My Historical Analysis on three events that caused lost of rights in USA

[Cosmic Fury]

Rodri, look at the part where King George is being condemned for his acts and why.

If the government does that, then the first parts of the document apply. Those grievances were in essence a violation of all the basic liberties that Americans would have otherwise enjoyed, other than being free from slavery.

If that happens, then the government does need to be changed--by the people, who unfortunately for the most part don't care a lot for such actions anymore.

[Rodri]

The Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war.
The acts committed by King George were the grievances listed as the reason for that war and although I could give similar examples from modern times, are not relevant. It is the opening paragraph that I think is still now and always will be relevant as long as humanity chooses to construct democratic systems of government.

[Cosmic Fury]

Or chooses any government meant to uphold those freedoms. Period.


That I at least agree on.

Yes, the Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war. But originally it was Englishmen fighting against Englishmen for their usual freedoms. It became Americans fighting Englishmen when the Americans decided that enough was enough, and threw off their now-foreign shackles and set up a form of government that suited the freedoms they sought.

[Gnerphk]

OK; sure. The question is -- and it can be raised academically, thanks -- are the present oppressions in the United States sufficient grounds for revolution?

Without debating specific cases, I'd suggest they are not. The present system may well be broken (and taxation is certainly excessive by any historic measure), but it does permit and even demand change from within. I'd suggest that a successful grass-roots political campaign would be more in order than armed rebellion in such a case.

Consider: A single state would require one candidate per district to coordinate activities; that's only a few dozen people of like mind in even the most populous state. Then, a sizeable war-chest and a decent advertising agency would place the group on relative par with any extant party.

It's a simple and effective concept. More, at any time such movements are rare, one would conclude civil unrest to be a correspondingly weak force and change to be unlikely.

[Rodri]

You and Humility are the only persons talking violent revolution here, I have said a number of times that I believe in non-violent action and I know it can work. Once the number of people stirred to act reaches critical mass, these things tend to take on a life of their own.

I will give one example as it is the latest abuse of power.
Being forced to walk through a high powered x-ray which may cause sterility in men or even cancer, or being forced to be subjected to an invasive body-search if you refuse is not only unconstitutional but is also against the law. Not even police can perform the types of searches that these TSA thugs are performing (from many reports). Just because they are a federal authority does not place them above or outside the law. That is also in the Bill of Rights if you care to read it.

[Dawnseeker]

Or chooses any government meant to uphold those freedoms. Period.


That I at least agree on.

Yes, the Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war. But originally it was Englishmen fighting against Englishmen for their usual freedoms. It became Americans fighting Englishmen when the Americans decided that enough was enough, and threw off their now-foreign shackles and set up a form of government that suited the freedoms they sought.

The American Revolution was never Americans fighting against the British, because they were all British until the colonists won. If the colonists had lost, it would have been called the British Civil War or the Colonial Rebellion, not the American Revolution.

Oh yeah, and this topic is too political.