ESPECIALLY from the state. That’s the whole point - that the state is nothing more than the collective will of free people, and that their consent can be revoked should the state get out of line. To that end, the people reserve the right to keep and bear arms. Hell, the founding fathers approved of the right of citizens to own cannon, which is not exactly your home-defense weapon of choice.
Maybe they were wrong about that. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” Sam. You certainly would not approve, I hope, of a dissatisfied individual shooting at government officials a la Ruby Ridge. Or even an organized dissident party. Even a very large dissident party. Those would be crimes, pure and simple, with no constitutional sanction whatsoever. The “collective will of free people” comes into play only when popular discontent with the government has grown so widespread and furious that even a disinterested observer might acknowledge the justice and necessity of revolution. But if that happens in a republic, discontent will be expressed electorally long before that point is reached. Unless it’s a sham democracy like Hussein’s Iraq – but in such a case, having their own guns will no more help the people overthrow it than it helped the Iraqis overthrow Hussein. So what’s the point?
The day rebels start firing Enfields at the National Guard, I’ll buy you a martini.
Several reasons- one of which is that many people are uncomfortable with paramilitary organisations that operate without Government oversight.
Surely you can see how a group of people in full camouflage gear and tactical rig, running around the forests with Springfield Armoury M1A rifles could be perceived negatively? Especially when their members indicate that they would be prepared to use force to ensure they can keep doing so for the foreseeable future?
You mentioned your Militia was there for the benefit of the Community, yet you don’t appear to engage in any good works (such as building homeless shelters or teaching first aid classes to the general public) FOR your Community, besides knowing fieldcraft and owning a gun. Again, I’m not saying you should be volunteering in Soup Kitchens or anything like that, but really, you see the point I’m trying to make?
Most people’s knowledge of Militias comes from things like Bowling For Columbine (which is bit like trying to learn about National Socialism by watching Raiders Of The Lost Ark, but I digress)- which didn’t paint an especially flattering view of said groups.
And then there’s the “God Loves America Best” thing, which I’m not going into…
I’m curious as to why you feel your right to keep and bear arms is inalienable? Because the US Constitution says so? Personal Code? Other?
And if the Republic turns nasty? Gee, I thought the left was already claiming that elections in the U.S. were rigged. Now imagine if they REALLY were.
Obviously, we’re not talking about a government even remotely like today’s government in the U.S. We’re talking about one that has essentially changed into a totalitarian state. Imagine a government declaring a ‘state of emergency’ and ending elections - and making it permanent. 20 years ago, the scenario was that a nuclear war destroyed the government, and whatever remnants were left decided that only a strong hand could maintain order.
We have a distorted view of the benevolence of government, because we happen to be living in a period of good governance. But history suggests these periods are pretty short. And even in the last century you saw plenty of examples of countries that went from democracy to totalitarianism, or at least from benevolent government to something much, much worse. Could it happen in the U.S.? It’s hard to see how, but these things are always unpredictable and change can come about faster than you’d think.
The American political/electoral system is rigged in favor of the corporate interests, and could be a great deal more democratic than it is (for which purpose I have made many suggestions in this forum). But it is nothing like a sham democracy such as Hussein’s.
It’s a continuum, not a dichotomy.
From George Orwell’s The Lion and the Unicorn: (1941)
Quite true. But what has that got to do with allowing the citizenry to be armed, for the specific (and under modern circumstances futile, stupid, and suicidal) purpose of opposing the government?!
Why should I care about that?
Um, no. I have yet to receive negative feedback. In fact, I’ve received nothing but praise from the community.
Most people in our community don’t give a rat’s ass about “homeless shelters” or whatnot. They only care about individual liberty. Unlike you, we do not have a socialist mindset.
No. Because I say so.
Amen. Only wish places like Australia would understand this.
:dubious: “Absolute,” Sam?! That’s a very un-conservative and un-Libertarian thing to say. Even I, a democratic socialist, would have some problems with it.
Uh, wouldn’t that come under “personal code”, then?
:dubious: What exactly is your “community”? I’m sure it’s not any American community, even in Ohio!
Crafter_man, I truly appreciate your time and thoughts in this thread, but I can see we’re probably going to have to agree to disagree on a number of issues.
If you can’t understand or care why being part of a modern-day paramilitary Commando Unit is unsettling to people, then I really don’t know that to say. I’m not expecting you to agree with them- you have every right to disagree, or think their views are wrong/unimportant- but at least be aware that
I’m guessing you haven’t read The Postman? I strongly suggest you do- it’s an excellent book, and contains much that may be of interest or at least give you pause for thought.
If your local community doesn’t care about homeless shelters or whatever, that’s fine (I was only using it as an example). I’m just not sure how you can “help the community” simply by virtue of owning a firearm… surely you could do as much, if not more good by joining the local police department?
What do you mean by “Socialist Mindset”, exactly?
If only we could give ourselves inalienable rights purely on our own say-so… I believe I have the inalienable right to a luxury tropical island home with a massive staff and my own personal fleet of private cars and aircraft, as well as squillions of dollars in the bank and a bevy of attractive, sexually open-minded young ladies to keep me company!
No offence intended, Crafter_man, but you realise that you’ve just proved the OP- ie, there ARE people in the US, in reasonable numbers, who would actually try and shoot it out with the authorities over a dramatic change in the firearms laws?
No. No, it isn’t.
It wasn’t just him. Several posters, including a certain brilliant, sexy, and witty attorney/druid (Yes, ladies, he’s single) told you the same thing in other ways.
I meant from a debate point of view, not from a philosophical/humanitarian point of view.
Yes, but only Crafter_man came forward and said that he, personally, would actually be prepared to do it.
Think about why that may be. Waiting is.
Crafter Man, that’s the single most insane thing I’ve heard in a while. Nobody cares about homeless shelters? You want to do what you want? The only think that separates you from chilren gone wild on Maury Povich is the fact that you think that playing commando in the fucking woods with live ammo is fun.
This thread is about to get pushed waaaaaay far away from the point now.
Additionally, I’m all for people having different viewpoints. Help me figure out why you think what you think.
I get the feeling you could care less about helping others understand, but at least throw us some bone over here.
What people lose perspective of, in our relatively well governed, benevolent period in the western world, is that historically the biggest threats to people’s lives and quality of life aren’t foreign invaders, or criminals, or terrorists. It’s their own government. Genocide, forced relocation, labor camps, death camps, imprisonment for political issues, or just relatively benevolent oppression like the later Soviet Union are all far greater threats to the life and liberty of people than any terrorist (the current boogeymen) has ever been.
Most of you are are probably rolling your eyes. After all, we live in enlightened, modern times. Our governments would never present a serious harm to our life or liberty.
The nature of government is inherently evil, inherently oppressive. Governments become larger, more overbearing, and more a hinderance of the life and happiness of their people as time goes on. This is historically true for just about any government.
Modern western socialist thought that the elite few, the enlightened (among which most of you reading this post will consider yourselves, most likely) should make decisions on behalf of what they consider the impossibly stupid masses who couldn’t possibly make decisions for themselves, is a probably modern cause that will lead the extremely liberal (in a historical sense) modern western governments into tyranny. It’s a continuum, a matter of degree, but governments, absent revolts, always slide towards being larger, more powerful, more oppressive, and more an entity of their own, outside the will of the people.
The distribution of force within a society is a critical measure and balance for curbing this tendency. Any society that wishes to be free from the evils of oppressive government must not let said government have a monopoly on force, and hence, a monopoly on power. History shows over, and over, and over, that such a monopoly on force can never be trusted to be benevolent.
As such, I believe the attempted infringement on arms rights by a government on its citizens is the most important, and most direct assault on their freedom. It’s an attempt to establish a monopoly on force, an ability to rule as an entity outside the people with nearly absolute power. It’s a necesary stepping stone on the way to oppression. As such, any attempt on it should be resisted.
Obviously I dislike this attitude. Your ability to hunt, to be sporting, to engage in recreational, are mere toys compared to the very critical issue of distribution of force.
When bans on military-style weaponry come up for debate, often the recreational shooter crowd is all for them. The bulk of gun owners just want their hunting rifle, and to be left alone - they care nothing for their obligations to defend citizenry against the government. The dichotomy is flawed (hunting weapons make excellent insurgency weapons, and military-style weapons are not nearly as effective in comparison that people believe), but they are willing to sell out on this issue to protect their personal hobbies. Gun rights shouldn’t be about wanting to keep your toy for a hobby - they have so much more important a purpose. (There are plenty of other reasons that I oppose gun control, of course - I don’t want to narrow it down to only being about this issue).
What makes you say this? There’s a big stir whenever there’s any sort of perceived violation of the first amendment - as well it should be. If there were any attempts to marginalize the first amendment in the same way that the second is, there would be a huge uproar.