You’re not quite getting it. The Constitution requires you to work within the democratic system, rather than go shooting people if you don’t get your way.
Do you have a legal right to rebel? No, you do not.
If you think that you can get enough people together that agree with you that you can enforce the rights that you feel are important, and are willing and able to use violence to enforce those rights, then you have the ability to rebel.
Should your rebelion be successful, you can then codify the things that you think are important into your new system of governance, and that government that you created will then protect those rights with its monopoly on violence.
When you feel a right has been violated, who do you turn to? Do you turn to nature? Do you turn to god? Do you turn to making a mob?
No, you turn to the government, and ask it to restore the rights that you feel have been wrongfully removed.
So, as you look to the government to protect your rights, not god, not nature, not a mob, then it can only make logical sense that your rights extend from the government, and not from god or from nature or from a mob.
Anything else is simply wishful and magical thinking, that may make you feel good, and if you accept and insist upon it as an assertion, it can bolster an otherwise irrational argument to yourself and other irrational people, but is not based in reality.
There are limited number of “smart” replies when you advocate for murdering your political opponents, as you did.
You specifically said that you consider the genocide of minorities and political enemies to be morally the same as the loss of possessions.
The above text is not only stupid, it is also disgusting that you consider it to be morally equivalent to, and completely without logic or rationality that it is equally likely as, reasonable restriction on gun ownership and carry.
No, don’t try to pretend I said that. You were the one that said rights come from God not the government.
Several people, including me, pointed out that was absurd.
You realized what you said was wrong and tried to back pedal.
Let me be clear on this. It doesn’t matter if God gives you a right. It doesn’t matter if Zeus gives you a right. It doesn’t matter if Santa Claus gives you a right. The only thing that matters is if the government gives you a right.
That means that rights come from the government. Not from God or Zeus or Santa Claus.
And here in the United States, the government comes from the people. So rights are something we give ourselves not something that gets handed to us by God.
Yeah, but that keeps 'em from crying “Tyranny!” and grabbing their guns if they lose a debate. Show a little sympathy, willya?
And that’s why it matters very much if the government is acting to secure rights. If they are, then they are legitimate. If they aren’t, they aren’t.
I am not back-pedaling in the slightest. What I said is in exact accord with what the FF said and believed.
And therefore, since England did not grant the colonies the right to declare independence, they had no right to do so, according to this line of reasoning.
As the DoI makes clear, the FF disagree with you. And so do I. If a government becomes destructive of rights, then it is the right of the people - a right not granted them by that destructive government or any other - to alter or abolish it.
And thus, if a majority of We the People decide to repeal the Second Amendment, or round up the foreigners, then the blacks and foreigners have no right to complain. QED.
Regards,
Shodan
If by that you mean that those are the reasons that black men shoot and kill each other at rates that are wildly disproportionate to that of the rest of the population, and that the South has a larger black population than most other parts of the country, then you’re on point.
Clearly something beyond just poverty is going on in the black community if the numbers of murders and murderers are similar between the white and black communities, and the number of white people is something like 4x the number of black people.
I don’t know what it is, but it’s something that seems like it desperately needs to be investigated, rather than pretending that murders and victims are uniformly distributed.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/health/gun-deaths-in-men-by-state-study/index.html
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers
I don’t have data, but I’m thinking that a lack of good male role models (i.e. higher prevalence of fatherless households) for young males plays a significant factor.
Of course, a primary driver in the breakup of black families is government policy.
You dont think that being treated like subhuman scum, never being allowed to have decent jobs, your voting rights constantly threatened due to Jim Crow laws, being kept in the ghetto, and having symbols of a failed rebellions to keep slavery legal honored and waved around on a daily basis might just have a small reason? Flag of Mississippi?
Monuments and such to Nathan Bedford Forrest, a minor general who just happened to found the KKK?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3070019?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
And what determines the difference between whether a law is legitimate or not? Divine approval?
Funny, my copy of the Constitution starts out with the words “We, the People”.
That’s the real authority the Founding Fathers were invoking; the will of the people. Not the will of God.
The American people were justified in rebelling against England because the American people wanted to set up their own country. Not because God commanded it.
God didn’t create the United States. The American people created the United States.
Personally, I’ve found God to be completely silent on issues of government policy. I find that when people say they’re doing something because God wants it done, they really mean that they want it done.
And I wouldn’t invoke God in any argument about slavery or foreigners. I’ve read the Bible. God was fine with slavery and hated most people who weren’t Jewish. So it was people, not God, that decided to end slavery and welcome immigrants.
It takes much more than a simple majority to amend the Constitution to abolish the rights that would be violated there. Short of that, it also takes court rulings up to and including the Supreme Court to allow it. To get there, you have to put judges and representatives in place who agree that it would be a good thing to do it, and that takes a strong majority of the electorate thinking so too.
But yes, that’s how it works - your rights can’t be guaranteed by anyone but the government, however it is constituted, so if they don’t do it, you *effectively *don’t have them. God gave you that right, you say? Go ask Him for redress, then.
The said that state should not be allowed to have restrictive gun laws, and they said this because gun rights are backed by god?
Please cite.
Nope, no legal right. And had they not the physical ability to perform enough violence in order to make England decide that holding the colonies was not worth it, then they would have been arrested and probably executed as traitors.
You seem to be confusing rights with abilities. There is no where, not in any text of law or court case or anything in the whole world that will grant you the legitimate right to rebel against your government.
If you are powerful enough, however, well, might makes right.
If you want to talk about moral obligations or something like that, then that’s different, but you are talking about rights to rebel against the lawful government, and the FF’s absolutely would have disagreed with that.
That would be the 1st amendment that would get rid of their right to complain, and it requires more than a simple majority to get rid of it.
And, once again, you seem to be equating property ownership with murder. This does not help your case for making a moral argument in support of property at all.
Thanks for the encouragement. Are you sure that moderates are coming over to the “ban guns” side, considering that your side STILL does not have the votes to change the 2nd Amendment. Maybe moderates understand the right of self-defense better than you do?
(post shortened)
Yes, government by the people. You want to change the status quo, and you don’t have the votes to do so. I’m shocked. Maybe you are one who needs to address some higher power?
I don’t think they’re shooting each other over voting rights.
I don’t think that that was in any way shape or form, responsive to DrDeth’s post.
So, if you do not believe that it is the environment and society that is creating this problem, then would you like to give your reasons as to why you believe that black people statistically have more criminal records than white people?
Because they’re poorer, on average.
None of that necessarily adds up to being murderous, especially toward your own community.
That’s what I’m saying; the causes don’t seem to be very well identified, which is part of the reason not much has been done to rectify it.
Where this intersects with gun control IMO, is that I suspect to a lot of white gun owners, especially the rural and suburban ones, the whole issue of gun crime and murders is viewed as “their problem” not “our problem”, with the followup question of why do the overwhelming majority of gun owners need to be punished for the actions of a specific group? Not necessarily racist, but definitely drawing an us vs. them line in the sand.
Sure, there’s no one cause- except racism in the South. And sure, no one thing- not Stone Mountain, not Jim Crow, not the CSA flag is THE one thing that shows the deep, abiding racism the southern whites have- but it here. And it causes poverty, which causes crime.
How do black crime rates in non-racist places like Oakland, Chicago, Baltimore, or DC compare to those in the South?
Sure, but those arent entire regions and states. Everywhere we have poor people in ghettos we have more crime. But the South manages to do it throughout the entirety of the region.