Protecting FREEDOM

[Shadow586M]

"The proper area to discuss issues related to the usage of arms, such as in self-defense situation or hunting. In general for discussions regarding the usage of arms, not ownership or carrying."

What about using firearms to protect our freedoms from corrupt government officials hiding behind the color of authority? Isn't that the primary function of the Second Amendment? And isn't that why government officials continue to infringe upon the Second Amendment?

[Dial 1911 for Help]

What about using firearms to protect our freedoms from corrupt government officials hiding behind the color of authority? Isn't that the primary function of the Second Amendment? And isn't that why government officials continue to infringe upon the Second Amendment?
You get right to the point, don't you? :)

[Old Fashioned]

Shadow586M, your question is potentially loaded with dynamite but I'll take a stab at it. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It doesn't give us the right, it protects the right. Any time a right of the citizens is referred to in the Constitution, the phrase "the people" is used. when the constitution refers to rights or powers of the government, the words "control" or "authority" are used. Therefore, the phrase "right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to an individual right of the citizens. This right is for the purpose of hunting (for food), protecting one's self, one's family, one's home, one's property, and yes, against the government. HOWEVER, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not intend for anyone to take up arms against a politician or the government because he or she believes the politician or government is corrupt or because there is a disagreement. That is why there are checks and balances to our system of government, the judicial system to investigate and prosecute for wrong doing, and the requirement for politicians to face re-election periodically. And finally, there is the will of the people. If a politician is corrupt and is not prosecuted, the people can vote the politician out of office. The taking of arms against a politician or the government is a very serious decision to make, and, except for the most extreme of situations such as someone becoming a dictator, would be viewed by the government as an act of sedition and/or lawlessness and would also be viewed as such by the citizens of the country. Anyone else out there feel free, please, to jump in and help me out. :nono: :nono:

[Patriotic]

Old Fashioned, I agree with you 100%, it is a grievous decision to take up arms against an unlawful government (tyranny). The founding fathers did a pretty good job setting up our government with checks and balances but when the balances become uneven, we have the elements for tyranny. Today we are very close to that “red line”, we have a single Party in control of both houses of Congress and we have a SC on the border. Our representatives are following the Party line and ignoring their constituents as seen with the health reform legislation. We have a strong movement from the Left to attack our 2A rights because they have the majority to do so. I often wonder if it is fear of insurrection behind the 2A attack. It is unhealthy for our country to be in this situation and we will have to wait another year to vote our displeasure.

Firearm registration should never be passed because from there is but a small step to move to confiscation. At that point it would be too late. The UN advocates the banning of private firearm ownership and this administration is too closely aligned with the UN. Our government wants to use the “backdoor” treaty method to limit our 2A rights as indicated by the Mexico discussions on illegal gun exports. I see these insidious acts as an attempt to circumvent the Constitution.

I am not advocating a revolution and only pointing out that we should be constantly alert to the direction we are headed. Our vote was never as important as it is today.

[Old Fashioned]

Well said, Patriotic.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

The taking of arms against a politician or the government is a very serious decision to make, and, except for the most extreme of situations such as someone becoming a dictator, would be viewed by the government as an act of sedition and/or lawlessness and would also be viewed as such by the citizens of the country. Anyone else out there feel free, please, to jump in and help me out.

I would go even farther and say that in any case where someone chose to do this, they're going to have to accept that it's, well, at best extra-legal. While the founders were well aware of the necessity of this potential safety valve, and their writings acknowledge that awareness, it's obviously unrealistic for them to expect the law to explicitly endorse armed rebellion against those who write and enforce the law in the first place.

[Shadow586M]

I agree with you all . . . . in principle. You are of course assuming that there will be honest, dedicated civil servants to correct any "error" committed by government. 90% of all government entities are self-serving liberals. Like the Liberty Bell, our government is flawed by poor material. Having committed a lawful act of tyrannicide, the real problem is surviving long enough to explain your actions in a government court of law before a jury of your fellow citizens.


"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."

Thomas Jefferson


"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law."

Martin Luther King Jr.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I agree with you all . . . . in principle. You are of course assuming that there will be honest, dedicated civil servants to correct any "error" committed by government. 90% of all government entities are self-serving liberals.
No, just observing that it's a fools errand to expect any government to officially sanction its own violent removal. Whether that lack of official sanction is determinative, each person must decide for himself.

Getting angry at the government for failing to do so is a lot like getting mad at your dog for flatulating [my original word choice is apparently banned on GP] in the house. That's what governments do. OTOH, the people will do what people do.

[Patriotic]

Throughout our history there have been disagreements with government over policy. Many of these disagreements have been voiced by special interest groups ie. anti-war protestors, equal rights advocates, women’s rights advocates etc. I think what we see today with the “tea party” movement is a much broader dissatisfaction with the way the country is being run. The people who are turning out in these protests are not the usual activists, they are grass roots people who normally wouldn’t make the effort unless something was terribly wrong. Take a look at our group of firearms owners, about 80 million strong but I doubt we could get 8,000 to demonstrate against gun laws.

The government needs to take notice of the will of the people. After all it was “the people” who elected them to office. To take the stand that government knows best in relation to what the people think is asking for rebellion. Continuing to ignore the will of the people because you control the military is tantamount to dictatorship. Another facet of our checks and balances is the fact our military takes an oath of loyalty to the Constitution and not the Commander in Chief. They can disobey an unlawful order given by a superior.

Maybe we need an Amendment to the Constitution where the “people” can bring forth articles of impeachment against a sitting President.

[John]

Do I need to remind you folks that there is a much less lethal way to change a government? Resorting to arms against one's government is an extreme measure, which should only be exercised after serious, very very serious consideration.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Do I need to remind you folks that there is a much less lethal way to change a government? Resorting to arms against one's government is an extreme measure, which should only be exercised after serious, very very serious consideration.
I think that's pretty much the gist of what everyone is trying to say.

[Shadow586M]

Of course. But how serious is serious. I'm not talking about a civil service force that won't fill in potholes. We have "Rights" only if those in power respect them.

"Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism."
Mary McCarthy, 18 Oct 1958

May I suggest to those interested in the subject to read the following book:

"AGAINST THE TYRANT" The tradition and theory of tyrannicide
By Oscar Jaszi and John D. Lewis
1957 The Falcon's Wing Press

[d90king]

Folks, please keep in mind that all discussion should be based upon the use of legal remedies and not REVOLUTIONARY tactics to over throw our out of control government. Discuss all of the things that are already at your disposal that allow you to bring about the change you are trying to achieve.

[d90king]

What about using firearms to protect our freedoms from corrupt government officials hiding behind the color of authority? Isn't that the primary function of the Second Amendment? And isn't that why government officials continue to infringe upon the Second Amendment?


Yes, the second was designed to keep the power in the hands of the people... However in today's day of technology that is no longer the case based upon the size that we have allowed or government to grow.

With that in mind we have many other ways to achieve the same objective and stay within the law.

We can start by holding the politicians responsible for their actions at the booth...

" We are a land of laws......" "The citizens get the government they deserve....."

[d90king]

Shadow586M, your question is potentially loaded with dynamite but I'll take a stab at it. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It doesn't give us the right, it protects the right. Any time a right of the citizens is referred to in the Constitution, the phrase "the people" is used. when the constitution refers to rights or powers of the government, the words "control" or "authority" are used. Therefore, the phrase "right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to an individual right of the citizens. This right is for the purpose of hunting (for food), protecting one's self, one's family, one's home, one's property, and yes, against the government. HOWEVER, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not intend for anyone to take up arms against a politician or the government because he or she believes the politician or government is corrupt or because there is a disagreement. That is why there are checks and balances to our system of government, the judicial system to investigate and prosecute for wrong doing, and the requirement for politicians to face re-election periodically. And finally, there is the will of the people. If a politician is corrupt and is not prosecuted, the people can vote the politician out of office. The taking of arms against a politician or the government is a very serious decision to make, and, except for the most extreme of situations such as someone becoming a dictator, would be viewed by the government as an act of sedition and/or lawlessness and would also be viewed as such by the citizens of the country. Anyone else out there feel free, please, to jump in and help me out. :nono: :nono:


Not completely accurate in the eyes of our forefathers. They believed your right to self preservation was not given to you buy the government, they believed that you were born with it as a basic human right...

* Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html




2a was actually more about keeping the power in the hands of the people and not in the hands of the government...

[Shadow586M]

Yes, the second was designed to keep the power in the hands of the people... However in today's day of technology that is no longer the case based upon the size that we have allowed or government to grow.

With that in mind we have many other ways to achieve the same objective and stay within the law.

We can start by holding the politicians responsible for their actions at the booth...

" We are a land of laws......" "The citizens get the government they deserve....."
d90king

"The citizens get the government they deserve....."

Are you saying that we deserve a big, corrupt government???

I say the government itself has denied us the proper tools to control government.
How are we "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" if it only gets us on a watch list?
We can not elect the civil servants that run our government on a daily basis. And we have little choice regarding the politicians that oversee the government. Our ballots need another choice; None Of The Above (NOTA).

Only then will we have the government we deserve.

[d90king]

d90king

"The citizens get the government they deserve....."

Are you saying that we deserve a big, corrupt government???

I say the government itself has denied us the proper tools to control government.
How are we "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" if it only gets us on a watch list?
We can not elect the civil servants that run our government on a daily basis. And we have little choice regarding the politicians that oversee the government. Our ballots need another choice; None Of The Above (NOTA).

Only then will we have the government we deserve.




Of course not!

We got the government we deserved in a metaphorical way... We and previous generations voted into office the same politicians who are violating our rights and they have been re-elected multiple times and are not held accountable for their records on the issue that are important to individual voters...

No the government hasn't refused us "tools", WE are the TOOL.

I agree that both parties are to blame and that it is becoming more and more viable that a 3rd party is gaining in popularity and could slowly gain traction in the near future, because many have the same opinion as you have.

Here is a good start... Get out of NATO, follow the constitution, create term limits for congress, enforcement of current immigration laws and secure our borders, get government out of the private sector using tax payer dollars (banks,ins,autos etc),
abolish the FED, stop corporate influence in elections, protect our nation, hold politicians responsible for the votes they cast and bills they introduce, mandate that every politician who cast a vote for a bill must have read every page of its contents, stop having 3rd party private sector writing the bills that are to be voted on (if they want to write a bill then write a bill) and shrink the size scale and scope of government.. If we start there, then we can bring about the change that many would like to see.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Not completely accurate in the eyes of our forefathers. They believed your right to self preservation was not given to you buy the government, they believed that you were born with it as a basic human right...But that's what he said: "The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It doesn't give us the right, it protects the right."

[Old Fashioned]

As I said previously, taking up arms against the government or any politician is a most serious decision to make. How serious? Serious in the extreme. I would respectfully suggest that, with all of the avenues available to the citizens, the taking of arms against the government is not an option. At the very least, conditions would have to become MUCH worse than they are before that could even be considered. With AlQaida and these plots in the US to commit terrorism, we need to give all of the support that we can to the government. That does not mean that we lay down and allow politicians to infringe on our rights however they want. The will of the people should not be underestimated. A perfect example of this is the debate over health care reform. The Democrats have enough votes to pass whatever they want without any votes from Republicans but with the record turnouts at all of the town hall meetings and the "tea parties", many Democrats are questioning a lot of their own party's proposals. They heard all too clearly the dissatisfaction of the people. Most of them are not going to get on tv and admit it but they certainly are aware of the concerns of voters. Many, if not most, of these people are very concerned about the direction in which the country has been going and are turning out in record numbers to express their dissaproval. This all points to the problem that we as gun owners have, our failure to speak in one united voice. All too often too many of us sit on the side and think that this or that will never happen or this or that bill does not apply to the type of firearm that "I" have or "I" don't carry a weapon for self defense so I don't have to be concerned about this or that legislation. We have to be united and we all have to join some type of organization the supports our gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. Just be sure of what you are joining. There are some organizations that claim to support hunters or the 2nA and use the name of the organization as a cover for their gun control activities. I'll say again, there are too many avenues still available to enforce the will of the people to be thinking of taking up arms against the government. And for gosh sake, vote! Not just in federal elections but state and local also. That is where the will of the peole prevails. Just my opinion. :D :D :D :D

[msc]

Just because a government official is a crook, and we can own firearms, does not mean ergo that we shoot them when they are exposed...right? Not sure that firearms are meant to protect us from elected crooks...that is what elections are for, and the courts when it is serious.

[DoubleTap45]

And what a GRIND that is! I want to remind everyone here that neither the CONUS nor the Bill of Rights GRANT a SINGLE right. These documents safeguard rights which the Founders understood were pre-existing and were the birthright of free people everywhere.
The CONUS and B of R are the only documents in the world designed to enumerate those rights the PEOPLE have AGAINST the government. The 14th Amendment extended these to include rights the people have against the STATE and LOCAL governments.

An enterprising legal team could come up with a roadmap to force localities anywhere to honor the Heller Decision whether they like it or not. Just as they can apply the "full faith and credit" clause which validates your marriage and driver's licenses in all 50 states to validate CCW from ANY state in any state.

-Ray :dead_hors

[Old Fashioned]

In the case of U.S. v Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), SCOTUS made the observation that "the people" seemed to be a term of art that was used in select parts of the Constitution. They went on to say that the Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the people of the United States". Then they said that the 2nd Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", and the 9th and 10th Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people". That seems to me to be a defacto admission by the court that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states and municipalities. After all, "the people" are the United States, "the people" are the states and municipalities.

[msc]

Interesting...except when the states are named as such so the rule applies to them in particular. But I like your thinking.

[Shadow586M]

Government can not bestow "natural rights", it can only deny them. One of the primary functions of a legitimate act of tyrannicide is to make known to society.

The Second Amendment was not intended to be an individual right, it was originally intended to be a social obligation, all able-bodied citizens should be armed.

Anybody know the address of their local militia?

[DoubleTap45]

"The Founders' Second Amendment" by Halbrook. He also wrote "That Every Man Be Armed" and has written a detailed history of the THINKING behind the RKBA. Not an expensive book and WORTH every minute spent to read it.


-Ray