Throwing it their face

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

"they wanted the people to be able to rise up against the government if the government became excessively tyrannical."

And yet, in the US code, those very same men made it illegal to... rise up against the government...

True. Makes for a fascinating paradox, doesn't it?

I suppose the logic would have to be along the lines of "If the government is SO bad that we have to take up arms to (again) throw it out, it isn't the legitimate government any longer so it's okay." Of course, that logic succeeds only if the rebellion succeeds.

[ADB]

I think one point that is consistently being ignored here is that the chief purpose of the 2nd admendment was to enable the citizens to form a militia.

Not quite--it was for the STATES to be able to form a militia. The people had the guns, but the states had the official stamp. You might be able to get 50 guys together and call them a militia, but they don't have any legal standing any more than guys patrolling the street corner are necessarily police.

And it was clearly the intent of at least some of the founding fathers that the militia was not to be construed to be private armies. There was no intention, I believe, to construct a mechanism for rebellion, though it happens that it eventually turned out that way.

This is an important distinction to make. It clearly was not their intention to create a "Overthrow the government button" that anyone could push. If you grant the idea that you can go to war against the government because you disagree with who's in power, or if you feel you're being "oppressed," then we'd never have peace--we'd be like India, where there's always some kind of rebel group planning to bomb a train or a government center.

It WAS however intended that the states themselves and the citizens thereof would be able, if it became necessary, to resist a coup or criminal seizure of power. Think the Business Plot to replace FDR.

And yet, in the US code, those very same men made it illegal to... rise up against the government...

Precisely.

Last but not least, we can't forget another major reason for the Second Amendment, which was national defense. The US couldn't afford a large standing army. If it came to war--and it did several times--then they would be relying on citizen soldiers to bolster a small professional force.

[Mike Irwin]

"A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal."

Ben Franklin in the musical 1776.


"True. Makes for a fascinating paradox, doesn't it?"

Oddly enough, no, not really.

The Framers, at least the Federalists, were sure that they were setting up a government that could never become tyrannical in the manner as an autocratic or despotic monarchy. Rebellion would no longer be necessary.

It was the Anti-Federalist wing that had to be courted with inclusion of the Bill of Rights; the Anti Federalists were not at all sure that the checks and balances provided by the Constitution could effectively prevent a tyrannical government from seizing power, so the inclusion of a safety valve - the Second Amendment - was demanded along with enumeration of other fundamental rights.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

The Framers, at least the Federalists, were sure that they were setting up a government that could never become tyrannical in the manner as an autocratic or despotic monarchy. Rebellion would no longer be necessary.

It was the Anti-Federalist wing that had to be courted with inclusion of the Bill of Rights; the Anti Federalists were not at all sure that the checks and balances provided by the Constitution could effectively prevent a tyrannical government from seizing power, so the inclusion of a safety valve - the Second Amendment - was demanded along with enumeration of other fundamental rights.

That's an interesting perspective. Being a descendant of one of the Federalists, I guess it's not surprising I've missed that.

Sorta looks like the Anti-Federalists were right, doesn't it?

[BlueTrain]

My wife is a direct decendent of George Mason and I have teased her about his writings about the militia. As you may know, he refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked the Bill of Rights. She's also a direct decendent of General Samuel Cooper, Adjutant General of the Confederacy (but was from New York), who married George Mason's granddaughter. I have been married 31 years and still don't have it all straight but then, I'm decended from a long line of nobodies from Southwest Virginia.

It is ironic to speak of "the government seizing power," isn't it? Sometimes I think we are so worried about the federal government that we forget all the other layers of government, hardly any of which are any better. In any event, one thing the framers wanted for sure was a stronger federal government, since the previous one had worked so poorly. But I think it would have been very interesting if the vice-president continued to be the person in the presidential election who received the second highest number of votes.

[BGutzman]

Thanks for more resources to reference and read.

[DG45]

Sounds like something that's worth a try as a short term fix while liberals are in power.

But bottom line, the solution to these problems is political and will be resolved at the polls, not through legal sophistry. We have to win hearts and minds, not neccesarily for gun rights, but for a generally conservative government. That will in turn result in a generally conservative Supreme Court which will, in turn, result in the restoration and protection of Second Admendment rights.

[Mike Irwin]

"Sorta looks like the Anti-Federalists were right, doesn't it?"

Oh yes, our Government is so crushingly tyrannical that it's not even funny.

All of this crying and moaning on the internet at various sites about how the US government is the most tyrannical ever seen on the face of the earth and that we should rise up and overthrow it immediately really pisses me off at times.

I'm good friends with a couple of people who grew up in Nazi Germany, including one Jew who survived TRUE government tyranny - a trip to a Nazi slave labor/death camp.

I also work with a number of people who grew up in the old Soviet Union, China, North Vietnam and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.

The stories all could tell are pretty startling, and make those who scream about "US Government Tyranny" look like complete mouth breathers.

Is the US method of government perfect?

No.

But, would any of you care to trade places with any of my coworkers?

You would? OK, guess what, you're going to Cambodia in the mid to late 1970s. And guess what, you're very likely to be considered an intellectual, which means, if you're VERY lucky, a quick and relatively painless death.

If you're NOT lucky, and most were not at all lucky, you'll either die from malnutrition, or you'll be tortured mercilessly in Tuol Sleng before you're taken to the killing fields for a hoe upside the head.

Anyone REALLY want to cry and moan about how tyrannical our popularly elected Representative Republic is now?

[DG45]

Did I miss something? Was someone calling for the violent overthrow of the American government? I certainly wasn't. I served my country, absolutely un-heroically, and as far back to the rear as I could manage, but enough to have an Honorable Discharge and a NDSM (watchfire) ribbon.

Bitching and complaining is the right of every American citizen.

[Mike Irwin]

No, DG, my cup runneth over this morning, so to speak.

Note that I was talking generally about people on the internet, not specifically about posts in this thread.

[ADB]

But bottom line, the solution to these problems is political and will be resolved at the polls, not through legal sophistry. We have to win hearts and minds, not neccesarily for gun rights, but for a generally conservative government.

You inaccurately assume that everyone who supports gun rights is conservative.

[BlueTrain]

One could be forgiven for thinking that everyone who supports gun rights is reactionary rather than conservative but I know better. Likewise, one could assume that judging from reading a lot of the bumper stickers like I see everyday that lots of people don't really care for democratic elections, you know, the ones where the one with the most votes wins the election (usually!), because their candidate didn't win. I don't even know the last time we had a conservative government. So long I don't even know what conservative means. Oh, I hear lots of statements about ideals and traditions without ever hearing exactly what those ideals and traditions are. I'm not so young that I don't remember lots of bad things about the past.

[Idahoser]

ADB Quote:
You inaccurately assume that everyone who supports gun rights is conservative.

Well, if you don't use logic in your assumptions, I suppose anything at all could mean anything at all. However, when one is presented with a person who seems to have a reasonable grasp on the necessity and desirability of people taking responsibility for their own safety and equipping themselves appropriately to do that job, it IS after all natural to assume that the person will also have reasonable and logical positions on other things. Clearly that is, as you say, a bad assumption.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ok - that's it. The endless liberal vs. conservative battle and do you have to be one to be a true gun believer gets us nowhere.

So, thanks for all the contributions and lights out.

Glenn