Anatomy of a Second American RevolutionSeptember 19, 2014 by Melanie Swick | Be the first to comment »
Before I get started, let’s make one thing perfectly clear—I am not advocating taking up arms in a second American Revolution. Despite the corruption in our own government, I do not believe we are at a point where bloodshed is the proper solution.
As our government has become increasingly corrupt and tone-deaf to what its citizens want, more people have suggested that the solution is to launch an armed revolution. I disagree because we currently have options available to change our government, including voting, protest, and the media. (Though the media has very little credibility these days.)
Since options to change our government without violence are still available, an armed revolution would be unconstitutional because you would be denying these people of their sixth amendment rights.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
You can’t claim to defend the Constitution by violating it.
I’ve noticed that most people seem to have similar arguments either in favor of, or against the concept of an armed revolution. Within the pro-revolution crowd, you can further divide people into those who think we aren’t at the point where it’s necessary and those who think we should have started shooting yesterday. Let’s start by examining the pro and anti-revolution positions.
Many of the people who support the idea of armed revolution generally think that the answer is to start shooting politicians and law enforcement officers who do things they disagree with. I’ve talked to a few of these people, and after telling them I don’t think we are at the point where that is necessary yet, they’ve accused me of violating my oath to the Constitution. (I served in the US Marine Corps infantry.) Ironically, many of these people claim to be Oath Keepers, so if the fact that I’m not running around shooting politicians in the face means I violated my oath to the Constitution, then they are equally guilty because they aren’t running around shooting politicians in the face either. When called out on this fact, they usually respond with some form of “I’m waiting for everyone else to start shooting.”
Simmer down, hero.
Most people who think we should launch a violent revolution have never served in the military, and of those who have, few have served in a capacity that put them in the middle of any real conflict. If you’ve never experienced a war zone, you have no business telling others to initiate a war.
There’s a reason that our troops are generally the last ones to support war and it sure as Hell isn’t fear. It’s because we’ve seen the horror of violence first hand. Have you watched people hiding in homes that have been perforated by bullets and artillery? Have you seen children starving because conflict has destroyed their economy? Have people died, screaming in pain as you stood by unable to save them?
If your answer is no, then shut the hell up about starting a revolution, because you have no idea what comes with that. Anyone who thinks they’ll fire a few rounds and everyone will start following the Constitution is extremely deluded. People in power tend to enjoy that power and will do damn near anything to keep it.
On the other hand, the liberals and those in power (politicians and law enforcement) like to tell us that a revolution is impossible because our military and law enforcement are so well-armed.
They are just as wrong as the people who think revolution will be sunshine and rainbows.
Yes, our military and law enforcement (is there much of a difference these days?) are well armed, but as we’ve seen in countless conflicts and wars, fire superiority does not guarantee their victory. They claim “your AR-15 is nothing against the government’s drones and tanks” and cite that as a reason to just throw up our hands and accept our fate.
It’s true that in a head on battle, the government would quickly crush any opposition, but this would not be a head on battle. Even with advanced technology such as drones, MRAPs, and body armor, poorly educated and underfunded insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have managed to inflict heavy casualties on our troops using guerrilla tactics and improvised booby traps.
That is exactly what the government would face here inside our own borders in the event of a revolution.
Now that we’ve explored the two main positions on a second American Revolution, let’s examine what it would look like if it actually happened. This serves two purposes:
- To educate people in the event that the information ever becomes necessary to conduct a successful revolution.
- To help avoid the situation by educating people on what it would really look like. (As opposed to the bullshit fantasy most people have.)
Martial law could either be the cause of, or the response to a revolution, but in either case, it would be worse than most people could ever imagine unless you’ve spent time in some war-torn shit hole.
Despite the blatant violation of the Constitution, the politicians believe laws like the Patriot Act or the NDAA give them the authority to do what ever they want. You could expect warrantless searches, checkpoints, curfews, seizure of property, and police brutality like you’ve never seen before. And you can forget about due process.
Our economy would be crippled in record time, and food, water, electricity, and gas would likely be rationed, leading to poor sanitation and widespread illness. Without the ability to work and be productive, people would be forced to rely on the government for necessities, and luxuries would all but disappear. The Internet would be shut down and if any other communication channels remain, you can guarantee they will be closely monitored. People may even be moved in centralized locations, like they were after Hurricane Sandy.
Media will be taken over by the state in an effort to control thought and suppress criticism of the government.
Citizens will initially inform on each other in exchange for leniency from law enforcement, but would soon learn that once they are no longer useful to officers, they will be treated the same as before.
At first, most people will despise those fighting for the revolution, believing they are causing, prolonging, or intensifying the problems, but over time, they would realize the government is the cause of the problems and the fighting and martial law is just a symptom.
Every politician with any clout will hide behind an army of law enforcement and/or military. Voting will cease to exist and even if you could protest, they would ignore your complaints. (Though many think they already do.)
They would use every heavy-handed tactic available to retain their power, including violence, imprisonment, and character assassination.
With voting suspended and protest eliminated, violence would be the only way to remove corrupt politicians from office.
During a revolution, some police would abandon their post because they support the Constitution, some would leave because they wanted to stay home to protect their own families, and some would leave because of the increased danger. I have no idea how many would fall into each of those groups, nor do I know how many would stay on-board. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
If you think the police are heavy-handed today, just wait until a revolution kicks off and they implement martial law. Remember the aftermath from the Boston bombing with what was basically a military force rolling down the streets kicking in doors and yanking residents out at gunpoint? Imagine this, everywhere, for a lot longer. It won’t be fun.
These tactics won’t end well for the police though. Many Americans today already have an unfavorable view of law enforcement thanks to everyone having a video camera in their hand and the ability to share evidence of police brutality with millions of people on social media. How do you think it will be perceived when literally everyone is systematically abused by the police on a daily basis?
A note to law enforcement officers: That handy “just following orders” line won’t work. The people affected won’t care that some asshole told the you to abuse them—they will only care that you are abusing them. Citizens don’t want violence any more than you do, so how about we all work together to avoid it in the first place? There are a lot of local law enforcement standing up against federal overreach—will you be one?
US Military Involvement
It wouldn’t take long for the National Guard to be called in, and eventually, Posse Comitatus would be suspended and then active duty military would be called in too. If you think this is far-fetched, take a look at what the Army is currently training for. As with the police, some troops would abandon their post for the same reasons mentioned before, but I don’t believe it would be many. In fact, I believe that a greater percentage of troops would stay on-board (compared to police) for one simple reason. Police work in their own communities, but military personnel would be deployed elsewhere. If military personnel refused to deploy against American citizens, their families would be kicked off base or even arrested, and they would be left stranded with no support network.
With far more manpower and training than the police, our military would present a serious threat to citizens fighting to restore the Constitution, but the same tactics would be effective against both.
An important detail is that our military’s greatest strength—it’s firepower, could not be employed within our borders. Imagine the backlash if US forces fired missiles, artillery or bombs on our own civilians. Any support for the government would disappear immediately and might even cause some within the government to change sides.
A note to US military: The same message I had for law enforcement applies to you. Your oath is to the Constitution, not to your chain of command.
Foreign Military Involvement
Considering that Eric Holder claimed international law trumps the Constitution, it’s not much of a stretch to believe that the government would call in the UN to protect their power.
Strategically, it would be a wise choice on their part because UN troops don’t care about our Constitution, don’t have ties to our citizens like our own police and military do, and they answer only to the political elite.
And you can forget about any sympathizers on the inside when the silly blue hats come marching into town.
On the other hand, foreign troops on our own soil would receive absolutely zero support from citizens, resulting in a larger support network for revolutionaries. Add to that the fact that even the most die-hard pro-government police and military personnel would feel betrayed, and this is pretty much a final power play. If it ever comes down to this, the revolution has made significant progress.
And those pretty blue hats make such great targets!
A note to foreign military: LOL!
Before getting into this section, let’s address a few important details. I do not advocate violence against law enforcement or US military who are lawfully conducting their job, however, enforcing widespread martial law against the will of the people would not be legal or constitutional no matter how the political elite try to spin it. Those who chose to enact (politicians) and enforce (LEO/military) this type of unconstitutional violence against American citizens would make themselves traitors and thus, legitimate enemy combatants. The purpose in illustrating potential tactics is to help those who would be responsible for enforcing martial law understand that they do not have a monopoly on force, and if it ever got to this point, their job would involve far more risk than anything they currently face. Hopefully, this fact will help to prevent such a situation.
When people see a large police presence, they tend to look at them as invincible with their manpower, weaponry, and armor, but the fact of the matter is that even the smallest underfunded revolution can inflict heavy casualties on the largest well-equipped opponent. Law enforcement today operates in relative safety, in fact, it doesn’t even rank in the top ten most dangerous jobs—and most on the job deaths are caused by automobile accidents. During a revolution, that would change as citizens began to engage them using guerrilla tactics.
It’s true that most sane people will not retaliate against police abuse by engaging a heavily armed (and armored) SWAT team in a head on firefight. That would be suicide. They will, however, engage them on their own terms. To think it’s impossible is ludicrous. Remember the chaos that Christopher Dorner caused when he started targeting law enforcement? One relatively untrained man tied up thousands of officers for several days. Now imagine what a few veterans from the Army Rangers or Marine Corps could do. There are currently 21.2 million veterans, and over 270 million gun owners in America. You do the math.
One tactic that has been used successfully against our own military by insurgents is an ambush as they travel to or from their objective. Explosives, napalm, and even large holes or slopes are effective at disabling armored vehicles, and snipers can deal with any exposed personnel.
Vehicles and some mechanical equipment, such as generators, can be disabled by burning them with a fuel, such as gasoline, oil, or napalm. This will destroy electronics and insulation on wiring, any plastic parts, rubber hoses, and more, rendering complex equipment unusable for months.
Tainted fuel, using water, for example, can disable an entire fleet with relatively effort or risk.
Rockets can be improvised with chemicals and hardware available at most stores, and can produce devastating casualties with little to no risk to the people launching them since they can be fired remotely or using a time-delay.
It doesn’t take much effort to booby trap a building and make an anonymous report that would prompt enemy combatants to send units. Upon entering, the booby trap would be triggered, eliminating most of, if not all of them.
A little reconnaissance would quickly identify the homes of enemy combatants, who would then be eliminated individually, much more easily. The revolutionaries with a true warrior mindset would only engage the enemy combatant, but unfortunately, there are people who don’t share that restraint who would likely harm the family as well.
It’s easy to be brave when you kick in a door with a dozen buddies behind you, but when your friends start getting picked off at home, you’ll be reluctant to continue raiding homes of innocent American citizens.
None of this would put an end to martial law though. In most situations, local police would then likely call in the feds (FBI, DHS) and/or the military, but since this would be going on all over the country, there wouldn’t be enough to go around so the next most likely response would be to house the combatants and their families in a secured compound. The flaw here is that centralization makes them a bigger target. A few snipers or a VBIED could wreak absolute havoc on the compound. Alternately, tainting the food or water supply would be a simple yet effective tactic with little chance of getting killed or caught. Unfortunately, these methods would also harm innocent people.
As you can see, there would be plenty of ways to fight back. While law enforcement today operates in relative safety (not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs—in fact, only 105 officers died in the line of duty last year) that would change dramatically in a widespread, long-term martial law environment.
The point of this article is to illustrate that while revolution is possible, it won’t happen the way most people think it will.
Life for every American would change dramatically, and maybe even permanently. Thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people could die. Politicians would enact draconian laws, law enforcement and military would become violent and oppressive against citizens, and citizens would start targeting politicians, law enforcement, and military using guerrilla tactics. A foreign government might even try to step into the strife and take over.
It would be devastating for everyone involved, so it’s our responsibility to get things back on track before it goes that far.
How do we fix the problems that would lead to this?
- Keep those who advocate violent revolution in check. We aren’t there yet so let’s focus on fixing the problems instead of making them worse.
- Hold our politicians accountable. Despite a congressional approval rating of 14%, the incumbency rate is still 90%. How in the Hell are we allowing this to continue? Get involved to push the corrupt ones out and replace them with people who believe in the Constitution, both at the national and local levels.
- Hold our law enforcement accountable. Police corruption and abuse has gotten out of control, and rather than reigning the bad cops in, many cover it up. Work to expose corruption and abuse and support the good cops. They are still out there, but by painting them all with the same brush, you’ll turn more of them against us.
We’re all in this together, so let’s start acting like it by working together.