/liberty/ - Liberty

>>91352

Basically this. You can have bottom-up "revolutions" in the form of nonviolent revolutions like mass boycotts or tech revolutions, but violent revolution really is a top-down structure in almost all cases, and it's basically a matter of an elite group of individuals with strong ties that have lasted for years having underlings who do most of the people work/take most of the hit from the feds while the internal group remains disconnected or relatively unaffected. A bottom-up violent revolution might be possible, but it's just not probable in the age of information. With glow-in-the-darks around every corner, it's just not gonna happen. Especially when you consider the chances of information spilling increase linearly to about 250 people at which point you're leaving the magic number range (the number range of about 100-300 individuals where social cohesion can be maintained for unnatural social formats as a decentralized process via social pressure without the need for enforcement groups). After you exceed the magic number, the chances of a leak increase exponentially, so all you can either do is break your organization into "cells" that can operate independently of one another/aren't fully aware of each other's existence, or never grow that large to begin with. All that being said, you really would only need a group of about 100 armed and moderately trained (~3 months) riflemen marching on DC while congress is in session to revolutionize America overnight, but that would have to be a group of 100 armed and moderately trained individuals with strong social ties who all feel strongly enough patriotically to overthrow the despotic federal government/are willing to risk their lives to do so, but equally don't feel enough ties to their nation to think that changing it from inside is impossible, so… Good luck.

>>91365

You keep taking the words right out of my mouth, anon.

>>91361

The only argument behind guns is that all humans are mortal and only live once, and this isn't ancient society where you were raised with the man you consider your leader since childbirth giving you a "willing-to-die-for-him" level of loyalty. There's a reason the military has to basically mentally "break" you before they even begin to teach you as a cohesive unit, and why even combat deaths among soldiers aren't as high as on-the-job deaths in certain fields of work. If you are reminded of that mortal coil of yours by seeing your partner or superior or etc. get his brains blown out during a SWAT raid by some redneck with a shotgun, it makes it very, very hard to convince you to go back into that a second time. When that cop in New York got shot in his vehicle a couple years back, the entirety of NYCPD resorted to only enforcing minor infractions unless they were physically called to the scene of a crime for over a week before the mayor had to threaten to fire all of them if they didn't start issuing parking tickets/drug enforcement again (and a number of them transferred to other departments or to other police forces altogether after that incident). People don't want to die, and having a gun pointed at your face (or the knowledge that the situation could evolve into that) when you tell someone to do something they don't want to do is a good way to make anyone think more rationally/act as if they were in polite company. Police are much nicer/polite when giving tickets to people out hunting or who have declared they're in possession of a firearm within reach for a reason. Obviously this goes hand-in-hand with being responsible so you aren't perceived as an "I'm going to irrationally shoot you" tier threat.

tl;dr- blind loyalty is hard to find among alphabet soup agencies (or anyone) these days, and agents of the state are very much aware of their own mortality when working around armed individuals. Whether gun rights are a thing or not, the threat of having a lethal weapon that can kill you pointed at you for performing your task on a daily basis is enough to drastically reduce the number of volunteers willing to work for said alphabet soup agencies, and drastically reduces the current numbers' willingness to engage a target since an encounter could prove lethal, even if the agent has all of the precautions to prevent being shot. There's a reason most of the police brutality reports, drug plants, corrupt cop videos, rude/violent cop videos, etc. come almost exclusively from areas where guns have basically been banned in America.

>>91358

>violent revolution really is a top-down structure in almost all cases

I used to tell myself this wasn't the case, but I've recently been reading a book on the 1916 Easter uprising, and I have to admit this is correct. If they'd lost, history would remember the IRA (and the Sons of Liberty, etc.) as a bunch of overly ambitious hooligans.

>>91349

Well first off, its important to remember that each state acted as its own sort of "country" under the dominion of the British Empire. And as their semi-own thing, they had their own standing militias to handle any immediate need for them, rather than having to write a letter, ship it to London, and request the British Army to come and defend them.

And the American Revolution was boiling over for years and years with the British violating the colonist natural rights as British citizens (as they saw it) and specifically their stamp act and reducing the colonies to an enforced trade agreement which basically just made them the sort of far away producers who could only make stuff for the mother country, without having any representation in that government. This meme idea that it was just taxes is fucking ahistorical garbage.

So, the hot bed of this revolution was in Boston, and because there were groups like Sons of Liberty who were spreading these ideas to the more blue collar guys, and people like Thomas Paine who were giving it a more intellectual backing, so eventually, everyone in the colonies, despite class or profession, agreed with the ideals of the revolution. Boston was getting so out of hand with these ideas that the crown sent the British army to occupy the city (which only pissed them off even more) and they eventually got orders to seize the armory of the Massachuetts state militia because they feared they would eventually start an insurrection against the British bc they were getting so rowdy (Boston Massacre/Boston Tea Party ect.)

But the people in the militia got wind of their orders to disarm them and stood in their way. This was the Battle of Lexington and Concord which eventually started the war of all the colonies against the British.

>>91359

>Historically only something like 5% of the population felt strongly enough to go to war with the brits while the rest of the population got dragged along.

This isnt true. The American Revolution was the most popularly supported war in our history and had massive support among the people, especially at the start of it. Support started to grow smaller as the war dragged on though

https://observer.com/2017/07/soldiers-militia-american-revolution/

>>91410

>>91456

First off, right wing and left wing comes after the American revolution. And it was during the French Revolution with all those on the left side supporting a democratic republic while the right side of the French parliament was the monarchist who wanted to keep their king, so technically, the American revolution would be more left wing if anything. Youre operating on a politically illiterate frame work.

The revolutionaries in France were very much aligned with the same philosophy of the American Revolution. The Declarations of the Rights of Man was written by Lafayette and he got help writing it from Thomas Jefferson who was ambassador to France at the time. Jefferson was a strong supporter of the French revolutionaries