What would it take for you to rebel against the US Government?

[Infohawk]

Apparently, some people find health care reform just cause to rebel against the federal government. Even though I have issues with the bill, rebelling over it is ridiculous.

For me, it would take some undemocratic procedural issue to want to make me rebel. For example, if someone was named president without being elected (and I'm not talking about Bush or the Supreme Court).

What would cause more trouble for me is if a constitutional amendment passed with popular approval. For example, what if the majority of the population decided to take away part of the Bill of Rights. Or what if the majority of the population wanted a religion to be state-mandated. At this point the question would become civil war or leaving the country. I'm not sure what I would do.

What would it take for you?

 

[jpeyton]

Checks and balances would keep the scenarios you envision from becoming reality.

Physical rebellion isn't necessary. The 2008 election was my rebellion, and HCR passing proved me right.

 

[theflyingpig]

what if the majority of the population wanted a religion to be state-mandated.

This would throw me into a rage. Religion is the domain of fools and idiots, and has no place in a modern nation. Everyone knows this.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Apparently, some people find health care reform just cause to rebel against the federal government. Even though I have issues with the bill, rebelling over it is ridiculous.

For me, it would take some undemocratic procedural issue to want to make me rebel. For example, if someone was named president without being elected (and I'm not talking about Bush or the Supreme Court).

What would cause more trouble for me is if a constitutional amendment passed with popular approval. For example, what if the majority of the population decided to take away part of the Bill of Rights. Or what if the majority of the population wanted a religion to be state-mandated. At this point the question would become civil war or leaving the country. I'm not sure what I would do.

What would it take for you?

The HI mandate should be enough for everyone to rebel. It violates the very principles this nation was founded upon. Now as to violence or other actions approaching drastic - not yet but it is just another log on the fire of liberty.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

If they tried to shut down the internetz I would rebel, I would go all Sarah Palin rogue on their ass

 

[brblx]

The HI mandate should be enough for everyone to rebel.

you guys seem to be missing that the mandate for health insurance was only neccessary because we insist on keeping our broken-ass healthcare system.

you are the ones who want everyone to be accountable for themselves, and not dig into your pockets for healthcare- but if you have a serious illness or injury, that's exactly what you're doing to everyone else when you tell the hospital that you can't pay your hundred thousand dollar bill.

don't want to have to buy health insurance? support a single payer system.

 

[Infohawk]

Now as to violence or other actions approaching drastic - not yet but it is just another log on the fire of liberty.

1. opposition to one in authority or dominance
2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

I'm talking about definition number 2 here. I have no issue with people opposing the health care bill. I'm talking about being violent.

 

[jpeyton]

The HI mandate should be enough for everyone to rebel.

Everyone minus the half who support HCR. Minus the 2/3rds who don't support using physical force to overthrow the government. Minus 7/8ths who don't have any combat/weapons training of any kind.

What does that leave you with? A few nutjobs like McVeigh, a few militia members who get trampled by SWAT, and a few protesters who get beanbag rounds when they feel uppity.

 

[Red Dawn]

I remember Nixon and his buddies trying to suppress Freedom of Speech with guns and that wasn't enough to get the country to rebel. I guess it would have to be something really dastardly like outlawing cofee.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

you guys seem to be missing that the mandate for health insurance was only neccessary because we insist on keeping our broken-ass healthcare system.

you are the ones who want everyone to be accountable for themselves, and not dig into your pockets for healthcare- but if you have a serious illness or injury, that's exactly what you're doing to everyone else when you tell the hospital that you can't pay your hundred thousand dollar bill.

don't want to have to buy health insurance? support a single payer system.

No, that is a false choice. There is plenty that can be reformed without the heavy hand of the Feds mandating you participate in xyz.
I carry insurance. Not just Health Insurance but many other types. It is a voluntary risk pool participation for unexpected incidences. Mandating Health Insurance and throwing everyone into the same pool does nothing to "reform" anything - it merely forces everyone into the unreformed system by gov't force.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Apparently, some people find health care reform just cause to rebel against the federal government. Even though I have issues with the bill, rebelling over it is ridiculous.

For me, it would take some undemocratic procedural issue to want to make me rebel. For example, if someone was named president without being elected (and I'm not talking about Bush or the Supreme Court).

What would cause more trouble for me is if a constitutional amendment passed with popular approval. For example, what if the majority of the population decided to take away part of the Bill of Rights. Or what if the majority of the population wanted a religion to be state-mandated. At this point the question would become civil war or leaving the country. I'm not sure what I would do.

What would it take for you?

Very close to what you suggest. So long as I have non-violent options to fix the situation, I'll not resort to violence. In the case of health care for instance, we still have court cases to be heard. I won't participate in the meantime...I'll refuse to obtain insurance and I'll also refuse to pay the fine...but I'm not going to off someone over it.

Violence is the course of last resort. When nothing else is left, and you cannot participate in society any longer. When outside forces face the confrontation and you cannot morally back down. That's the time of violence.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd have to become a psycho nut-case Republican with testacles the size of ants like the ones who post here.

 

[kylebisme]

Checks and balances would keep the scenarios you envision from becoming reality.

Our checks and balances are riddled with corruption, but we are still in a position where it would be far easier to vote in better government than to mount an overthrow of one, though public apathy makes even the former a long shot.

 

[nonlnear]

Checks and balances would keep the scenarios you envision from becoming reality.

Physical rebellion isn't necessary. The 2008 election was my rebellion, and HCR passing proved me right.

You don't seem to understand what "checks and balances" means. There are no checks or balances to protect from any Constitutional amendment.

And to answer the OP, a hell of a lot. The combined evil of George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama is not enough to make me want to rebel. This is still a wonderful country warts and all.

 

[BudAshes]

If GW and Jeb stealing an election and then GW and friends doing their best to run this country off a cliff didn't do it, I don't know what will.

 

[Anarchist420]

Right now, I feel kind of bad that I'm not rebelling violently against Congress. Most of these legislators need to die--they are war criminals and theives. They're stealing and they're breaking the law. They're simply a threat to our Safety and happiness.

 

[boomerang]

Might as well use the health care bill as an example because it's still front and center in everyone's minds.

Proponents for the bill that passed cited polls that showed that people were for certain parts of the bill - therefore the bill was supported by the people. I disagree. I do so because there were numerous aspects to the bill. There was the good and there was the bad. Both parts made up the the bill in its entirety. Those that were polled on the entirety of the bill chose by a sizable majority in poll after poll to reject it.

We're supposed to have a representative form of government. I contend that we don't at this point. We don't because the will of the people was circumvented. Our form of government was not designed to work that way. Even if the majority of the people are wrong, that is their will.

Everyone has their own breaking point. There are different forms of rebellion. The November elections should be a rebellion. A completely legal form of rebellion.

If the 535 members of Congress want to continue circumventing the will of the people, IMO, they should make sure that it's truly going to be in their best interest to do so.

The most worrisome form of rebellion would be nothing more than a bloody civil war. We'd better all hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[irishScott]

If there was a blatant violation of more than one of the key tenants of the Constitution, or one really big one (ie: no more free speech, integration of church and state). But that won't happen; and quite honestly I'd rather run for public office than take on any significant portion of the US military.

 

[nyker96]

You don't seem to understand what "checks and balances" means. There are no checks or balances to protect from any Constitutional amendment.

And to answer the OP, a hell of a lot. The combined evil of George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama is not enough to make me want to rebel. This is still a wonderful country warts and all.

I think amendments system is there to allow the constitution to evolve with time.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Might as well use the health care bill as an example because it's still front and center in everyone's minds.

Proponents for the bill that passed cited polls that showed that people were for certain parts of the bill - therefore the bill was supported by the people. I disagree. I do so because there were numerous aspects to the bill. There was the good and there was the bad. Both parts made up the the bill in its entirety. Those that were polled on the entirety of the bill chose by a sizable majority in poll after poll to reject it.

We're supposed to have a representative form of government. I contend that we don't at this point. We don't because the will of the people was circumvented. Our form of government was not designed to work that way. Even if the majority of the people are wrong, that is their will.

Everyone has their own breaking point. There are different forms of rebellion. The November elections should be a rebellion. A completely legal form of rebellion.

If the 535 members of Congress want to continue circumventing the will of the people, IMO, they should make sure that it's truly going to be in their best interest to do so.

The most worrisome form of rebellion would be nothing more than a bloody civil war. We'd better all hope it doesn't come to that.

While we may disagree on the HC bill I agree with the rest of your post.
We as citizens have the right to rebel with our votes, violence should always be the last resort and not something ever used out of anger or displeasure.

 

[nageov3t]

a military coup or some other completely indefensible act (like if the health insurance bill was challenged in the supreme court and the president put all of the justices under house arrest to prevent them from voting)... though realistically, if things ever got that bad I'd be more inclined to take advantage of my father's canadian citizenship before anything else.

 

[OrByte]

No, that is a false choice. There is plenty that can be reformed without the heavy hand of the Feds mandating you participate in xyz.
I carry insurance. Not just Health Insurance but many other types. It is a voluntary risk pool participation for unexpected incidences. Mandating Health Insurance and throwing everyone into the same pool does nothing to "reform" anything - it merely forces everyone into the unreformed system by gov't force.

not by government force.

by law...law that was legally voted into statute by our elected representatives....and signed into Law by the legally elected POTUS.

all of which...is legal

 

[nageov3t]

repealing term limits or postponing elections would also give me great pause.

 

[cubby1223]

I guess it would have to be something really dastardly like outlawing cofee.

I wouldn't put it past the Dems to tax coffee to its demise. Someone somewhere along the way will declare caffeine as a contributor to health care costs.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The HI mandate should be enough for everyone to rebel. It violates the very principles this nation was founded upon. Now as to violence or other actions approaching drastic - not yet but it is just another log on the fire of liberty.

Your revisionist history must be very up to date.