Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 23 Dec '12 02:52 / 1 edit
    "I have the right to fight my government" "I have the right to fight to the US military"

    It is a complete mischaracterization of the Constitution and the Second Amendment the "I have the right to fight my government" consitutional argument we hear from gun zealots to mean that the manufacuture and sale of the AR-15 cannot be consitutionally banned.

    First, as a sanity issue, without even reference to a consitutional discussion, the idea of an ordinary citizens with a semi-automatic AR-15 fighting the US military is absurd. The US military would annihilate them.

    Further, based on this weird "I have the right to fight my government" consitutional argument we hear from gun zealots, weapons such as RPGs, fully automatic weapons, and even nuclear weapons are protected by the Second Amendment for the ordinary citizen. That simply is not true. It is also not true for the semi-automatic AR-15 and high capacity clips. Their manufacture and sell can be constitutionally banned, and the Supreme Court will uphold such.
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Dec '12 06:23
    Originally posted by moon1969
    "I have the right to fight my government" "I have the right to fight to the US military"

    It is a complete mischaracterization of the Constitution and the Second Amendment the "I have the right to fight my government" consitutional argument we hear from gun zealots to mean that the manufacuture and sale of the AR-15 cannot be consitutionally banned.

    ...[text shortened]... facture and sell can be constitutionally banned, and the Supreme Court will uphold such.
    The Constitution does not create or limit rights.

    The Framers recognized the revolutionary right to resist tyrannical governments by force if need be. This isn't something that is going to be placed in a Constitution for obvious reasons.
  3. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    23 Dec '12 07:41
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The Constitution does not create or limit rights.

    The Framers recognized the revolutionary right to resist tyrannical governments by force if need be. This isn't something that is going to be placed in a Constitution for obvious reasons.
    Good grief.
    So, what constitutes a tyrinical government?
    I propose any government which has sent police to charge demonstrators.

    Let's shoot the bastards!!!
  4. 23 Dec '12 12:39
    Well okay, let's see what happens if they kill some soldiers. What will SCOTUS make of that case, I wonder? Maybe Maj. Nasan should be freed?
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Dec '12 12:58
    222. The Reason why Men enter into Society, is the preservation of their Property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a Legislative, is, that there may be Laws made, and Rules set as Guards and Fences to the Properties of all the Members of the Society, to limit the Power, and moderate the Dominion of every Part and Member of the Society. For since it can never be supposed to be the Will of the Society, that the Legislative should have a Power to destroy that, which every one designs to secure, by entering into Society, and for which the People submitted themselves to the Legislators of their own making; whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society.


    John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Sec. 222
  6. 23 Dec '12 17:34
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    222. The Reason why Men enter into Society, is the preservation of their Property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a Legislative, is, that there may be Laws made, and Rules set as Guards and Fences to the Properties of all the Members of the Society, to limit the Power, and moderate the Dominion of every Part and Member of the Society. For since ...[text shortened]... for which they are in Society.


    John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Sec. 222
    quote:

    Appraisals of Locke have often been tied to appraisals of liberalism in general, and also to appraisals of the United States. Detractors note that (in 1671) he was a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal African Company, as well as through his participation in drafting the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas while Shaftesbury's secretary, which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves. For example, Martin Cohen notes that as a secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations (1673–4) and a member of the Board of Trade (1696–1700) Locke was, in fact, "one of just half a dozen men who created and supervised both the colonies and their iniquitous systems of servitude".[16] Some see his statements on unenclosed property as having been intended to justify the displacement of the Native Americans.[17][18] Because of his opposition to aristocracy and slavery in his major writings, he is accused of hypocrisy and racism, or of caring only for the liberty of English capitalists.[19]

    unquote

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
  7. 23 Dec '12 18:42
    Originally posted by moon1969
    "I have the right to fight my government" "I have the right to fight to the US military"

    It is a complete mischaracterization of the Constitution and the Second Amendment the "I have the right to fight my government" consitutional argument we hear from gun zealots to mean that the manufacuture and sale of the AR-15 cannot be consitutionally banned.

    ...[text shortened]... facture and sell can be constitutionally banned, and the Supreme Court will uphold such.
    Would you say the patriots who fought to found this country were gun nuts? Their government was the British crown. Declaring Independence was treason.
  8. 23 Dec '12 18:54
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Good grief.
    So, what constitutes a tyrinical government?
    I propose any government which has sent police to charge demonstrators.

    Let's shoot the bastards!!!
    http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/conspiracy-theory-teeth-government-allegedly-

    How about this?
  9. 23 Dec '12 18:55
    Originally posted by JS357
    quote:

    Appraisals of Locke have often been tied to appraisals of liberalism in general, and also to appraisals of the United States. Detractors note that (in 1671) he was a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal African Company, as well as through his participation in drafting the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas while Shaftesb ...[text shortened]... the liberty of English capitalists.[19]

    unquote

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
    One has to understand what Locke or Adam Smith wrote in the context of the time when they wrote.
  10. 23 Dec '12 19:29
    Originally posted by normbenign
    One has to understand what Locke or Adam Smith wrote in the context of the time when they wrote.
    One has to understand that people who justify their own actions, such as enslavement, taking of land, and insurrection against the established order, all for their natural right of liberty, will institute measures that stifle insurrection against themselves, once their actions have succeeded.
  11. 23 Dec '12 19:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by JS357
    One has to understand that people who justify their own actions, such as enslavement, taking of land, and insurrection against the established order, all for their natural right of liberty, will institute measures that stifle insurrection against themselves, once their actions have succeeded.
    All of the enlightened views on those things grew out of classical liberal writers, whose experience wasn't ours. They lived in a world that almost universally justified chattel slavery.

    How about the real plans of contemporary governments? Back up a few posts and watch the video, and consider fusion centers, and FEMA concentration camps.

    There isn't any chattel slavery in the US, but it appears that our government may be ready to simply imprison or kill people who don't go along to get along.
  12. 23 Dec '12 20:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    All of the enlightened views on those things grew out of classical liberal writers, whose experience wasn't ours. They lived in a world that almost universally justified chattel slavery.

    How about the real plans of contemporary governments? Back up a few posts and watch the video, and consider fusion centers, and FEMA concentration camps.

    There isn' ...[text shortened]... ur government may be ready to simply imprison or kill people who don't go along to get along.
    I think you are getting my point in spite of my way of saying it not being very clear. We should expect any government, even one formed by insurrectionists, to establish and/or retain institutions that are compatible with the interests of those that form the government, including measures to stifle insurrections against itself.

    This idea is value-free, that is, I am not making a value judgement. It does mean that in spite of the lofty, principled theories of Locke and Smith and other theorists of that day, the insurrectionists were not operating strictly from enlightened principles; and we should not think that the current crop of potential insurrectionists are operating strictly from principle. Those who are operating from principle, (eg, idealists like Randian objectivists) may find that, after the revolution, their ideals are not realized. We have seen this happen elsewhere. For example, the governments formed after pro-communistic revolutions, never did (or never have in the case of Cuba) get around to turning over power to the workers. Instead a one-party oligarchy is formed.

    In Locke's time, the institutions they retained or extended included enslavement of Africans and the implementation of a theory of property that justified taking land from native peoples. Our times are different, but for example, I would expect that after an overthrow of the US government on behalf of liberty and whatever other idealistic principles are behind it, a fascist form of corporatism would increase its sway, and American society would come to resemble Mexico (wealth concentration, corruption, gang warfare, walled haciendas, etc.) more than whatever it is that these idealistic insurrectionists want to make of it.

    So I would be as suspicious of the people who are talking insurrection against the current government, as I am suspicious of the government.

    Edit: I'll add as a current example, that the current insurrectionists are a source of profit for the corporate interests backing the NRA.
  13. 23 Dec '12 22:25
    Originally posted by moon1969
    "I have the right to fight my government" "I have the right to fight to the US military"

    It is a complete mischaracterization of the Constitution and the Second Amendment the "I have the right to fight my government" consitutional argument we hear from gun zealots to mean that the manufacuture and sale of the AR-15 cannot be consitutionally banned.

    ...[text shortened]... facture and sell can be constitutionally banned, and the Supreme Court will uphold such.
    Yes, the people who founded this country had no intention of ever fighting against their country. Only a whackjob would think of such a thing.
  14. 23 Dec '12 22:37
    Originally posted by JS357
    I think you are getting my point in spite of my way of saying it not being very clear. We should expect any government, even one formed by insurrectionists, to establish and/or retain institutions that are compatible with the interests of those that form the government, including measures to stifle insurrections against itself.

    This idea is value-free, that ...[text shortened]... e current insurrectionists are a source of profit for the corporate interests backing the NRA.
    Your idea is much clearer, and more acceptable with the explanation. That is of course true of any insurrection or revolution. An interesting read, if you can find it, is "To Tame a Tyrant".

    The author lists several boxes available to a democracy, starting with the ballot box, and ending with the bullet box. He reasons that the bullet box is the last resort because it is irrevocable. Whether you like the result or not, it is what you are stuck with. The ballot box, is rather flexible giving another chance every couple of years.

    Many revolutions never come close to realizations of the ideals of the original revolutionaries, sometimes due to opportunists who have nothing in common with the original cause, but latch onto the opportunity for violent change.
  15. 23 Dec '12 22:39
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yes, the people who founded this country had no intention of ever fighting against their country. Only a whackjob would think of such a thing.
    Would you have been a loyalist, at the time of the Declaration?