I’ll also add that Una’s solution (and that of many other gunowners in this thread) is very reasonable. Turning them over and suing the bejeezus out of the department)? Fine. Hiding the guns? Okay, whatever. Killing the cops to protect your constitutional rights? Indefensible murder.
Consider other rights violated by the cops. Many people believe that it was a violation fo protestors’ rights to be confined to “free speech zones” during presidential speeches. If they’d shot the cops tring to confine them to these zones, based on the idea that the cops were acting illegally, would that be okay? What if a cop illegally searches a suspects car, violating the suspect’s fourth amendment rights: if that suspect kills the cop, are you ethically okay with that action?
Scumpup, you asked me where I’d draw the line. I thought I’d answered that, but let me be very clear: I would only use deadly force to prevent an equal horror. That is, I would use deadly force to prevent deadly force, and possibly to prevent a very small additional set of horrors (torture, rape, mutilation, etc.). Nothing short of such major immediate violence justifies the use of deadly force against anyone, much less against someone attempting, to the best of their knowledge and reasoning capacity, to protect the population from violence.
If you’re thinking of offering me other hypotheticals, please reread that paragraph to see if I’ve already answered it.
Fortunately, old TJ was pretty clear on this point, Todderbob:
You don’t overthrow the government because you have a minor disagreement with it. Indeed, you don’t overthrow it until “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” In a democracy—a government which you might be aware is distinct from “absolute Despotism” or “absolute Tyranny”—the rule of law means that courts and government officials say what the law is. You’re free to disagree and persuade fellow citizens to disagree. Because democratic institutions are ultimately responsible to the people, that is how change happens. In extreme cases, you would probably be justified in exercising civil disobedience (though you’d need to cite theorists other than Jefferson). But what is quite clear is that you’re not free to violently rebel upon your (erroneous) belief that the Constitution has been infringed upon. The notion that because the founders advocated revolution against a monarchy means they would be hunky-dory with rebellion against a properly functioning democratic government is nearly as silly as the notion of committing suicide to protect the family TV.
I’d like to know how, exactly, a constitutional right wasn’t infringed upon in this particular situation?
I’m quite certain the 2nd amendment to the Constitution quite clearly states one has “the right to keep and bear arms” (in those exact words, no?), and in this particular instance, people were having that right infringed (which, also, is, unless I’m mistaken, what the amendment disallows from happening).
See post #156. If at the time of Katrina you thought you had a well-settled federal constitutional right to be free from state interference with your possession of firearms, you were wrong. It was not at all well-settled. Even after Heller it cannot be called well-settled since the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the Second Amendment applies to the states, and if it does, what state justifications are sufficient for overcoming Second Amendment scrutiny.
Obviously you have a strong interpretation of what the Second Amendment means. But in our democracy, there is an authoritative interpretation, and it is not yours.
More to the point, even if it was a violation of the Constitution, that doesn’t give the right to violently resist. We have a functioning system for dealing with violations of the Constitution.
Perhaps you’d like to explain why Thomas Jefferson would think it would be ok to murder agents of a functioning democracy because you disagree with their good faith interpretation of the Constitution?
This is a foolish analogy. You cannot analogize the deep, persistent ongoing human rights violations perpetrated on blacks by Jim Crow and the temporary deprivation of people’s 2nd Amendment rights post-Katrina. (And I’ll note that despite all the chest-thumping about using guns to fight despotism, I don’t see that many rights for blacks were won by private citizens with firearms. Quite on the contrary, in fact.)
**Richard Parker **has stated the case best. There is a mechanism in a democracy for challenging what you perceive to be violations of your constitutional rights. If you examine the constitution, that mechanism is not, “Kill the person you perceive to be violating your right.” Unless, of course, you simply prefer a state of nature to living in civilization.
I’m not sure. If this were the military, I’d be more sure. A soldier has the duty to follow all lawful orders. http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm
Following unlawful orders is no excuse. Unlawful orders should be refused. So… I’d say the policeman, first. In this case, since there were National Guardsmen doing it, I’d say… the Guardsman had the first responsibility to say it was an illegal order.
Kinda puts the Guardsman in a tight spot, mind you.
I’ve always thought that if government officials came to my home and demanded my guns that would be my personal breaking point. If they passed an unconstitutional piece of garbage and we heard on the news that it was time to surrender our guns, I’d most likely stand and fight.
The Katrina scenario is troubling. Obviously I wouldn’t just hand over my beautiful, well-tended guns and family heirlooms to some ham-fisted piggy on a power trip shudder And I sure as hell wouldn’t allow myself to be totally disarmed during a crisis. However, I think I would probably lie to the cops, maybe give them one or two guns to appease them. I find that distasteful in the extreme and it would rip me up inside, I would feel like a coward. However, in the midst of a natural disaster doesn’t seem like the right time to make a principled stand. As many others have noted, no court would find me justified in action against the police.
As much as it pains me, I might try to lie and hide my guns even under the terms of the first scenario I described. It would depend on so many factors. Is there virulent, vocalized resistance to the passage of the law? Are citizens chattering about an uprising? What does the NRA say? Is the military with us or against us?
I wish I was brave enough to just put my foot down and say, “No, not now, not ever. Pry it from my cold, dead claws.”
I’m embarrassed to admit it, but for me it will probably come down to fear more than principle. If the government were to degenerate so much that it passed a firearms confiscation code, obviously Conservative/Libertarian values would be the minority. If they took our weapons, how long would it be before they started rounding up “political dissidents?” Then it’s religious people, pretty soon it’s gay people, and people that are too short. I’m not willing to give up the only right that guards against the removal of my other rights.
They wouldn’t have gotten it without shots being fired.
The action was unlawful and if they had shown up at my house looking to steal my guns, they would have been treated just like anyone else trying to loot me.