Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Protection from tyranny an insurrectionist view?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-h...y_b_99793.html



    I tried to paste the text like twenty times and it won't let me...
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-h...y_b_99793.html



    I tried to paste the text like twenty times and it won't let me...

    Got it. Quite a bad taste in my mouth after reading it.

    stay safe.

    skidmark


    With the Bush administration casting aside the Constitution to eavesdrop on telephone conversations and hold suspected terrorists for years without access to lawyers, it's easy to see why civil libertarians on the left are finding a lot to like about the right-wing critique of expansive government power. This distrust and distaste for government authority has even made some liberals receptive to arguments advanced by gun rights groups, who suggest that private ownership of firearms is a healthy check on government run amok.

    Before we get carried away with the idea that guns are the ultimate guarantor of our civil liberties, however, we should consider what maintaining the capability to resist the decisions of a democratically accountable government really means. The question of whether armed citizens should be entitled to challenge the government with force is at the heart of the current debate over the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court case of District of Columbia vs. Heller.

    On March 19, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit made national headlines when it struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. This marked the first time that a federal court had overturned a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. In its decision, the Court of Appeals asserted a broad range of purposes for the Second Amendment, including hunting, self-defense and, most notably, to defend against the "depredations of a tyrannical government." After the ruling was successfully appealed to the Supreme Court by the District of Columbia, the National Rifle Association made a similar argument in their brief to the Court, affirming that the "very existence of an armed citizenry will tend to discourage would-be tyrants from attempting to use paid troops to 'pacify' the populace."

    Such "insurrectionist" philosophy is common among a small but vocal group of gun rights supporters. Insurrectionists assert that unrestricted access to guns of every kind is an essential element of freedom. Government is seen as a likely enemy, and gun regulation is viewed as a plot to monitor gun ownership and, ultimately, to confiscate all private firearms.

    If this insurrectionist logic were to be embraced by the Supreme Court, however, our democracy would be severely degraded. Such an interpretation of the Second Amendment would make even the most modest gun control legislation unconstitutional. If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow individuals to stockpile firearms to protect against government "tyranny," then laws like owner licensing or firearm registration (and maybe even the Brady background check) could be found unconstitutional because they allow the government to monitor and regulate gun ownership. Future Timothy McVeighs could claim constitutional protection for their crimes. If every American armed up to vindicate their private grievances (the Court of Appeals gave absolutely no guidance on how to tell, or who should decide, what constitutes government "tyranny"), the government's monopoly on force would be infringed and our society would gradually slide toward anarchy.

    There was actually a time in our history--when America was governed by the weak and decentralizing Articles of Confederation--when private mobs exercised as much power as legislatures. Incidents like Shay's Rebellion triggered great fear among America's leading citizens and led to the framing of a Constitution with enhanced federal power. Since the ratification of that document, our nation has been through much travail, but through some of our biggest challenges (i.e., the Civil War, World War II, and the civil rights movement) it was ultimately America's ability to mobilize both a federal bureaucracy and military power that kept us free. From General Washington to General Grant to General Patton to President Eisenhower, professionalized peacekeepers have safeguarded liberty and freedom in this country (and, in the case of WWII, on the entire planet). Our strong yet democratic state--which maintains a monopoly on force--has allowed us to walk the fine line between anarchy and totalitarianism.

    The concept of a "monopoly on force" might sound foreign or even frightening to Americans that take great pride in our revolutionary beginnings, but it is the fundamental organizing principle of any political entity, including the United States. In 1919, German political economist and sociologist Max Weber defined the conditions required for a political entity to be termed a "state." Weber said, "A compulsory political association with a continuous organization...will be called a 'state' if and in so far as its administrative staff successfully upholds its claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order."

    Nonetheless, most Americans today would associate the idea more closely with the struggle for democracy and stability in Iraq than with our own political system. Indeed, the current situation in Iraq should be a cautionary tale for all democracies: If a state cannot guarantee the political and civil rights of its citizens, if it cannot enforce judicial or administrative rulings because it is outgunned by individuals or factions, then it is not functioning as a democratic state.

    In Iraq, the state's lack of a monopoly on force has produced obvious negative consequences. Let's face it--isn't that really what "the surge" is all about? George Will has written that, "A defining attribute of a government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence. That attribute is incompatible with the existence of private militias of the sort that maraud in Iraq." Researcher Herbert Wulf, commenting on the U.S. occupation of Iraq, stated, "[t]he present situation in Iraq illustrates that even the most powerful military nation of the world runs into difficulties in trying to re-establish the monopoly of violence."

    This doesn't mean that Saddam Hussein's regime, or other totalitarian states, should be accepted. These regimes lack legitimacy, which is the key to Weber's definition of the monopoly on force. Nor does it mean that a democratic government must disarm every citizen or prevent armed self-defense. However, it does mean that a democratic state must be able to prevent the accumulation of military arms for insurrectionary purposes, and it must have enough strength to enforce its own laws. Without this monopoly of force, rights are only abstractions, because they cannot be enforced. This is not to say that government is the source of all rights, but rather that the only hope of vindicating individual rights over the long term is through democratic government that has both the will and the means to protect them.

    The bottom line is that our Constitution is not a suicide pact. It can be amended and modified, but it does not sanction its own violent demise. As the eminent jurist Roscoe Pound concluded, a "legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted [because it] would defeat the whole Bill of Rights." If we value our democracy, we should hope the Supreme Court agrees and explicitly quashes the D.C. Circuit's assertion that there is an insurrectionary purpose to the Second Amendment.

    [This editorial was co-authored by Josh Horwitz and Casey Anderson.]
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Thanks Skidmark..
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Watch The Kite Runner and its portrayal of Afganistan's slide into religious chaos. Think who would have been damned 'insurrectionist'.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Absolute ******* idiots!!!

    9 uses of the word democrat/democratic

    0 uses of the word republic

    This is an op-ed talking about our governance. And the commentors. Except for I think 2 who get it, they have a collective IQ of a chicken. Stupid, stupid people.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    282

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Absolute ******* idiots!!!

    9 uses of the word democrat/democratic

    0 uses of the word republic

    This is an op-ed talking about our governance. And the commentors. Except for I think 2 who get it, they have a collective IQ of a chicken. Stupid, stupid people.
    +1

    People like that get others killed so they can have a "warm fuzzy".
    Total Retards!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    This is why I can never vote for any of the current establishment republicans like McCain. This whole article is classic neo-con. Someone who started off as a liberal and then decided to become a flag-waving warmonger while maintaining his love for state power and progressive democracy. That's who writes rubbish like this, and that's who is ruling the roost in American politics these days, in both parties.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bristow, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

    -C.S. Lewis

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    casullshooter wrote:
    "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

    -C.S. Lewis
    The whole quote is even better:

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -C.S. Lewis

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    C.S. Lewis was rather prescient with that quote. I'd forgotten that those were his words.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    The sh**ple wrote:

    If this insurrectionist logic were to be embraced by the Supreme Court, however, our democracy would be severely degraded. Such an interpretation of the Second Amendment would make even the most modest gun control legislation unconstitutional. If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow individuals to stockpile firearms to protect against government "tyranny," then laws like owner licensing or firearm registration (and maybe even the Brady background check) could be found unconstitutional because they allow the government to monitor and regulate gun ownership. Future Timothy McVeighs could claim constitutional protection for their crimes. If every American armed up to vindicate their private grievances (the Court of Appeals gave absolutely no guidance on how to tell, or who should decide, what constitutes government "tyranny"), the government's monopoly on force would be infringed and our society would gradually slide toward anarchy.
    And now, what's wrong with this? :?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    The sh**ple wrote:

    If this insurrectionist logic were to be embraced by the Supreme Court, however, our democracy would be severely degraded. Such an interpretation of the Second Amendment would make even the most modest gun control legislation unconstitutional. If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow individuals to stockpile firearms to protect against government "tyranny," then laws like owner licensing or firearm registration (and maybe even the Brady background check) could be found unconstitutional because they allow the government to monitor and regulate gun ownership. Future Timothy McVeighs could claim constitutional protection for their crimes. If every American armed up to vindicate their private grievances (the Court of Appeals gave absolutely no guidance on how to tell, or who should decide, what constitutes government "tyranny"), the government's monopoly on force would be infringed and our society would gradually slide toward anarchy.
    And now, what's wrong with this? :?

    Why do insurrectionists have such a bad rap? They werea relativelygood force at Lexington and Concord when non violent alternatives to tyranny were muted by the government's attempt to gain a monopoly on arms by forced disarmament of the people.

    Insurrectionists were also a force for good in the Warsaw ghettos resisting the evil of the Nazis.

    The value of insurrection varies with ones point of view. The ability to resist is always abhorrent to the tyrant.

    Live Free or Die,

    Thundar

    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Well, considering that we don't have a democracy in the first place, there is nothing within their argument to be denagrated. Ipso facto anything that follows is irrelevant to this country.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Well, considering that we don't have a democracy in the first place, there is nothing within their argument to be denagrated. Ipso facto anything that follows is irrelevant to this country.
    Haha, yeah I started laughing to myself when I read what they were saying about democracy...

    I've found that since I joined up here at OCDO, my opinion of democracy has progressively degraded. It's simply mob rule by a better name. There's no "right" or "wrong", no universal truth, just whatever enough people think is right. Anyhow...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Well, considering that we don't have a democracy in the first place, there is nothing within their argument to be denagrated. Ipso facto anything that follows is irrelevant to this country.
    Haha, yeah I started laughing to myself when I read what they were saying about democracy...

    I've found that since I joined up here at OCDO, my opinion of democracy has progressively degraded. It's simply mob rule by a better name. There's no "right" or "wrong", no universal truth, just whatever enough people think is right. Anyhow...
    Well, you could ignore it, because you actually think about such things, but remember that most of the people reading that automatically think America = Democracy.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Well, considering that we don't have a democracy in the first place, there is nothing within their argument to be denagrated. Ipso facto anything that follows is irrelevant to this country.
    Haha, yeah I started laughing to myself when I read what they were saying about democracy...

    I've found that since I joined up here at OCDO, my opinion of democracy has progressively degraded. It's simply mob rule by a better name. There's no "right" or "wrong", no universal truth, just whatever enough people think is right. Anyhow...
    Well, you could ignore it, because you actually think about such things, but remember that most of the people reading that automatically think America = Democracy.
    Yeah, I know which is sad. Gov't schools ... don't get me started.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Well, you could ignore it, because you actually think about such things, but remember that most of the people reading that automatically think America = Democracy.
    Yeah, I know which is sad. Gov't schools ... don't get me started.
    http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

    Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education, blew the whistle on government activities. Her inside knowledge will help you protect your children from controversial methods and programs.
    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •