| Mr Khan said: You're making mountains out of molehills, here. Yes that was a dumb arrest and based on backwards assumptions (our private thoughts are our own, after all). I'm talking about people who have made public declarations about the need for civil war, who are known owners of weapons that would facilitate such. Both of these would be established before the person came under suspicion. The case you cited, however, is a clear shot of profiling, where nothing substantive was said or owned by the individual. Care should be taken that such talk is just talk, before some armed group does attempt armed insurrection |
I don't think anybody is arguing that we are at the point of civil war now, and that we should enact it. However; people are arguing for the possibility that we do reach such a point, and that it is necessary to be prepared. Regardless of whether somebody is a gun owner or not, if they're inciting violence - yes - they should be investigated (albeit - legally.) However; it is the case that civil war should always remain a possibility to deter such tyranny. The potential of a revolution empowers the people, even if it's not realistic to call for one at this point or any point until the consensus decision of the people arrives.
We see this in the actions of the U.S government to promote the people subjected to Islamic fundamentalist regimes so that they might fight against their own tyrranical governments. How is it that this activity is justified, but the potential of the people within the U.S to fight against their own government, if it becomes oppressive, is not? This is not to say the U.S government is at such a point now, but it is quite clear that over the last ten years (as evidenced by these links) the federal government is taking more and more power and using it without the permission of the states nor the people in the form of the document by which it is delegated powers - The Constitution of the United States of America. Eventually it will be too much to control through political movements, and eventually people will have to rely on some other means, if it is a matter of force against force.
Ultimately, all political power is derived from the people, and if they ask for it back, the government must oblige or face consequences. If those consequences include a more physical revolution then so be it. It is how this country was born. As far as I can tell though, most people will only act according to the non-Aggression axiom, only if the government physically intrudes upon their liberties or harms their (or other) persons would they fight back with force. Right now the liberties are being inflicted upon, but this isn't the case with persons, yet. In that event, it seems a revolution is justified and it wouldn't be a matter of civil war, but rebellion (against the government - not against eachother.) Hence, it is necessary to secure arms for such an event, even more necessary when the government is taking power without permission.
