By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 21 December 2012
Edit Thread
mai said:

sc94597 said:

I was mostly interested in a reason WHY they're "bollocks."

Then ask "why" not "which" :) and didn't I say I don't want to debate those point with the believers?

Just for fun:

-- Tyranny = you said military won't disarm the civilians, well, that's logical, for this purpose you have police, could see National Guard joining the fun; what is tyranny anyway? how you differ if it's already a turanny and the day before it wasn't.
-- Invasion = just laughable if those aren't Mexicans and entire personell of USBP have massive food poisoning being busy with other... things.
-- Insurrection = better chances for guns to cause insurrection, or at least make it worse... you know, it kinda contradicts "tyranny" point :) people say successful rebelion -- revolution (against tyranny, of course), unsuccessful -- insurrection (and suppressed midn you).


1. The police are even less likely to do so. In small towns especially they like to remain autonomous over their juristiction, meaning no assistance to enforce an unconstitutional act described by the federal government, or even a state government. Furthermore, the number of civilians with weapons outnumbers the police by a magnitude more than 100. Police are already understaffed to fight criminals. Imagine if all gun owners refused, akin to prohibition era rates of alcohol usage. The police wouldn't be able to do anything without the military, and the military has already explicitly stated they would not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of their family, friends, and countrymen. In this case, tyranny is to enforce unconstitutional acts and to limit the fundamental freedoms of the people as delineated by the articles and bill of rights of our U.S constitution.  For example, to many the current NDAA act is a violation of due process of law because it enables congress to detain citizens indefinitely without any trial by jury. If they started to enforce this on a massive scale, it would be tyranny and quite recognizably so. 

2. I don't know what you're trying to say here. 

3. The ultimate law of the land is the constitution, which derives itself from the power invested in the people. The people produce a few levels of government to enforce create laws, and enforce these laws within the limits of this constitution.  Now I agree its a fine line, as many would say the confederate states were justified in secession. YET, the constitution does not give a single sentence on the point of secession and hence the union as well as the individual autonomy of each state are the primary concerns (otherwise we would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation.) This insurrection is different, because its a segmentation of the people, who tend to be synonomous with the states. Fighting against tyranny is an entirely different matter because it a conflict of the people with the government. Basically, the founding fathers, especially Thomas Paine describe the desynchronization of the government and society. They are not equal and not the same, in fact, Thomas Paine even explains their different origins. In one case you have a society spliting, in the other case you have a revolution ( a change in the government of a society.) It's hard to explain, but if you read the works of the founding fathers it's quite succint.