President from 2001 to 2008) stripped away the Fourth Amendment and Habeas Corpus, and you're Boy King Obama solidified and reinforced the Government's chokehold on the People. Before Obama came into office, there was plenty of time to reverse course. That's why Obama won so overwhelming into 2008, even I voted for him. Going down the Mccain Neo-con road was certainly not going to make anything better, in fact we'd probably in World War 3 by now if Mccain had won.

And the ACLU is most often correct, especially in their fight against drone usage.

But the ironic part [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] is that you think you're very clever by dropping an un-refutable talking point about the LEVIATHAN OF GOVERNMENT, and yet you truly believe that MORE GOVERNMENT is the solution.

You're not debating some Neo-con sociopath [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] you're debating a Ron Paul conservative. You better google a different set of talking points to debate me.

Who knew that a "Ron Paul conservative" could read the minds of USMB posters?

That you feel the need to attack me and your fellow "Neo-con sociopaths" instead of the issue says volumes about the weakness of your position.

I am an Independent and to be more precise I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I am also a defender of not only the 2nd Amendment but ALL of the rights of We the People.

So when someone makes utterly bogus allegations about what I am supposed to "truly believe" they have to PROVE it by providing links to posts where I have advocated those positions.

Until you provide those links all that is coming from your direction is empty noise with zero substance!

Have a nice day!

So what exactly do we disagree about?

Thank you for tacitly conceding that you were full of it with that baseless allegation about me.

As far as disagreeing goes your slurs against "liberals" are nothing but inflammatory rhetoric. If you expect to engage in a constructive debate you need to respect your opponent's point of view.

 

[Jarlaxle]

There is no justification for revolt against the United States Government. The primary method of peaceful resistance still remains --- Trial by Jury.

There sure is justification for revolt. Trial by Jury as a solution is dependent upon having laws in place which address the problem. If the problem is, for instance, the political class and they insure that no laws are passed which hold them accountable, then you can have all the trial by jury that your heart desires and not one single trial will address the issue(s).

The OJ Trial is a classic case of what happens when A PEOPLE become divided. White America saw OJ's guilt. Black America saw a hero being railroaded.

What other justification for revolt against the United States can even hypothetically exist?

Purposeful intent to create a Brazilian style racial caste system. Purposeful intent to flood the labor market in order to structurally advantage Capital over Labor. Purposeful suppression of civil rights in order to make multiculturalism function. Increasing levels of income redistribution in order to make multiculturalism function.

Multiculturalism is a goal which must be protected and Civil Liberties and the Constitution are expendable in furtherance of that goal.

Don't comply with their laws, and Juries will often acquit you. They can't institute this system upon us if Juries nullify their laws.

Guaranteed the first militia group that mows down drug cartels and jihadists invading our borders will be acquitted by a Jury of their Peers.

Guaranteed the first man who shoots down a drone will be acquitted by a Jury of his Peers.

What could the Government possibly do at that point, unless they use the NDAA to side step jury trials altogether (and then the fight really is on)?

Quite simple and happens all the time: hit them with an avalanche of DOZENS of charges with the potential of about 1,500 years in prison...drag it out long enough that paying for lawyers bankrupts them...then they plead guilty and get a few years. (If they're still a nuisance, arranging for a lifer to shank them isn't all that hard.) No jury required!

 

[bodecea]

Reich stated or implied no such call for violence.

Also, you're straight up wrong here, read his last sentence:

Reform is less risky than revolution, but the longer we wait the more likely it will be the latter.

He's saying if Liberals, like himself and you, don't get their way, by endlessly increasing the size of Government, then liberals are going to use force of arms to expand the size of Government --- out of necessity.

The term "revolution" does not automatically imply violence.....mamooth had you pegged.