And a related question for any pro-gun pro-privacy libertarian:
If guns prevent government overreach, why is the Westernized country with the least gun control the one with the NSA?
Imagine that the Constitution is properly amended and then Congress passes a law, both houses, signed by the President which demands that each citizen, including children become a slave to the United States government, and that any protest of the new law will result in death by torture without trial.
In your view, is such a law “legitimate”? I contend that it is not. I agree with Abatis that our rights do not come from the Constitution, but from a higher power: either God or humanity.
I freely admit that’s the biggest hole in my argument; obviously there must be more to it than that. But if it’s over-simplistic to say that no civilian weapons leads to tyranny, than it’s equally simplistic to say that civilian weapons could be banned and everything will be fine.
This is why it depends on how the word legitimate is used. In your scenario, I assume you left out the part where the law is reviewed by SCOTUS and they bless its constitutionality? In any case, using the term to mean,* ‘conforming to the law, lawful, etc.’* then such a law would be legitimate by definition. The laws would be unjust but as long as the process is followed, how can you argue they are not lawful? To what authority are you appealing to to claim they are not lawful? My whole point is that arguing the acts of SCOTUS are illegitimate is worthless unless the term illegitimate is being used in a non-standard way.
I disagree. Continuing my hypothetical, supposed you lived under such a law. A few members of your group find some arms and decide to fight back against the repression. Do you join them or support them? Under what authority is this group “right” and the oppressors “wrong”? Remember, the oppressors had their law passed under the procedure established in the Constitution. If that is the end all, be all, then the actions of this group are unlawful and deserve torture death.
But you would agree that something higher, whether that is religious or simply secular humanity, that dictates that this government is not legitimate. It is not one that respects the basic rights of humans as discussed by Locke and Jefferson. If you would contend that this small group is “right” and the government oppressors are “wrong” then you agree with the existence of this higher authority or else you would have to concede that you have no basis for your belief.
The concepts of right or wrong or fair and unfair are just not the same as the meanings of the words legitimate and illegitemate.
I’m not arguing right or wrong, or just or unjust. Legitimate has a specific definition. I take it to mean lawful. Abatis defined it as constitutional (using the reverse, as he? defined illegitimate to be unconstitutional). In that sense, anything passed by the proscribed constitutional process is legitimate.
But yes, I would oppose such a hypothetical regime by whatever means available.
You don’t just have to take it. They are synonyms. Lawful is the germanic form while Legitimate is the latin form of the same word.
Sometimes I wish the Normans had never conquered the Anglo-Saxons. It makes your language so confusing at times.
Suppose the Constitution says that all religions should be given equal protection before the law and Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court follow this principle.
But God opposes this law as being illegitimate because He does not want His followers to live among non-believers.
This, in my opinion, is why it’s a bad idea to ascribe legitimacy to the higher power of God.
But to address your example, the Constitution clearly states that slavery cannot be enacted in the manner you described. If Congress and the President tried to do so, they would be acting illegally and there are avenues to deal with illegal actions by the government. In the worst case scenario where the entire government acts illegally, the solution is to replace the illegitimate government with a new government that acts legally not to abandon the principle of rule by government.
Because you have to find them before you can shoot them?
In the hypo I stated that the Constitution is amended to allow torture/slavery so it is “legitimate” by your definition. If you would oppose this by anything including speech (because the new law disallows this opposition) then you would be appealing to some higher cause than the law, no?
all i know, is that they are trying to remove the Rights to Bear Arms by coming up w/ excuses ( criminal, mental health, etc … )
once this happens, well, look back in history … i just hope that, WE **do not **re live it =/
It is no new thing in America to prohibit criminals or insane persons from owning guns. That’s been the law in every state, AFAIK, for decades at least.
At the federal level, it’s been the law since 1968.
Okay, I missed the part where you said the Constitution was amended to give the government the power to enslave everyone. So according to your hypothetical, the American people actually put it to a vote and asked the government to enslave them. I have to admit I’m having a hard time accepting that even as a hypothetical.
But in the bizarro world where the American people wanted to be enslaved and voted for it, then I guess it would be legitimate for the government to do it. The government is the tool of the people.
What part of history are you looking at, specifically?
Resurrecting this thread because I found something to add: this .pdf, the History of the Second Amendment. The author examines exactly how the Second Amendment came to be written, and especially examines the historical antecedents in 17th and 18th century England. The author’s conclusion is that the writers intended the right to keep and bear arms to be one of the populace at large, “the people”. In particular, the author points out examples from English history in which a “select” militia of persons hand-chosen to bear arms by the state, such as our present National Guard, were troops in everything but name and as dangerous to liberty as professional soldiers. A long read but very informative.
ETA: while it is up for debate whether an individual right to keep and bear arms is an anachronism in today’s society, it would seem that the author makes a strong case against the “collective” interpretation of the Second, and that original intent supports the individual right theory.
But, the point of all that seems to be to ensure a ready-armed popular militia as an alternative to a large standing army for national defense – not for insurrection.
Well as said in post #2 of this thread, how does a government include permission for insurrection in its own laws? 
The idea might be rephrased as “no government claiming to be a democracy could ever legitimately need to disarm the populace”. In this sense, an armed public is sort of a canary in a mine. Anything so unpopular that it would spark a mass armed revolt by a majority of the population deserves to be defeated by such a revolt.
My favorite example is Dorr’s Rebellion. In the 1840s, the state of Rhode Island still had a law that only people who owned land could vote- and of course because the propertiless couldn’t vote, they couldn’t get legislators who would change the law. Finally one Thomas Wilson Dorr and his followers said “screw this”, formed a rival state government and resisted arrest by armed force. Although technically the rebellion was defeated, the state government took the hint and decided reforming the voting laws was prudent.
Yeah, well, nowadays we don’t do Dorr’s Rebellion, we do the L.A. Riots. Amazing what you can accomplish with just clubs.