Oh, shut up. I came up with a random example of something that might seem oppressive to the citizenry at large. I didn’t say I was going to start shooting everyone as soon as taxes went over X rate. Quit, already.
**
Yawn.
Actually, I could give a fuck about “democracy”. I’m concerned with the Republic of the United States of America. America is specifically not a democracy because it was set up with the principals that individual rights superscede any whim of mob rule.
Should there be a “democratic” infringement of any sort of human rights, then this is just the execution of the whim of the majority, and a violation of the founding principles of this country.
I will not start shooting when tax hits X rate, that was just a random example. However, because something was “democratically” legislated means little to me. If the legislators violate their oaths against this Republic to serve the whim of the majority, they are commiting treason.
If they are “democratically” robbing me of my natural rights, then I reserve every right to defend myself.
Don’t give me this “Oh, stem cell research passed! Time to kill Congress!” bullshit. You’re labelling me with some psychotic anti-government brush.
To expand on that, there was no ‘democratic’ principles on the founding of this country. There was unilateral agreement that having rights subject to the whim of the majority was undesirable. Democracy, as a system of government, fails as soon as people realize they can do whatever they want, on a whim, to anyone.
One of the reasons this is a Republic is exactly the cause of this debate. I have the natural right to defend myself with whatever practical tools I can use to that extent. You do, too. However, in our feminized little society, we’ve all decided that we’re too cowardly to take responsibility for ourselves, and we rely on other people (the police) to protect us.
And when we, as a society, see people who are willing to bear the burden to defend themselves and their family, we ostracize them, because it reminds us how we’ve decided to be cowards.
I have the right to self defense, and no whim of the majority can take that away. No matter how popular suppressing my rights may be, they are my rights. If our rulers “democratically” vote away our rights, they have commited treason. And we have the right to protect ourselves against them. This is why we are a Republic, not a Democracy.
“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States
“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the right of resistance? Let them take arms…The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Thomas Jefferson
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense…" Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No.28
Do you need more? I’ve got plenty.
**
Violation and suppression of natural rights is not a “political dispute”.
And suddenly we’re back to, more or less, your Ninth Amendment argument, in which you try to convince everyone else that things a bunch of dead guys said, but did not bother to write into law, now have binding legal effect two centuries later. Sorry, ain’t buying it.
I always get a kick out of that feedback-loop argument, Johnny: We need our guns because they might take away our guns.
And yes, the Second Amendment is antidemocratic, in that it restricts the ability of the majority to restrict guns. The kicker is, though, that the restriction is much more limited than most gun fans would like. See Miller.
A thought experiment: Imagine that the Second Amendment had been defeated. The state legislatures all took a look at Hamilton’s draft, then laughed it right back to Virginia.
Do you still maintain you have a right to keep and bear arms? Why?
I never said that. I’m saying that the Second Amendment protects our right to own firearms.
Yes. As I said, we have the right to defend ourselves if we are attacked. If law-abiding people such as you and I do not have firearms, then we would have no reasonable means of defending ourselves from the criminals that do. Or would you rather say, “He may be killing me, but at least I’ve not tainted my beliefs by defending myself!”?
So the law is irrelevant to the right? That’s what I thought you’d say, Johnny. It’s also why these debates are so unproductive, because both sides are talking past each other. I feel like an atheist in a witnessing thread.
I’d also point out that you just mentioned my second-favorite feedback-loop argument: We need our guns to protect ourselves from other people with guns.
Gotta love that argument. “I have the right to start killing people whenever I feel that my “rights” are being violated! The speed limit laws totally infringe on my right to drive recklessly, I’m gonna kill anyone who tries to give me a ticket!” Or, “Taxes are too high… time for a massacre.”
Without laws to the contrary, people have the “right” to do whatever they want. Basically, you want to use guns to return you to this state.
Fair enough. As long as we’re knocking the bill of rights, we might as well scratch the 9th off the list, too. It can be buried right next to the 10th, and the 2nd. And will probably soon be joined by the 4th.
Yes. I have a natural, inalienable right to defend myself, the Constitution just officially keeps the government from interfering from it. They cannot, by law, simply make my natural rights no longer exist.
If I were in the Soviet Union, I’d still have the right to speak freely, even though doing so might get me suppressed or killed.
You don’t have a correct assessment to the argument.
The argument is this: We need our firearms so that the government cannot (easily, anyway) violate our natural rights. Should the government become completely tyranical, one of the first steps is likely gun confiscation, because they will need to disarm us for any real oppression.
It’s not “We need our guns because they might take our guns”, it’s “We need our guns because they might suppress all of our natural rights, including taking our guns.”
**
Smart move, wasn’t it?
Do you mean the governmental ability to restrict guns is much more limited than we’d like? That doesn’t really make sense. What do you mean?
That’s not a feedback loop argument in any stretch. There will be criminals out there with weapons. Invariably. If we choose to give up our weapons, we put ourselves at their mercy.
The only way you could possibly consider it a feedback argument is if you think that outlawing guns in our hands will somehow serve to disarm criminals. That us being armed allows them to be armed. This is a hugely flawed premise, and hence the whole thing is not a “feedback argument”.
And the counter-argument, of course, is that one does not have the right to defend himself, and being locked in a basement and raped with a taser every day warrants no resistance.
