True. Sorry, I just saw the list of names and missed the context of your post. I was in a hurry.
The KKK, did, I believe.
I’m not sure if the Revolutionaries committed any assassinations, but I wouldn’t be overly astonished.
And then there were the Indian Wars, but that’s a bit more questionable since the Native Americans weren’t necessarily Americans (and I don’t know if they assassinated anyone).
It’s a hard one to call. I did mention James Hinds which was an example of the KKK carrying out what was clearly a political assassination. But in general their crimes are harder to classify.
In most cases of extremist groups using assassination as a weapon, they’re targeting the existing regime. They’re trying to tear down the power structure from below.
The Ku Klux Klan was attacking in the opposite direction. They targeted people who were below them in the social order in an effort to keep those people from trying to rise higher. So I guess I would call them more reactionary terrorists rather then revolutionary terrorists. But I can understand if somebody feels this distinction isn’t crucial.
Yeah, well, man, that’s just like your opinion.
That’s not the point of this thread. I’ve already specified it a few times. But the primary point of this thread is:
If civilian firearm owners are a bulwark against the lost of American rights and freedoms, and would rise up in violence against the government, then where are they?
Even if you accept that the list above isn’t so bad, this isn’t about you. This is about the statistical number of firearm owners in the USA. Certainly, there must be some percentage who do? Some of the things on that list are really bad. So where are these revolutionaries?
The secondary point is a possible reason, in my opinion, why we don’t see any revolutionaries is two-fold. One, the revolutionaries are at home watching TV and eating potato chips. Americans might protest but they will not revolt over the erosion of their rights because they’re too comfortable. People revolt when they’re starving. Additionally, it is incredibly difficult to nearly impossible to start a revolution. The government is very well equipped to deal with individual and small groups, so the first few people who might want to revolt are going to get crushed. This keeps the civilian gun owners from revolting even if they wanted to, which they clearly don’t. The notion that suddenly civilian firearm owners are going to rise up en masse and then defeat the government (which I’m conceding they would) doesn’t seem very plausible.
The only realistic scenario I’ve seen presented that this could happen would be a violent retaliation against protestors, causing them to arm themselves and this spiralling out of control. This works because if you have a large unarmed protest, it can become a large armed protest very quickly giving it that core nucleus to get over that initial hurdle to spark a revolution with sufficient numbers to overthrow the government (which I’m conceding would happen).
So that’s the last time I’m going to explain it. I don’t do loops online. If you don’t get it from this post, then I’m not going to repeat it again.
Bolding mine.
Well, man, that’s just like your opinion.
The thread is your op but isn’t about you. Still let’s imagine it was: you think these things are “really bad” … are they bad enough that you’d be willing to potentially die in a trying to overpower the government to undo it?
But this is about firearm owners who believe that their role is to be a free-standing militia force against the government taking away their rights. These are not people who care about drone strikes on American citizens abroad or brown kids in cages. These are the people who see Trump as their man. What you are asking really is why more are not in the militia movement and why more of them have not acted.
They have, in acts of domestic terrorism, already been driven to revolt against the (((globalist))) cabal, the elitists, and the uppity others, that undermine real America’s rights.
Trump in October at least had his speculation on what would drive these gun owners to action:
The militia movement had 50,000 members in the Michigan Militia alone at its peak and after years of decline started growing again in response to a Black president.
And they have continued to grow with the stated plan to defend Trump and real America with arms since Trump was elected.
This is where they are.
I think we’re not seeing armed revolution because it’s missing a catalyst: widespread economic insecurity. The damage done to public confidence in democratic and administrative institutions is problematic already, but it’s a powder keg if (okay, when) there is an economic collapse.
Why did Arab spring happen? Why did Al Qaeda happen? Because young, mostly unmarried, men couldn’t find work - couldn’t even pay for basic essentials. Telling millions and millions of young men that not only are there no jobs but that they have no hope of having a life and a future of their own as most of us would imagine it growing up…is a recipe for political unrest. Why did ISIS grow so fast? Because they actually paid young men when local governments and legitimate businesses couldn’t, and gave them a sense of community.
People are thinking that things are bad now. Nah, nuh uh. Ain’t seen nothing yet - trust me on that one.
But that brings me back to the issue of a revolution and what it would look like. My take is that the revolution might end up fracturing America as we know it into different pieces, leaving the “United” States broken, never to recover again.
Mind you, despite all my doom and gloom, it doesn’t necessarily have to end this way. But there are going to be major challenges in preserving the American state as we know it. Our constitution is antiquated, and unfortunately, it’s hard to fix its flaws.
^^^ That. Capitalistic economies typically average a recession every 5-7 years, we are in unprecedented 10 year run (121 months now) run of growth, the longest, although not one of the strongest. Typically when capitalist economies go into a recession, generally they do two things: the government will cut interest rates, and borrow more more money in the form of debt. It was done this time although we were already were in a long economic expansion.
When the next recession happens, what is going to be done? Cut interest rates so much it goes into negative returns? Stimulate the economy by doubling the trillion dollar annual debt to two trillion? Let’s hope the next one is just a recession, and it doesn’t pop like the Hindenburg leading us into a depression.
There’s another factor: in an economic crisis, there has to be a way to arrive at some sort of political consensus on what the “solution” is, and the people who are in a position to respond to the crisis (i.e. Treasury Sec and other officials) have to be competent on a macroeconomic level.
In the middle of the Great Recession, we were fortunate that the Republican party hadn’t been completely hijacked by total nut bars. Remember that there was notable opposition to TARP and to bailouts (I acknowledge some Democrats also opposed bailouts to spite ‘evil’ corporations). The point is, the Republicans in power at the time understood that their brand of free market capitalism was failing and that it was in the best interests of the country to swallow their ideology for a bit and inject capital into the system before a total system collapse occurred.
I’m going to assume that in almost any scenario this November, Republicans will have enough power to disrupt and obstruct against Democratic proposals. Regardless of which side of the political fence, it’s the intent to obstruct and disrupt that would be lethal during an economic crisis.
And yes, this is in addition to a number of factors that promise to intensify our economic crisis. Our growing debt is a problem. And paradoxically, our current economic strength on the surface is fueling irresponsible borrowing.