Originally posted by pritybettaso does the government. just because you dread the situation where the army will no longer uphold the constitution doesn't mean it is any less probable than politicians (elected by you) no longer respecting the constitution.
Though I agree with you on the government needs the support of the millitary to accomplish a NWO, the millitary is still sworn to uphold our Constitution. If those in the millitary knew that the people were fighting for their rights that are set foth in the U.S. Constitution, which is what they are sworn to uphold, then that should be enouph to gain their ...[text shortened]... ot be threatening the security of the nation, but rather protecting it from a tyrant government.
liberty is not lost in one swoop. it is lost one by one. did the militia take up arms when guantanamo precedent was set? no, it was thought that the terrorists are getting their just rewards. so will it happen when the government decides to censor the media(which has happened already) or if they go further. how many marines do you think will disobey an order to shoot rebels dangerous to the national security(by rebel i mean you armed with a gun) ? how many will question the order, whether it is just or unjust, whether you are a rebel or a citizen trying to protect his rights?
and for that matter, if the government tries to shoot "rebels", it will use loyal marines, marines who will not question. how many soldiers do you think the Tienanmen massacre required? do you think they were chosen at random or handpicked from the most fanatic troops?
after the Tienanmen massacre happened, all the world was shocked and outraged. the students were unarmed and yet they were killed for asking human rights. on the other hand, how many people cry for iraqi children armed with ak-47's trying to deffend from an invading army?
it would be quite easy for your evil government to label you as criminal elements if you are armed especially since the evil government would have controlled the media by the time they acted. and it would justify the use of further force to "safeguard public safety".
now you don't need a gun to defend your liberties. and the government doesn't need guns to take liberties away from you. all it needs is misinformation and you will join the invading army in iraq because you are a patriot
Originally posted by david hawortha law in one of your states required women to drive not faster than 10 mph and her husband or father was required to walk in front of her waving a flag.
it doesnt matter. we cannot pick and choose which parts of the constitution we abide by, then what is the point of having one at all? im just saying that's why i think it was originally written and although it may be outdated, we are still to honor it.
a brittish law states that it is forbidden by law for a member of the house of lords to die in parliament.
and there are more. if the laws are outdated they should be changed. of course, while still set and especially in the constitution they should be honoured, otherwise like you said it would be no point in having one at all. i don't agree however that we should not change it.
Originally posted by pritybettathe 2nd amendment may be outdated not the whole constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is outdated? First you say we should not pick and choose form it(which I agree with, we should tell the government that.😉 ) then you say it is outdated. So then we should have no need for the three branches? Or the numerous rights for the individual states? No need for the 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech? Or a freedom of an establishment of religion? Or freedom of the press?...I can go on and on if you'd like.
Originally posted by no1marauderwasn't that particular inalienable right set by the whim of a majority at first?
There is no such provision in the US Constitution.
There is little reason to have a society based on inalienable rights if those rights can disappear at the whim of a majority at any time.
by what right is that majority more important than today's majority?
Originally posted by pritybettawhat do you think democracy is? it is a form of tyranny. only the tyrants are no longer telling people what to think, they are manipulating them by hiding information or parts of it and manipulating the information that is given to the people. so the people will end up doing what the tyrants want. do you think the american people would have supported the iraq war if they knew saddam might not have WMDs after all?
[b]well the idea that we should be concerned with someone taking over our government and establishing a dictatorship is a bit outdated.
I think we should be concerned more now than ever. They may not be able to take over by force but they can secretly do so by getting elected and not do what the people wanted from them, which has been happening. Th ...[text shortened]... home grown tyrants. If you do not see this then you are deceived by them or you are one of them.[/b]
and in the face of this sort of manipulation, what use does a gun have?
Originally posted by no1marauderpeople used to believe the monarch rules by divine right. we believe they were wrong of course but it was one "inherent, natural" right that was discarded. are we so arrogant as to believe we have reached the final wisdom and nothing can be changed in the future because of greater wisdom or simply changed circumstances?
Of course not. The right to self-defense is an inherent, natural right. It exists no matter what the majority want.
back to the issue at hand, self defense as a natural right doesn't imply ownership of guns as a natural right. otherwise one could go so far as to ask for F-16 and tanks, because one has the right of self defense against the us army.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziI'm not particularly impressed with "slippery slope" arguments like you are now making. I already stated in this thread what I believe is the proper formulation:
people used to believe the monarch rules by divine right. we believe they were wrong of course but it was one "inherent, natural" right that was discarded. are we so arrogant as to believe we have reached the final wisdom and nothing can be changed in the future because of greater wisdom or simply changed circumstances?
back to the issue at hand, self de as to ask for F-16 and tanks, because one has the right of self defense against the us army.
but there isn't much doubt that the Framers believed in a right to self-defense and a necessary corollary to that is being able to have the tools to make that right something more than aspirational.
Your first paragraph is sad nonsense. The realization that people had Natural Rights is what led to end of absolute monarchy (quicker in some places than others). You really need to read Locke.
Originally posted by no1marauderyou really don't get it do you? all pieces of paper are written by humans, humans with their own views on the world, humans with perhaps their own agenda. and later humans will have perhaps different agenda. or the circumstances will change. or both.
I'm not particularly impressed with "slippery slope" arguments like you are now making. I already stated in this thread what I believe is the proper formulation:
but there isn't much doubt that the Framers believed in a right to self-defense and [b]a necessary corollary to that is being able to have the tools to make that right something ...[text shortened]... nd of absolute monarchy (quicker in some places than others). You really need to read Locke.
universal rights are only universal to a category of individuals. freedom and the right to live was "universal" for all whites. then it became for all humans. i ask you why do we not allow the same right to chimps? why do we kill and hamburgerize cows? is it because we didn't yet acknowledge their right to life? or is it simply because we are stronger and we impose our will our view on the world on lower lifeforms?
it is impractical to assume humans have rights that are inalienable, and some not yet acknowledged. the majority grants itself rights and responsibilities and imposes them on the minority
Originally posted by ZahlanziRant if you must, but the US is based on the political philosophy of Lockean Natural Rights. To say you have no rights but what the majority deign to give you is an open invitation to tyranny.
you really don't get it do you? all pieces of paper are written by humans, humans with their own views on the world, humans with perhaps their own agenda. and later humans will have perhaps different agenda. or the circumstances will change. or both.
universal rights are only universal to a category of individuals. freedom and the right to live was "uni ...[text shortened]... ged. the majority grants itself rights and responsibilities and imposes them on the minority
Originally posted by no1marauderdemocracy is the tyranny of the many. if the many decide alcohol is illegal, the will of the many is done. as you might remember.
Rant if you must, but the US is based on the political philosophy of Lockean Natural Rights. To say you have no rights but what the majority deign to give you is an open invitation to tyranny.
is it better to say you have rights but only what the majority deign to give you are respected? do you like it better this way?
we have shifted away tyranny from the hands of the few to the hands of the many. the few may whine all they want, but if the majority decides something, even something wrong, the minority must adhere(or in more liberal countries or communities, leave)
Originally posted by ZahlanziThat's not how it works in the US. If the majority imposes things that restrict the Natural Rights of the minority here the latter don't "whine" (strange that you would use such a disparaging term to refer to someone who wishes to have their rights respected ) - they go to court. And courts have tossed out thousands of such laws no matter what the majority wanted.
democracy is the tyranny of the many. if the many decide alcohol is illegal, the will of the many is done. as you might remember.
is it better to say you have rights but only what the majority deign to give you are respected? do you like it better this way?
we have shifted away tyranny from the hands of the few to the hands of the many. the few may w ...[text shortened]... en something wrong, the minority must adhere(or in more liberal countries or communities, leave)