Advocating overthrow of government through violence or armed resistance

[Brawny71]

I believe advocating undermining US government through use of force or violence is still against the law. Just curious how many of these advocates are on the Internet right now. #thinblueline #lawenforcement | Kyle Reyes | 152 comments

 

[FP1201]

I believe advocating undermining US government through use of force or violence is still against the law. Just curious how many of these advocates are on the Internet right now. #thinblueline #lawenforcement | Kyle Reyes | 152 comments

It's somewhat confusing that our Founding Documents not only say, but demand the overthrow of a tyrannical government, however subsequent Laws have ultimate penalties for sedition, treason, and Armed Rebellion...Seems like conflicting and highly subjective ideologies.

OK, so now you've run down and sedated a 12 ton Bull Elephant...now WTF are you going to do when it wakes up?
Our Government doesn't need to be overthrown, it needs a good enema to flush out shit that's been in Office well over twenty five years.

 

[Zerex]

The left is encouraging this.

I can see the cracks in society, due mostly to the lawless outlaw democrat officials who have shitcanned the Federal Code in the blue states.

Will the 7 or 8 blue states, form a Confederacy and secede.?
The CBS.....Confederation of Blue States?

The usual suspects would lead it, and as a new country, could sign alliances with China, to come and protect it.

 

[FP1201]

The left is encouraging this.

I can see the cracks in society, due mostly to the lawless outlaw democrat officials who have shitcanned the Federal Code in the blue states.

Will the 7 or 8 blue states, form a Confederacy and secede.?
The CBS.....Confederation of Blue States?

The usual suspects would lead it, and as a new country, could sign alliances with China, to come and protect it.

That's generally how communists work, the up side of which is the commies that came to "protect" the fledgling leaders would execute them first as soon as their usefulness expires.
Even conquerors detest traitors as they know eventually they will betray their new Master the same as they did their countrymen.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

Just curious how many of these advocates are on the Internet right now.

I'm here. I want this as much as anybody.

 

[holdover]

Dude you dont have to fire a shot! give them a few states, under the condition that they all have to live there . Id buy that. Get the fuck out and dont come back

 

[GOPerfect]

This is in fact, against the law.

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government​

 

[FP1201]

This is in fact, against the law.

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government​

Well we shouldn't need guns to protect against a tyrannical government if it's illegal to overthrow it.
The same government that wrote that did so to protect themselves from those they would subjugate. the people they're supposed to serve....look at most of the Laws dealing with interactions between the Public and Government are to protect their sorry asses behind a Flag of Public Service making themselves exempt and a protected class...Tyrannical Cops aren't the only ones that go on power trips. edited to fix grammatical errors.

 

[Defilade]

The Declaration of Independence says we have the right to abolish the government and institute a new one. They gave everyone a loophole. Nobody's taking it so their conscience is clear as they fuck everyone over.

 

[GOPerfect]

The Declaration of Independence says we have the right to abolish the government and institute a new one. They gave everyone a loophole. Nobody's taking it so their conscience is clear as they fuck everyone over.

Kind of... Not really....

• Declaration of Independence (1776): Philosophical, political justification for the colonies to break from Britain.
• U.S. Constitution (1789): The actual law of the land; creates the government and sets legal rules.

The Declaration expresses a moral argument (“it is the Right of the People”)—it’s aspirational and theoretical. It is not enforceable law today. It does not grant Americans a legal right to overthrow the government.

 

[GOPerfect]

Constitution is the law​

• The Constitution establishes legal mechanisms for change: voting, amendments, impeachment, recall (in some states), petitions, etc.
• Any attempt to forcibly “alter or abolish” the government outside these mechanisms is illegal under U.S. law, and would be considered treason or insurrection (Article III, Section 3; 18 U.S. Code § 2383).

 

[GOPerfect]

There is so much confusion and word splitting these days.

None of our Justices, IMO, fully comprehend the true meanings and our Rights.

They all have an agenda....

Thomas Jefferson​

• Jefferson often spoke of the people as a safeguard against government overreach.
• Quote from 1787:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

James Madison​

• Known as the “Father of the Constitution” and primary author of the Bill of Rights.
• In Federalist Papers and letters:

He saw a well-regulated militia as a check on both foreign threats and potential domestic tyranny.

• In 1788, Madison wrote about people’s right to bear arms in relation to militias as a safeguard against a standing army being used oppressively.

Patrick Henry​

• Famous for “Give me liberty, or give me death!”
• Advocated armed citizenry to protect freedom from government encroachment.
• Strongly supported including a right to bear arms in the Constitution to prevent tyranny.

George Mason​

• Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which inspired the Second Amendment.
• In 1776:

He argued that the people have the right to armed resistance if the government fails to protect their liberties.

Founding context​

• The general theme: armed militias and citizens were a check on a potentially oppressive central government.
• This was especially relevant because the new United States had no large standing army, which many feared could become a tool of tyranny.

 

[Grimscale]

Constitution is the law​

• The Constitution establishes legal mechanisms for change: voting, amendments, impeachment, recall (in some states), petitions, etc.
• Any attempt to forcibly “alter or abolish” the government outside these mechanisms is illegal under U.S. law, and would be considered treason or insurrection (Article III, Section 3; 18 U.S. Code § 2383).

And when a government seeks to exist outside it specific legal mechanism it is no longer a recognized form of government, thus losing any and all protections of 18 U.S. Code § 2383.

Is removing an un-Constitutional government really treason or insurrection?

 

[Defilade]

Constitution is the law​

• The Constitution establishes legal mechanisms for change: voting, amendments, impeachment, recall (in some states), petitions, etc.
• Any attempt to forcibly “alter or abolish” the government outside these mechanisms is illegal under U.S. law, and would be considered treason or insurrection (Article III, Section 3; 18 U.S. Code § 2383).

Nope! We have been operating under “Maritime Law” with each state, county, city and divisions or agencies have been operating under as corporations. Common law is the real law. and Contracts makes the law. Our current Government is a fraud as it has been usurped into a Corporation.

 

[Tisto]

Constitution is the law​

• The Constitution establishes legal mechanisms for change: voting, amendments, impeachment, recall (in some states), petitions, etc.
• Any attempt to forcibly “alter or abolish” the government outside these mechanisms is illegal under U.S. law, and would be considered treason or insurrection (Article III, Section 3; 18 U.S. Code § 2383).

This is why if you're going to poison the King, you'd better make damn sure it kills him.

 

[Robin]

Should say duly elected government, not the domain elected government. When we had the Patriot Act steal our bill of right's Liberty and allowed the NSA to record every last phone call in the country, why can't they track down who is funding the insurrection in Minnesota. Seems like having my Liberty unlawfully taken from me isn't paying the dividends promised. Some entity is reaping the benefits, wonder who?
Robin

 

[FP1201]

Kind of... Not really....

• Declaration of Independence (1776): Philosophical, political justification for the colonies to break from Britain.
• U.S. Constitution (1789): The actual law of the land; creates the government and sets legal rules.

The Declaration expresses a moral argument (“it is the Right of the People”)—it’s aspirational and theoretical. It is not enforceable law today. It does not grant Americans a legal right to overthrow the government.

The Declaration was the Death Warrant for every Man that signed it, to the King, it was Treason and back then they didn't give much of a shit it you were hung or shot, so long as you were made dead.
My inarticulate point is that our founding documents gave the People the power and options to change our Government, and those we placed in power made it illegal to do so.
This Constitutional Convention (It's been called for on and off since at least the 70's) sounds like a good idea until you face the reality that anything and everything could be changed or even scrapped...can you imagine having a Second Amendment Right if democrats held majority in a convention?
It's worked for 250 years because ordinary men in positions of power couldn't easily fuck with it. Remember the Prohibition on Alcohol and it's repeal? The NFA of '34 was attributed to the violence from Prohibition, and of course there was Income Tax and the Federal Reserve that were made possible from changes. (at least I think, could be mistaken)

 

[RedBreast21]

Every govt makes it illegal to overthrow it. Still doesn't stop the action of overthrow when the tyranny becomes so great, resistance is the only solution. But is our govt now, the reason for overthrow? Some are pushing that narrative. Be careful of what controls your thoughts.

We have been involved in a color revolution for ten years now. The managed decline of the United State at the hands of the UK and EU banking families. It would have been completed by now had Hillary won 2016. Trumps win in 2024, the real Epstein files (leverage) and control of the USD which is firmly in the hands of Trump and the American people, has them in full panic mode. A massive and necessary financial reset is underway and it has the old world bankers contemplating burning the entire world economy down. Every single country in the West has 100% capitulated to Trump. No one asks the obvious question. Why? He walked into Davos and lay waste to globalism and walked out.

The foreign influence in this country would not be tolerated by any other first world military power. We clearly have traitors in Congress and at all levels of our govt, in all agencies. This will not be an easy task to smoke them out. But they are getting smoked out. Maduro in my opinion, walked into that Brooklyn facility way to cocky saying "Happy New Year" to a guard. He is dealing. Those files in Georgia, with Gabard present, sent that clear message of foreign involvement in 2020 election and that could not happen without local support. The democrats signaling now that anything found would be planted by Trump.

Oh 2026 mid-terms will be a spicy year. Calm your mind. We haven't seen the real enemy yet

 

[Celt]

When is it really tyranny and not a temper tantrum that things arent going your way? All politicians keep taking our freedoms, and they have figured out how to do it and get away with it.

If its just a temper tantrum, like the left is having, then you have big trouble coming if you try toboverthrow the gov. But at what point is it really tyranny, to which we have a duty to address? In NY, I believe we are living under a form of tyranny with how our 2a rights are treated, how we are taxed, and restricted.

 

[Brawny71]

It's somewhat confusing that our Founding Documents not only say, but demand the overthrow of a tyrannical government, however subsequent Laws have ultimate penalties for sedition, treason, and Armed Rebellion...Seems like conflicting and highly subjective ideologies.

OK, so now you've run down and sedated a 12 ton Bull Elephant...now WTF are you going to do when it wakes up?
Our Government doesn't need to be overthrown, it needs a good enema to flush out shit that's been in Office well over twenty five years.

Yes and protections and processes exist for this legally. The point of the thread post is professors advocating armed resistance. Much like a recent legislator (of the Federal Legislative branch) saying that shooting Ice is justified. Yes, The People have the right and responsibility to be able to resist an oppressive government . The manipulation and misrepresentation of what is going on added to Elected Officials rationalizing and justifying (who are also the part of the process who can actually TAKE action (Or surprise us all and do ANYTHING) creates facilitation for a weaker part of the populace who will overreact. All of which undermines the overall structure and process.

 

[FP1201]

Kind of... Not really....

• Declaration of Independence (1776): Philosophical, political justification for the colonies to break from Britain.
• U.S. Constitution (1789): The actual law of the land; creates the government and sets legal rules.

The Declaration expresses a moral argument (“it is the Right of the People”)—it’s aspirational and theoretical. It is not enforceable law today. It does not grant Americans a legal right to overthrow the government.

just remember that one comma has been the contention of meaning in the Second Amendment.

 

[Brawny71]

Yes and protections and processes exist for this legally. The point of the thread post is professors advocating armed resistance. Much like a recent legislator (of the Federal Legislative branch) saying that shooting Ice is justified. Yes, The People have the right and responsibility to be able to resist an oppressive government . The manipulation and misrepresentation of what is going on added to Elected Officials rationalizing and justifying (who are also the part of the process who can actually TAKE action (Or surprise us all and do ANYTHING) creates facilitation for a weaker part of the populace who will overreact. All of which undermines the overall structure and process.

 

[CaseHardened]

Ok, a great many Mayors and other fools have declared areas in their cities are NO-GO for ICE.

That's insurrection right there.

I expect it's all just blather so as to appease their fellow Democrat Communists constituents.

But what happens when some "Barney Fife" local PD decides they are going to FORCIBLY stop ICE Agents?

 

[Brawny71]

Ok, a great many Mayors and other fools have declared areas in their cities are NO-GO for ICE.

That's insurrection right there.

I expect it's all just blather so as to appease their fellow Democrat Communists constituents.

But what happens when some "Barney Fife" local PD decides they are going to FORCIBLY stop ICE Agents?

Those examples also don’t allow local leos to perform their role; outer perimeter control of public. Hence why Ice fails (almost by design) because THAT isn’t what they do and aren’t trained for.

 

[Grimscale]

But what happens when some "Barney Fife" local PD decides they are going to FORCIBLY stop ICE Agents?

More importantly:
What happens when some "Barney Fife" local PD decides they've had enough of stupid mayors and governors and decides to arrest them if/when they wander through his territory?

Now THAT'S the "anti-government" action I would love to see.

 

[Brawny71]

The contrast between cities who assisted and kept the model(local Leo outer cordon, ICE on mission) and NO incidents needs to be heard more. As usual, 1% makes the news and the good takedowns of really bad people goes uncovered.

 

[Criticalt]

There is so much confusion and word splitting these days.

None of our Justices, IMO, fully comprehend the true meanings and our Rights.

They all have an agenda....

Thomas Jefferson​

• Jefferson often spoke of the people as a safeguard against government overreach.
• Quote from 1787:

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

James Madison​

• Known as the “Father of the Constitution” and primary author of the Bill of Rights.
• In Federalist Papers and letters:

He saw a well-regulated militia as a check on both foreign threats and potential domestic tyranny.

• In 1788, Madison wrote about people’s right to bear arms in relation to militias as a safeguard against a standing army being used oppressively.

Patrick Henry​

• Famous for “Give me liberty, or give me death!”
• Advocated armed citizenry to protect freedom from government encroachment.
• Strongly supported including a right to bear arms in the Constitution to prevent tyranny.

George Mason​

• Author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which inspired the Second Amendment.
• In 1776:

He argued that the people have the right to armed resistance if the government fails to protect their liberties.

Founding context​

• The general theme: armed militias and citizens were a check on a potentially oppressive central government.
• This was especially relevant because the new United States had no large standing army, which many feared could become a tool of tyranny.

I believe there is a bit of nuance needed in this conversation. One side, Red or Blue, cannot "overthrow" the government because they dont like how the current administration is doing things. This is where we are now.
But, if the government went WAY overboard and unequivocally started not only violating, but completely eliminating ALL Americans rights, a forced reset may be called for.
This is exactly what many leftists are pushing for. They are saying that Trump is blatantly removing rights, actively trying to stop the 2028 election so he stays in command, and removing states rights. If that was actually happening, the majority of the Right would join the Left in a forced reset by removing Trump and replacing him.
My point is, its illegal for one group...Left, Right, Antifa....to overthrow the government. But if ALL Americans agree, the laws dont matter.

 

[CaseHardened]

President Lincoln became a de-facto Dictator.

It was necessary.

Trump needs to adopt Lincoln's methods.

Abraham Lincoln emphasized the importance of preserving the Union above all else, stating, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union."

 

[FP1201]

President Lincoln became a de-facto Dictator.

It was necessary.

Trump needs to adopt Lincoln's methods.

Abraham Lincoln emphasized the importance of preserving the Union above all else, stating, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union."

It always seems to come down to Lincoln, but a significant portion of Congress either resigned or was expelled effectively leaving no representation of seceding States in the Union.
The Left would love for Trump to do anything they could point to and say "See, he's acting like a King/Dictator" and we need to impeach him!

AI overview:
Yes, Congress effectively split when the Civil War began. Between December 1860 and July 1861, a large number of Southern senators and representatives resigned or were expelled following their states' secession, removing most opposition to Republican policies
. This exodus left many empty seats and allowed for significant, wartime legislative action.

• Mass Resignations: Southern legislators left Washington D.C. as their states withdrew from the Union, with many delivering farewell speeches.
• Expulsions: The U.S. Senate formally expelled 10 members who failed to appear or supported the Confederacy, including prominent figures like John Breckinridge.
• Political Impact: The departure of Southern Democrats gave Republicans a commanding majority, enabling them to pass major legislation such as the Homestead Act, the Morrill Land-Grant Act, and railroad legislation.
• Empty Desks: For a time, the empty desks of the departed Southerners served as a stark, symbolic reminder of the nation's division.
• Functionality: Despite the dramatic departure, the U.S. Congress continued to operate, with the 37th and 38th Congresses (the "Civil War Congresses") passing critical legislation to manage the war effort.

 

[CaseHardened]

It always seems to come down to Lincoln, but a significant portion of Congress either resigned or was expelled effectively leaving no representation of seceding States in the Union.
The Left would love for Trump to do anything they could point to and say "See, he's acting like a King/Dictator" and we need to impeach him!

AI overview:
Yes, Congress effectively split when the Civil War began. Between December 1860 and July 1861, a large number of Southern senators and representatives resigned or were expelled following their states' secession, removing most opposition to Republican policies
. This exodus left many empty seats and allowed for significant, wartime legislative action.

• Mass Resignations: Southern legislators left Washington D.C. as their states withdrew from the Union, with many delivering farewell speeches.
• Expulsions: The U.S. Senate formally expelled 10 members who failed to appear or supported the Confederacy, including prominent figures like John Breckinridge.
• Political Impact: The departure of Southern Democrats gave Republicans a commanding majority, enabling them to pass major legislation such as the Homestead Act, the Morrill Land-Grant Act, and railroad legislation.
• Empty Desks: For a time, the empty desks of the departed Southerners served as a stark, symbolic reminder of the nation's division.
• Functionality: Despite the dramatic departure, the U.S. Congress continued to operate, with the 37th and 38th Congresses (the "Civil War Congresses") passing critical legislation to manage the war effort.

I'm seeing things that are necessary.