Hi
That's a very odd way to express your reasons. Are you saying that prior to the Declaration of Independence, you would not consider it justified to keep guns for the purpose of an armed revolution, but after you would? Surely that must be nothing but a practical question of what is allowed, rather than what is necessary.
Well... prior to the Declaration of Independence, I'd have been to young to have a gun, so my point of view is somewhat slanted, but in a nation founded in revolution, and a whole bunch of government that was concerned about future governmental jackassulation, I think it is valid to keep guns for the purpose of
supporting AND limiting that same government.
...and the USA is all about what's allowed, and not what's necessary.
That's why it kind of honks me off when people say, "well you don't NEED a 7.62 NATO rifle capable of hitting a 10" pie plate at 500 yards," as a rationalization of forbidding me its ownership.
I WANT to waste my time, energy and expendable income trying to get the holes in the paper just a
SMIDGEN closer together, there's no law against it and I cause no damage to anyone else.
Why should any other human being care that I don't
NEED it.
I would discredit the British Empire - although I have little sympathy for it - if I said otherwise. But civil disobedience on a large scale would still have disrupted much of Nazi Germany's activities. It's true that they had insane leaders, and that they would have been far more ruthless than the British. But that does not mean it would have been a losing battle.
If the Nazi couldn't kill 'em all, they'd ignore 'em as long as they were being nonviolent.
The Brits
STOPPED when the Indians lay down in front of the vehicles and tanks, right?
As Architect pointed out, the civilian (and smaller military) attempts to attack them with weapons did not do much to stop them. The fact remains that they had widespread support which gave them their power, and that they used propaganda to increase that mindless support. That was the problem. Instead of arming themselves with guns, people should arm themselves with humane values and an understanding that prevents them from being used in this way. I understand that these are not mutually exclusive, but if you have the latter, you do not need the former.
Tell the last armed Jew in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Violence is never a GOOD idea, but sometimes it's the ONLY idea.
Please don't get me wrong! Peaceful and nonviolent change is the nicest thing I've ever been subjected to, and I've voted every year that I could but once when I was in the hospital, but I still think it's a
great day if I'm
not on fire and no one is
SHOOTING at me.
I don't want to use the guns to shoot people. The guns are the
absolute last resort.
...but the guns
are there.
I have no idea how many of the gun owners that vote. What I do know is that too few vote in America, and to me it seems to me that this, among other things, is a more pressing issue when it comes to democracy being vulnerable than getting a gun to rebel if it falls apart completely. In short, rather than preparing for the worst, people should be focusing on not letting the worst happen.
I've heard that... ummm... Australia is it?... has mandatory attendance at the polling place. I personally think it's a great idea, but another touchstone of freedom is the freedom to shirk your duty.
Freedom is a difficult and uncomfortable thing.
Just like when someone burns a flag, and I think of all the men that died to protect that flag, and it hurts so bad I feel like I'm having a heart attack. I remember, however, that they died, not for the flag, but for what it represents, and ONE of the things it represents is the
freedom to burn the flag, so I keep my mouth shut and just salute.
If you're interested in freedom and liberty, you support
ALL the freedoms and liberties.
In a democracy it does. People like Hitler and - to a lesser extent - Mr. Bush can play the system and sometimes the results are fatal. But democracy is the best system we have. Forcing the American people to give up their guns against their collective will would accomplish nothing, but no one is really suggesting that.
Then the US'd still have slavery and a mess of other nasty bits.
Another of the wonderful and nonviolent rights we enjoy is that an individual citizen can challenge the legality of specific laws under the law, to seek redress from the entire government under the law, or challenge the constitutionality an any law.
As we live in a Representative Democracy instead of a straight, stand-up, foot stomping Democracy, the passing desires, momentary whims, and ephemeral fashion of the majority is tempered by the fact that it's not the majority, but the person the majority elects, that forms the laws, and slowed by the requirements of amending those laws.
Attempting to figure things out never hurt anyone. All I'm saying is that the Constitution does not constitute (bad pun intended) any kind of higher truth or absolute right. So what the constitution says does not interest me when it comes to if one should keep firearms for the purposes of armed revolution.
No - it only forms the Law of the United States.
If the Constitution says I have the right to due process and the right of free speech, then the right of free speech can't be take from me without due process. If it says that I'm allowed to keep and bear arms (big if, right now) then that right can't be taken from me without due process. If it says that I have other rights not enumerated, and it does, then the government has to think seriously before it starts throwing its weight around.
It provides limitations to the government and provides forbearance to the citizens.
I kind of like it.
Do not misunderstand me, I have respect for the Constitution as a historical document. But it is exactly that - an historical document. We must not cling on to its values because they brought about change in the day it was written.
A historical document that forms the basis of law for the country.
Don't like it? Change it... but you
GOTTA WANNA!
You also have to sell the idea to a majority of the people of the nation (I forget if it's a simple majority or 2/3rds or what) in state-by-state ratification.
Is there any other way to determine how free you should be besides how free you want to be?
I'm beginning to think not, but if someone takes something from you, and you never even notice that it's gone, is it a theft?
In principal, yes, it is, but if nobody does anything about it, or there's no basis on which to do anything about it, does it being a crime make any difference?
Even the Romans has a saying: "Ubi non Accusator, ibi non Judex." Roughly translated, that means, "if they ain't no cops, they ain't no speed limit."
So, how free am I? If it's enough to make me happy, I guess that's what I deserve.
I'm not attacking your right to have guns. I'm questioning the justification for keeping them that they should be used for an armed revolution.
"Should be used," is different than, "could be used," right?
Guns are just a kind of tool. Like any tool, it can be used to build, preserve and repair, or destroy.
It all depends on the specific need and the particular strengths of the tool.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, you may wind up needing a particular type of tool for which all attempted substitutions have failed.
At that point, it's really nice to be able to go over and borrow the neighbor's, so people should
definitely be allowed to have them.
Then I hope you understand why I felt the quote shared some values with fascism. The fact that it shared some values with Mao doesn't really make it better...
Indeed.
I know that democracy is not infallible, but neither are gun owners. I repeat my earlier question - if there is a feeling of strong duty toward the government amongst gun owners, how do you know they'll be on your side if things get bad?
If you mean to support the government: They always have been before. Why would they stop now?
There are a few of the, "cold dead hands," guys out there, but most of us, if the government and the people repeal the second amendment and pass anti-gun laws, will line up on collection day like soldiers.
We'll be crying for liberty and freedom lost, but we'll line up, and, brother, I'll be first in line.
If you mean for a revolution: Things would have to be pretty bad, and someone out there would have to have a pretty darned attractive idea.
During the last revolution, there were Americans on both sides of the line, and I suspect that, if we had another, it'd be the same.
See, we're not sitting around
plotting insurrection, but we remember how this government was started.
We, like those silly old Founding Father guys, just want the government to remember, too.
Yeah. 
