Revolution

[Thufer]

I'm writing this here to express my ideas on the misenterpretation of gun rights. It is important that we have guns. Hunting, sporting, and self defense are all viable reasons to possess firearms. There is another reason we need guns; to arm citizens against authority. This is also why gun laws are being passed; to disarm citizens of their right to revolt. Nobody fears non-violent revolution because there is no such thing. Our political system, and voting in particular is a pacifier. It creates a false sense of control and security in the minds of people who love propaganda. People want to believe in our system, so they do. If our government does not trust us not to rebel against them, then why are they disarming us? We should be disarming them.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Nobody fears non-violent revolution because there is no such thing

Au Contraire, non violent revolutions do happen, even in the most iron-fisted tyrannies. The fall of the USSR and the communist bloc happened with remarkably little violence. The people simply refused to follow the rules of unjust regimes. If enough people refuse to obey bad laws and unjust rulers, the regime cannot function. Nazi Germany itself could not have wreaked so much havoc if enough people had simply refused to obey.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

First, welcome. I am glad you are thinking about this subject. Do not take what I say personally. I hope we can walk the high road together.

Suggestion: replace authority with tyranny whenever to talk about revolution. Authority can be properly used, tyranny is one way to abuse that authority.

Non-violence is the reason India And Pakistan are no longer under british rule.

Some people here feel that voting means you grant consent. I think that they are wrong. Politicians are addicted to votes. Only voters opinions matter to them. goto http://www.yourcongress.com to see a better explenation. If only people who were in favor of confiscating all guns voted, guess what would happen?

The government disarms us because we ask to be disarmed. Most people believe in gun control. They fear the unfamiliar objects because of their symbolism. If we can change the majorities mind, we can win.

We should not disarm the government because they are there to provide help defending our intrests. What we actually need to do is make sure they understand who they work for.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Well said. We have brought this upon ourselves incrementally. And we can win it back incrementally. To wit:

More states are allowing CCW.
The NRA and other RKBA groups are effective and growing.
The AWB may not be renewed.
We still have guns (2A) and the right to assemble (1A).

9/11 changed a whole lot of minds. The internet is changing a bunch of minds. The idea of "serve and protect" is being revealed for the ruse that it is. Even Wash. D.C. is in sight of regaining their gun rights.

I know, the DPRK is going to make "safe guns' and other states have mandated "smart guns." However, logic and science will prevail.

Always Forward

 

[geekWithA.45]

Some people here feel that voting means you grant consent

Kent Snyder hit the X ring on that in a footnote in Nation of Cowards.

To whit: some things are wrong, even if the majority votes it.

His example was a hypothetical, duly constructed democracy consisting of two men and a woman.

They lawfully created their democracy by mutual consent, and laid down fair rules in a founding document. Everything was fully kosher, as even the wisest among us would agree.

Some time later, in full accordance with Roberts Rules of Order, and in compliance with the founding document of their democracy, the majority voted that the men could have sex with the woman whenever they wanted, whether she wanted to or not, and specified that resistance to such advances would be unlawful.

Admitedly, the example is contrived, but it neatly illustrates the point.

You can't use majority rule to legalize rape, and there are some things that are placed beyond the bounds of such discourse.

The right of self defense, and the ability to use tools to effect that defense is one of them.

The other is that the only just government is "by the consent of the governed". If you accept that, then it follows that any and ALL power wielded by government is "on loan". Since the power is on loan, it can be taken back, and the 2nd amendment is ultimately about preserving the MEANS of recovering that power from tyrants who refuse to return it.

This implies that the use of force is both honorable and permissible under certain circumstances. The precise nature of those circumstances are open to debate, but Judge Kozinski, who dissented with the 9th circuit court on Silviera vs Locklear summed up some of them nicely:

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Other generally accepted reasons to use force are to prevent systematic mass* killings of innocents by government**, it's precursors, (typically mass relocation) and to protect the integrity of the vote. For information on this, search this forum for The Battle of Athens, Georgia in which WWII veterans used arms to prevent a corrupt sherrif's plan to ensure his own re-election by counting the votes himself, along with his cronies.


*This also applies to intentional killings of individuals by government as well. There are a couple of supreme court cases that upheld a criminal's right of self defense when ambushed by government. In these cases, the law officers simply opened fire without identifying themselves, or attempting to actually apprehend the suspect.

**Interestingly, the "Bonus Army", composed of veterans of WW I peacefully marched on DC and setup camp, seeking early payment of their bonuses during the Depression. Since their intentions were peaceful, they came unarmed. Eventually, they Army burned their camps, and attacked with cavalry and tanks. Many died.

 

[geekWithA.45]

{continued after a smoke break, and some reflection}


To directly answer your question, "Why aren't WE disarming the .gov?" the answer is simple.

They haven't yet given us just CAUSE to disarm them.

When it comes to armed resistance in the context of defending the second amendment, it gets very tricky, because disarming the People is presumed by many to be a precursor to tyranny, but it isn't WIDELY accepted to be tyranny itself.

There's a lot at stake here.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the current government is wise and noble, and lawfully decrees that militarily useful firearms are prohibitted, for noble purposes. Setting aside the unliklihood of actually achieving those noble purposes, it sets the stage for tyranny, anytime as soon as the day after such a law went into effect, or AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER, even hundreds or thousands of years into the future.

And so, that leaves us with the agonizing question that gets a lot of discussion here, "do we ultimately use force to protect the second, and if so, under what circumstances?" (The questions about HOW to effectively use arms to defend the second is another question, and a very hot potato that no one will touch, lest it be misinterpreted as PLANNING to actually CARRY IT OUT. )

No one I know actually wants to drop the hammer and start the shooting, because that would bring sufferring and chaos.

To conclude, it is of critical, vital importance to the continued legitimacy of the Republic, to Liberty, and to all Future generations that the People remain armed with militarily useful armaments. (This is the main reason the AWB MUST EXPIRE. If it does not, "militarily useful armaments" is gone forever, and we will have been "sporterized")

Right now, the BEST way to see to that is through voting, educating others, and wielding whatever influence we can muster with our elected officials. Our influence with elected officials is magnified by becoming a member of the various national and local groups that look after 2A interests, such as the NRA, GOA, JPFO, and so on.

And finally, the last step is to pick up the torches ourselves, and to SIMPLY BE ARMED, with all the training, education, and responsibility that entails.

 

[MPFreeman]

If you want to disarm the .gov, eliminate withholding tax from the books. The state runs on our money. Better yet, make all taxation voluntary, such as a lottery or maybe even a sales tax. So if you don't like what your .gov is doing, like Iraq or something, don't send in the cashola. I saw those protesters today in DC, what a joke. They should just drop out of the system if they don't like what's going on. Stop working for the state five months a year. If 30% of the work force just dropped out, the state would starve. Unfortunately for the protestors, many of the ones I saw today already looked like drop outs and probably wouldn't make that much difference. I'm thinking more along the lines of Atlas Shrugged to make the big impact.

But if you really want to control the state, make it's food conditional. This means voluntary or sales type taxation only. And be sure to keep your powder dry.

 

[Ryder]

Thufer,

When you can not win at a game because you are playing against the rule makers and they keep changing the rules to their advantage then you can always find a new game. Sure you can teach them a hard lesson about cheating but you will still lose in the end. Especially so since losing doesn't appear to bother the other contestants.

The majority of places are still free and are more open minded than whatever dark pit of servitude you appear to be currently stuck in. California? Chicago? New Jersey? New york? Many good people are finding that those are not the only games available.

Just a thought.