DescentBB

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:28 pm**

Call me ridiculously paranoid.

Note: I don't own a gun.

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:32 pm**

Bettina wrote:But our own government? I don't know much about private militias but suppose some formed because they didn't want to pay taxes anymore? what would happen then.

They would be in the wrong, and they would be put down by the government, with the help of neighboring states. It ain't a safe world, but it's the only world if you want to truly be free. I think you subscribe to some paranoia yourself when you suppose what free people would do if they could own the same arms as our government. It shows every time you talk about "mass killing". People aren't that stupid, when you get right down to it. If people stick their heads up they'll get knocked back down. If we're all equally free and equally armed, then I think we would be more free, because arms could be met with arms, and other forms of subversion could be met with arms as well (political bribery or strong-arming, for instance). A government that has cause to be afraid of the people is a government that will think twice about doing things that aren't in their interest.

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:07 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Bettina wrote: I don't know much about private militias but suppose some formed because they didn't want to pay taxes anymore? what would happen then.
They would be in the wrong, and they would be put down by the government

If ENOUGH of the citizenry feels that taxation has become repressive, and that the government is no longer giving them a voice to deal with the problem through democratic means. If they feel it is important enough to fight and die over. Well, if you have that situation, you have the same situation that started the American Revolution.

If fighting a revolution over unfair taxation is wrong, then George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were in the wrong, and we should still be flying the union jack.

Bettina wrote:To think that private citizens need to arm themselves or create armed militias to protect themselves from OUR government in this day and age is ridiculous and paranoid. It was justifiable back then but not now.

What do you feel has changed between the time of George Washington and now that makes our government more trustworthy? Why was fighting tyranny a good idea 200 years ago, but a bad idea today?

Again, please let me make myself perfectly clear. I do NOT want to be misunderstood here. I'm going to repeat myself because this is important. I do not like many of the things our government is doing, but I do NOT think the U.S. Government has done anything that warrants an armed rebellion yet. I have to admit, the Eminent Domain ruling of the Supreme Court a few years back made me start wondering, but even an injustice as clear and horrible as that is just not worth shooting anyone over. It's not that bad YET. I am NOT suggesting that we need an armed rebellion against our government right now. I AM saying that we need the right and the ability to rebel against our government.

As Drakona said, one of the reasons it is not that bad yet is that we have an armed citizenry. The founding fathers built in checks and balances to control the government, because government is inherently untrustworthy. We need separation of powers just as much now as we needed it when the constitution was ratified. That helps to keep each branch of the government individually from gaining too much control. AND, we need the right of revolution. It helps to keep all three branches of the government from getting out of control.

Let's be blunt about it. In the U.S. we have a constitutionally protected right to violently overthrow our government. They do not have this right in mainland China. The Taliban certainly didn't allow it, neither does North Korea. Because we have this right, we do not need to exercise it. If we lose site of what those guns are for, if we mistake the 2nd amendment as being about hunting, collecting, and shooting tin cans, then we may very well find ourselves in dire need of a right that we let slip through our hands.

Posted: **Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:58 pm**

“What do you feel has changed between the time of George Washington and now that makes our government more trustworthy? Why was fighting tyranny a good idea 200 years ago, but a bad idea today?”

My take on this…in George’s day the government had muskets, and the people had muskets, and since the people outnumbered the government, it was entirely possible to overthrow or defend yourself against the government.

Today a fight where the military remains loyal to the government, would be a futile exercise. Not that the idea of fighting against tyranny, no longer has any merit, but an entirely different tactic would have to replace brute force.

Don’t get me wrong, having weapons would help any effort to thwart any oppressive government, but the battle could only be won with a war of ideas, that would get the military on your side.

I’ve seen too many cases where the government has smashed armed groups to believe, anything less that an outright mass rebellion would do anything more than fail miserably.

So that weapon you have under your pillow is very effective against a burgler, you better pray to whatever deity you believe in, when SWAT breaks your door down.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:27 am**

it's not necessarily about winning spidey.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:01 am**

errrr…explain.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:22 am**

Kilarin wrote:If ENOUGH of the citizenry feels that taxation has become repressive, and that the government is no longer giving them a voice to deal with the problem through democratic means. If they feel it is important enough to fight and die over. Well, if you have that situation, you have the same situation that started the American Revolution.

If fighting a revolution over unfair taxation is wrong, then George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were in the wrong, and we should still be flying the union jack.

The difference between unjust taxation (which I believe we already have in spades) and taxation period. Give me a little credit.

I disagree with your assessment that what we have now is not worth revolution. We already have unjust government. Some of the taxes we pay are an extreme violation of our rights and interests (certain property-related taxes, for instance, as well as the income tax). Should we wait until it becomes absolutely unbearable? To me what the government has done with our currency alone should be deemed worthy of revolution. It's unacceptable. Not to mention the steps that have already been taken to weaken our sovereignty, like giving the U.N. jurisdiction over national parks. We're already there.

My citizenship is in heaven, or I would already be devoting myself to addressing these things. But I will at least put a finger on it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:38 am**

Spidey wrote:Today a fight where the military remains loyal to the government, would be a futile exercise. Not that the idea of fighting against tyranny, no longer has any merit, but an entirely different tactic would have to replace brute force.

Oh, clearly it would take different tactics. But those tactics have been proven effective against the U.S. Military. If you have enough of the population so riled up that they are willing to attempt a violent overthrow of the government on their own soil, then shotguns and rifles really should be enough to take down whatever is left of the military. If there aren't enough of them to do it, then they SHOULD LOSE. It's part of the checks and balances. The group of crazies that want to overthrow the government and establish an Aryan nation simply do not have enough supporters to be a threat to this nation as a whole, and that's the way it SHOULD be.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The difference between unjust taxation (which I believe we already have in spades) and taxation period. Give me a little credit.

The difference is very much in the eye of the beholder. And I didn't meant to be attacking what you said directly, sorry, I was using it more as a springboard for something I thought was an important point. I AGREE that taxation is not necessarily unjust, there are certainly people who disagree with that though.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:disagree with your assessment that what we have now is not worth revolution. We already have unjust government.

I agree that we have an unjust government. BUT, we have an unjust government because the majority are idiots and continue to vote evil idiots into power. We get what we deserve.

Note that there were many people who were afraid that George Bush would NOT step down and let Obama take over. And yet, despite the right wings hatred of Obama, they voluntarily gave in to the voters and handed power over to the other party. The democratic process is not broken, just the democratic population. If the majority of American's actually WANTED a just government, they could have it. Our forefathers rebelled because of taxation without representation. Unless and until we lose the ability to change the government by vote, it's not worth shooting anyone over.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:12 am**

A more compelling argument is where ranchers and land owners along the Mexican boarder, tired of the US Govt being unable to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, take matters in their own hands.
One has done so and was arrested. What happens when hundreds and thousands of landowners band together and attempt to prevent the arrest of the next person who tries to protect his land? People already view the Govt as not doing it's job. If a militia forms, will this not then be construed as a constitutional construct with certain legal rights?

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:23 pm**

Kilarin wrote: I AGREE that taxation is not necessarily unjust, there are certainly people who disagree with that though.

Who cares. Without taxes you don't have government, plain and simple. Anyone who doesn't want to pay taxes at all is a fool and ignorant. Taxes are constitutional, but taxes need to be for the frugal operation of government, not for people government thinks need the money more than we do (I don't suppose you disagree, I just find your statement unsettling).

Kilarin wrote:We get what we deserve.

No, rather we get what they deserve, unless we put our foot down. For those of us who are in our right minds to have to live under an increasingly unfree system just because that's what the majority "wants" is unjust.

Majority rules sucks when the majority are ignorant and easily manipulated. That is not what a democratic republic was meant to be. Democracy has been hijacked, and for that reason I would argue that we've already lost the ability to effectively change the government by vote. The average person is told what to believe from cradle to grave by people who work to shape society, and anyone who believes differently is shunned or looked down upon.

I don't think our government needs to be overthrown, it needs to be taken back.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:32 pm**

The government needs to be hacked apart and whittled down the necessities. It's too big, they control too much.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:34 pm**

Ok Duper, I know sometimes it takes you a long time to meander back to a thread so…if you are implying a armed population has some kind of fear factor, making the government nervous about oppressing people, because they’re armed, consider this. (yes, I was looking for an excuse for the following post

)

Does your weapon stop you… from having to pay the immoral, discriminatory & downright unjust taxes in this country?

Did your weapon stop… the drafting of your children, to go and die overseas in 2 unjust wars to stop the “Red Menace”?

Does your weapon stop you…from having your property seized with the improper use of Eminent Domain?

Does your weapon stop you… from having your property confiscated for a minor drug infraction?

Does your weapon stop you… from having your children stolen from you by DYFS?

Does your weapon stop you… from having your car booted by the city, even tho it was your uncle bob that got the tickets?

Does your weapon stop you… from losing your home because you can’t afford the property taxes, after the neighborhood you lived in for 60 years becomes gentrified?

Etc…etc…etc…

The government already knows how to oppress the population without causing much of a commotion…it’s called “real slow, and lots of lube”

And Kilarin, there is no way this population will ever be unified enough to rebel in mass, because the powers that be, do too good a job keeping people divided, brainwashed & placated.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:43 pm**

Duper wrote:
Bill of Rights wrote: Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Nothing more, nothing less. That's it.

My question is, is it speaking of the individual State's well being or a "free state" in general. I'm talking Original Intent. Not what it Might mean by todays standards.

If the former is the case, (and I think it is) then we have nothing of that nature to date. And thus, we can go back to Drakona's original statment:

Drakona wrote: The second amendment is about the right of the people to raise ad hoc, volunteer armies--that's what a militia used to be--to defend, not the free state, but the free state. It's about people retaining the right to organize and potentially threaten their government. If we were to truly follow in the footsteps of our forefathers, we wouldn't be debating whether civilians could own guns that might have military applications. It would be a given that civilians could own honest-to-God military hardware.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:54 pm**

And soon…the government is going to tell everyone they must buy health insurance…but…do you think they will do the hard work and do what it takes to keep the cost under control…no they won’t because that’s the hard part, they will only do the politically easy part, not the hard part.

And how will they enforce this new law? Well they won’t raise a ruckus by arresting people who don’t buy insurance, no instead they will use lots of lube, and require that doctors don’t treat people without insurance instead.

Bend over sheeple.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:08 pm**

Note: A number of the above posts are only serving to solidify my perception of common fears about 'big, bad, government conspiracies'.

----------

Okay, you may now return to the discussion in progress...

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:06 pm**

Damn, how could I forget the most relevant one to the present…

Does your weapon protect you… from the government taking your money and giving it to the very people who caused the recession in the first place?

And in case you are wondering what my point is…

1. Just what would it take to get people pissed off enuf to rebel? I’m trying to think of something really heinous, like stealing your children, oh no wait, they’re already doing that…*sigh*

2. It take as set of stones to stick up for your rights, not just weapons.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:08 pm**

Sergeant Throne wrote:Without taxes you don't have government, plain and simple.

Do remember that the federal income tax wasnt constitutional until after the 16th amendment.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I don't suppose you disagree, I just find your statement unsettling

Nope, I agree with you on this point, I just don't think the other sides arguments can be dismissed out of hand.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:For those of us who are in our right minds to have to live under an increasingly unfree system just because that's what the majority "wants" is unjust.

Thats the price of democracy. Even with constitutional limits set in place to defend the minority from the majority, in a democracy, the majority interpret the constitution, AND the majority have the power to change the constitution. There just isn't any way around this other than to abandon democracy. And despite all of democracies flaws, the alternatives are much worse.

SilverFJ wrote:The government needs to be hacked apart and whittled down the necessities. It's too big, they control too much.

Indeed!

Spidey wrote:there is no way this population will ever be unified enough to rebel in mass, because the powers that be, do too good a job keeping people divided, brainwashed & placated.

Sadly, this is probably true.

Foil wrote:A number of the above posts are only serving to solidify my perception of common fears about 'big, bad, government conspiracies'.

I AM afraid of big bad government. I just don't think they are organized enough to qualify as a conspiracy.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:15 pm**

Kilarin wrote:Thats the price of democracy. Even with constitutional limits set in place to defend the minority from the majority, in a democracy, the majority interpret the constitution, AND the majority have the power to change the constitution. There just isn't any way around this other than to abandon democracy. And despite all of democracies flaws, the alternatives are much worse.

Except this is NOT a democracy, it is in FACT a representative republic. The people who "represent" you should actually vote the way of the MAJORITY of their constituents, not the way of a MAJORITY of Americans would have them vote. Sadly this is not the case in America anymore.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:18 pm**

AlphaDoG wrote:
Kilarin wrote:Thats the price of democracy. Even with constitutional limits set in place to defend the minority from the majority, in a democracy, the majority interpret the constitution, AND the majority have the power to change the constitution. There just isn't any way around this other than to abandon democracy. And despite all of democracies flaws, the alternatives are much worse.
Except this is NOT a democracy, it is in FACT a representative republic. The people who "represent" you should actually vote the way of the MAJORITY of their constituents, not the way of a MAJORITY of Americans would have them vote. Sadly this is not the case in America anymore.

Thanks Alpha, ya beat me to it. ...(and said it better);)

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:30 pm**

AlphaDoG wrote:Except this is NOT a democracy, it is in FACT a representative republic.

Well, yes. But I wasn't using democracy in the old greek sense of a direct democracy. Almost no one does. There are many different kinds of democracy, a direct democracy and a representative democracy are both democracies. Direct democracies are too unwieldy for large governments, and so most democracies are representative.

Which is beside the point. A representative democracy still has exactly the same two problems as a direct democracies, or as ANY democracy. If the majority weren't idiots, they would elect different representatives. But the majority ARE idiots. Through the representatives they elect they control the constitution.

No matter WHAT form of democracy you try to have, if the majority are idiots about how they vote, you will end up with BAD THINGS happening. You can't change that without abandoning democracy.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:38 pm**

Heres where me and Spidey are in total agreement. There is no way to overthrow this Government unless its done from the inside. No way will even hard chargers blowing snot be able to withstand F16's and Abrams tanks. You got 1500 men ready to die you say? Ok I got one F16 I'll send your way and set you all on fire at the same time and never leave my office.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:46 pm**

Cheater

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:17 pm**

Kilarin wrote:Do remember that the federal income tax was constitutional until after the 16th amendment.

Wasn't? I've heard about it. What's your point?

Kilarin wrote:Nope, I agree with you on this point, I just don't think the other sides arguments can be dismissed out of hand.

So you believe there is validity to the supposed notion that there should be no taxes at all? I'm willing to hear it out, but as far as I can tell it's an ignorant notion. Government without taxes doesn't make any sense.

Kilarin wrote:No matter WHAT form of democracy you try to have, if the majority are idiots about how they vote, you will end up with BAD THINGS happening. You can't change that without abandoning democracy.

Perhaps, but it's not just a bunch of innocent bad, idiotic, or dumb decisions. Oftentimes these decisions are sold under false pretenses. Like Obama's socialist reforms to make America "what it once was." In such a situation we would be fools to ignore what's really happening just because there's supposedly a democracy at work.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:40 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Wasn't? I've heard about it. What's your point?

UGH! typo. thanks. Corrected in original.

The point is this:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So you believe there is validity to the supposed notion that there should be no taxes at all? I'm willing to hear it out, but as far as I can tell it's an ignorant notion. Government without taxes doesn't make any sense.

Before the civil war the US federal government survived without an income tax. From 1817 up to 1862 the federal government had NO internal taxes at all. They funded the government by placing tariffs on imported goods.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Oftentimes these decisions are sold under false pretenses. Like Obama's socialist reforms to make America "what it once was."

I don't see what difference it makes whether they voted for foolish things directly, or whether they believed foolish lies. Fools are fools because they swallow foolish notions.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:In such a situation we would be fools to ignore what's really happening just because there's supposedly a democracy at work.

Of course we shouldn't ignore it. I never meant to imply that. We should be trying to educate the public. We should be defending our rights in the legal system. We should be voting for candidates who actually support what we believe in instead of just picking the lesser of two evils.

I never said to ignore it. What I said was that I do NOT support shooting anyone because the idiot masses voted for idiots. Taking up arms to overthrow the government that is actually doing what the public asked them to do is not only a foolish waste of time, it's on VERY shaky ethical grounds.

Allow me to clarify that previous statement slightly. I am speaking specifically about property issues. I would NOT shoot someone over unjust taxation, so long as the taxes were still voted in by the masses. I'll cry, I'll whine, and I'll certainly fight with every legal means possible. But I wouldn't kill anyone. A government that has taken away the peoples right to representation is another matter.

Posted: **Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:13 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So you believe there is validity to the supposed notion that there should be no taxes at all? I'm willing to hear it out, but as far as I can tell it's an ignorant notion. Government without taxes doesn't make any sense.

Let's see, how was it the government existed prior to the 16th amendment? Was it from income taxes? I don't think so.
The 16th Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1913. Before that the federal government operated on what?

This Amendment allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the States or basing it on Census results.

So before that what was in place to allow the government to perform it's rudimentary duties, ie... regulating interstate commerce, and protection of the borders?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:50 am**

flip wrote:Heres where me and Spidey are in total agreement. There is no way to overthrow this Government unless its done from the inside. No way will even hard chargers blowing snot be able to withstand F16's and Abrams tanks. You got 1500 men ready to die you say? Ok I got one F16 I'll send your way and set you all on fire at the same time and never leave my office.

Really? Maybe you have not been following how terrorist work in Iraq and Afghanistan? One of the biggest fears of any military is urban warfare and guerrilla tactics. Would our military risk shooting innocents, bombing and shelling our own cities all to get at those who have organized and said, "Enough is Enough"? How many would they sway to the rebellions cause by doing so?

The real problem would be to organize a group to start the ball rolling. Chances are it would be infiltrated by federal agents and die a early death.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:59 am**

I don't know why you guys are so hung up on the income tax. The federal government still needed funding to function. I never said we needed this or that tax, I said government requires taxation. Government requires funding to perform its duties. I guess if you're talking about using tariffs instead of taxes then you're right. I think that would be a great idea. Let the people who trade with us fund the federal government! But I thought the scenario was people that don't want to pay \"taxes,\" not people that don't want to pay federal income tax.

I don't know why our government doesn't just go all the way and borrow money from China instead of taxing citizens. Why the charade?

My question is, who shot the tariff, and did they also shoot the d(ep)uties?

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:21 am**

No Woody, generally when governments are in jeopardy, they don’t chase the rebels thru the streets and into the woods, they consolidate their forces and defend the high ground.

Once they have a defensible position, they then use opportunity to seek and destroy their opponants.

Sure in theory armed mobs could defeat the most powerful military in the world, but as I pointed out…it would take more that just brute force.

Using Terrorists as the example is fine, but these particular terrorists have no regard for civillians, would a rebellion in the US involve killing citizens? Did the founding fathers employ such tactics, and aren’t those “terrorists” mostly from other countries anyway.

I personally would not involve myself in any revolution that included, bombing cafes full of people.

But it does demonstrate the ineffectiveness of small arms against an organized military.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 9:31 am**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:My question is, who shot the tariff, and did they also shoot the d(ep)uties?

Owch! Ugh! A new post for the "Bad Puns" thread. And this one is the very painful winner.

Everyone hates a really bad pun primarily because they wish they had thought of it themselves.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:03 pm**

Really? Maybe you have not been following how terrorist work in Iraq and Afghanistan? One of the biggest fears of any military is urban warfare and guerrilla tactics. Would our military risk shooting innocents, bombing and shelling our own cities all to get at those who have organized and said, \"Enough is Enough\"? How many would they sway to the rebellions cause by doing so?

Yes a ruthless and corrupt government bent on oppressing it's own people would do just that(Saddam's name comes to mind). I've seen videos from behind the Iron Curtain, where they took a man, tied him to 4 horses and yanked him apart in front of his wife and daughter all because he had not paid taxes. They then broadcast this video to show what would be done to tax evaders.

Your argument applies only to our present government where in actuality we are the good guys. Therefore we must be circumspect and discriminate in the way we engage the enemy. To put the terrorists down and at the same time win the hearts and minds of the people. We could have just as easily went in there and laid that whole land to waste, killed the majority of all people living there and stuck our flag in the ground with little or no casualties, but only the ruthless would have done that

.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:00 pm**

I also feel the need to address this…

Kilarin wrote:Let's be blunt about it. In the U.S. we have a constitutionally protected right to violently overthrow our government. They do not have this right in mainland China. The Taliban certainly didn't allow it, neither does North Korea. Because we have this right, we do not need to exercise it. If we lose site of what those guns are for, if we mistake the 2nd amendment as being about hunting, collecting, and shooting tin cans, then we may very well find ourselves in dire need of a right that we let slip through our hands.

Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the right to “overthrow the US government by force” in fact to either plan or carry out such an act would constitute the highest crime of the land. (high treason) (can’t be a right and against the law at the same time) As Spock would say…”Not Logical”.

The interpretation of the 2nd amendment to contain this “right” borders on ridiculous. The right to bear arms does in fact have to do with defending oneself and others, and if that “includes” the government, well then so be it.

These things are best demonstrated by analogy…

What you “don’t” have the right to do…Overthrow a duly elected legitimate representave government.

What you “would” have the right to do…Lets say the Chinese called in their debt, and the US government was unable to pay, but instead they offered the Chinese a huge tract of privately owned land…in this case it would be entirely legitimate to use force to protect your property against confiscation.

That says the constitution gives you the right to defend yourself and others against the government, not overthrow it. And such notions of overthrowing the government would have to be done “outside” the context of the constitution.

Don’t get me wrong, in the end all humans have the right to fend off the chains of oppression by their own government, it’s just not a constitutional right. (HINT…the constitution gives you the “tools” for protecting your rights, but does not directly grant you that particular right)

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:23 pm**

Well said.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:50 pm**

Spidey wrote:That says the constitution gives you the right to defend yourself and others against the government, not overthrow it.

I'm not certain I see the difference between defending yourself against the government and overthrowing the government. It does seem that the one would involve the other.

I certainly grant the fact that attempting to overthrow the government is highly illegal, as it SHOULD be. My point was that the 2nd amendment allows us to have guns primarily because the founding fathers wanted future revolutions to be possible if necessary. Not legal, I concede that point, but it WAS the intent that they be possible. And that that possibility be protected by the constitution. I would call that a right. But I won't quibble over the semantics as long as we are agreed that the 2nd amendment was written specifically to enable the possibility of future revolutions. AND, by enabling them, to render them unnecessary.

Posted: **Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:18 pm**

Thanks Thorne.

Then you must accept the dichotomy/contradiction of something being a right and being illegal at the same time. (it’s not semantics)

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:52 pm**

Spidey wrote:Then you must accept the dichotomy/contradiction of something being a right and being illegal at the same time. (it’s not semantics)

Yes, I have no problem with that. When the writers of the constitution put in the 2nd amendment, they were intentionally ensuring that the people of America would be able to rebel again if ever it was necessary. They were using the constitution to protect the peoples RIGHT to do something that would obviously be ILLEGAL. Of course, as long as the democratic system is working (and it IS), violent revolution is unnecessary. Let's pray it stays that way.

Posted: **Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:31 pm**

Ok, The Declaration of Independence makes reference to another kind of right…the inalienable kind, that being the ones endowed by our creator…among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (but not limited to)

The “right” you speak of, is one of these, the inalienable kind. The founding fathers had no need to provide us with rights we already have, the constitution is a legal document, and grants legal rights, not God given rights.

You’re not giving the founding fathers enuf credit…They knew they couldn’t give you the outright right to overthrow the government in a legal document, so they gave you the “tools” to protect your God given rights.

As long as you don’t call it “a constitutional right” we don’t have any problem.

I’m just curious…at what point would you consider it time to overthrow the government, since there are no guidelines to such an action spelled out? (assuming a totally legal democratically elected government, can still oppress the hell out of you)

And if you truly believe it’s a constitutional right, don’t you think we should all own tanks and anti-aircraft missiles? (to retain parady)

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:20 pm**

Spidey wrote:They knew they couldn’t give you the outright right to overthrow the government in a legal document, so they gave you the “tools” to protect your God given rights.

I can agree with that statement.

Spidey wrote:And if you truly believe it’s a constitutional right, don’t you think we should all own tanks and anti-aircraft missiles? (to retain parady)

As I said before, I'm not convinced it's necessary. If we don't have enough support with rifles and shotguns to defeat the government, we shouldn't be trying to do it.

Spidey wrote:I’m just curious…at what point would you consider it time to overthrow the government,

If the democratic process is working, it's pointless to try and overthrow the government, no matter how evil it has become. If only 30% of the population of this country recognizes the evil, that 30% won't have the numbers to overthrow the rest, and even if the could, where would the morality be then? You would simply be imposing a new kind of evil on people who didn't WANT your government.

So, given that the democratic process is still working, and that the people really DO have the power to change their government if they wish: I can see many circumstances under which I would try to ESCAPE from an evil elected government, but I can't see any circumstance in which I would try to overthrow it. (from within that is)

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:40 pm**

Sounds reasonable to me. IF you thought you
needed to escape, where would you go?

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 10:18 pm**

VonVulcan wrote:IF you thought you needed to escape, where would you go?

I don't know of ANY other government that I think is any better than the US, most are worse in my opinion.

There was a time when unhappy people had frontiers to go to, places where they could just be left alone. Unfortunately, there isn't really a frontier left to run to.

So, while I do believe there are circumstances under which I would HAVE to try it, I don't really see much hope in running away from the government.

That sounds depressing, but it really isn't to me. I'm a Christian and I operate on the assumption that no matter HOW bad things get, God is still in control. Doesn't mean things will be comfortable, might be very Uncomfortable, but I've lived most of my life with freedom and luxury that people from other times and places could hardly imagine. IF things were to get worse for a while, even if they were to get much worse, I could hardly complain.

This life is temporary, and, even though I'm going to do my darnedest to improve things while I'm here, any problems that I can't handle are temporary too. So my motto is:

Don't Panic

Posted: **Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:19 pm**

Drakona wrote:
Bettina wrote:for Drakona to say that it should be legal to purchase/own/use military assault rifles, machine guns, tanks, and other military hardware is nothing short of insanity.
What's insane about it? Serious question.

Since you dropped the conversation... It was an assault rife....

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/22/cal ... index.html

Bee

DescentBB

Ammunition Accountability Legislation

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: