Comments on: What’s So Funny About Armed Revolution?

By: Erik Stone

Erik Stone — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:37:41 +0000

The problem is that the government might not bother to use soldiers with an armed revolution of the people. The US has unmanned aircraft that don’t need to think about which side they are fighting before they shoot.

By: samurai sword

samurai sword — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:00:51 +0000

Great article. Great Blog. I will visit again.

thanks.

Tom the Sword Gu

By: Marc

Marc — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:14:44 +0000

Perhaps “Nuke them to glass and let God sort them out” is the way to go.

A real waste of Plutonium, Technical grade, ready to use. Sigh…

You arm chair “Diplomats” figure that dichotomy.

By: Jon Rowe

Jon Rowe — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:06:00 +0000

101: I don’t have much to add. My point was simply to note, if one is a bible believing Christian, should one really countenance “REVOLT” as a viable option?

That’s all. I have no problem giving it a rest.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:54:55 +0000

If you wanted to get rid of those responsible for turning America into a hellhole of PC ideology, multiculturalism, and one-world craps, just get rid of the Council of Foreign Relations, the organizations and treasonous Americans that favor one-world government over the USA.

By: BillH

BillH — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:40:07 +0000

So Jon Rowe, I really have to question your motives here. Just what has been your point through all of this? And don’t tell me “Romans 13 says, John Calvin says”. Those of us who are Christian know what Romans 13 says. Those of us who are Christian also know that like every single one of the other prescriptions in God’s Word, the call to submission to rulers is one that not all will follow. Human beings are broken. All have sinned and fall short. Twas ever, and will always be, thus.

Your first words were “I thought Mr. Cramer was a bible believing evangelical Christian.” And the whole comment thread has been hijacked since that, by your personal insult and your personal hobbyhorse. OK sir, we’re all impressed by your diligent study and your great education. Thank you. But give it a rest now…

By: Jack

Jack — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 14:56:23 +0000

Armed resitance to vote fraud has precident in 20th century America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

Non violent protest is next to useless against a government that is willing to kill en mass it’s own citizens ala Tianemen Square.

The civil rights movement was successful in the US because the powers that be were unwilling to mow down unarmed protesters. The mullahs have no such predilictions.

By: Jon Rowe

Jon Rowe — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:59:30 +0000

Romans 13 requires us to obey LAWFUL authority. However, when a so-called king or president claims powers for himself that the law says he does not possess, then he is a usurper, not a legitimate ruler, and rebellion against him is permissible. King George flagrantly violated the Magna Carta and claimed tyrannical powers that he had no legal claim to. Thus, the colonies were loosed from a moral obligation to obey him and submit to him.

OR one could argue King George and Parliament were the lawful rulers against whom America rebelled. And Romans 13 forbids this. If you’ve read Blackstone’s comments about the legal powers of Parliament you’d see why he was a Tory and concluded the American Revolution violated English law.

I’ve seen mythbusters’ argument made before usually to try to make what the FFs did “fit” with Calvin’s doctrine of interposition. And that is Romans 13 says submit to the positive law; therefore if there is a positive law mechanism for removing a King use it. King George could be removed only if they violated positive English law and said law provided a remedy for their removal.

That might take care of what the FFs DID, but not the revolutionary rhetoric of the DOI. The DOI says that when government doesn’t meet certain “ends” — ends by the way not spoken of in the bible — the people have a right to revolt. This is NOT what Romans 13 says and it is not Calvin’s interposition either.

By: Robohobo

Robohobo — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:08:13 +0000

Clayton E. Cramer @ 18: “If Americans started to be arrested for no apparent criminal actions, disappeared into the federal jail system, and were held incommunicado–or worse, all we got were postcards from them in a re-education camp in Nevada, …”

See HR 645. That bill accounts for 6 regional centers. Ostensibly to “…establish national emergency centers on military installations.”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h645:

By: Gary Ogletree

Gary Ogletree — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:15:26 +0000

Clayton, when the Sandinistas did their land reform, basically returning granpa’s farm from the thieving colonels, they handed over the deed accompanied by an AK so the farmer could defend his land, knowing the farmers could turn against them if they wanted. Totalitarians don’t do that. The Sandinistas got the same media smear as Sarah Palin. Reagan copied Carter’s support for the thugocracies of Central America when he could have supported the popular goal of mixed economies and representative democracies in the European style. This very ugly side of Reagan is not discussed, when he was so blinded by his understandable hatred of the Soviet system that he supported armies of “anti-communist” criminals to prey on the subjugated people of the region.