[Rushy]

yeah that's how laws work.  by definition.  the things that are legal are permissible.  the thing that are illegal are not permissible.  the democratically elected president can nominate a justice because that's what the constitution directs him or her to do.  the democratically elected senate can confirm or deny that nomination because that's what the constitution directs them to do.  citizens control who is in the senate and who sits in the white house.

Actually, that's not at all how laws work. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's justifiable or socially acceptable to perform a legal action. Likewise, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is socially unacceptable or unjustifiable. The legal system, by nature of its change processes, doesn't always reflect the population it rules over with high accuracy. The president could legally invade Mexico up to ninety days. That doesn't mean it's totally okay to do that.

i don't think you've actually thought through what you're saying.  just think for a moment about the implications of your argument that there are things that are legal and constitutional but can still justifiably be resisted with force and violence.  individuals and groups do not get to unilaterally  constrain others from actions that are constitutionally protected simply because they decided that they don't like the outcome, or to enforce their interpretation of an amendment over the one that was achieved through constitutionally protected checks and balances.

Hmm, actually I think I have thought through my moral stances. You keep wanting to make this a "well, you think violence is only okay when you do it." No, I believe the right to be armed and fight for what you believe in is justifiable for every human being. Just as it is the right of the people they are fighting to fight back. The problem here is that you don't view political change as a form of conflict whereas I do. Forcing people to adhere to a set of laws is by it's very nature a violent act. People who don't agree with a set of laws are forced to abide by those laws, because if they don't, they will be punished. Sound familiar? It's state-endorsed terrorism! Oh noes!

is that the world you want to live in, where people who believe health care is a universal right get to arm themselves in support of it?  what about blm protestors who believe that the state is denying them their basic fundamental liberties?  are you down with them arming up?  does the state get to make caveats to the first amendment?  i mean, just because something is legal doesn't mean you should be able to do it, so the state gets to do that, too?  what about non-state actors?  can other political groups decide that i can't "do i want just because it's legal" and use force to stop me from saying things they don't like?  what if i agree with and support positions that they think deny rights to others, like a pro-abortion stance?  are they justified in using force to stop me?  you down with that?

How many people really believe universal healthcare is worth fighting for? Or any other given group? When you approach a "very many" answer, then you get violence. We're seeing groups like BLM approach that answer and that is their right.

cool, i don't think that should be the model for political change in the united states is what i'm saying.  i think constitutionally prescribed remedies are preferable to living in mosul or aleppo or whatever you're trying to say.

In other words, you want to force people to adhere to your beliefs, you simply don't like that other people try to do the exact same thing, albeit they take a different route.

a democratically elected president fulfilling his or her constitutionally protected duties is the exact opposite of tyranny.  that's called rule of law, and i don't want to live in a place where it is unilaterally usurped.  i'd don't think the people who voted for those outcomes should have their votes cancelled by whoever is most willing to be violent/has the most guns.

You live in a place that only exists because once upon a time a great amount of people unilaterally usurped the law. If you don't want to rock the boat, then I suggest you stop moving around.

right, you're not using threats of violence, you're just saying that if hillary clinton nominates a justice who interprets the second amendment differently than you do, the people with guns are going to make her regret it and everyone who agrees with her. 

again, it is absolutely defies logic to suggest that the constitution prohibits what the constitution prescribes, or that adhering to its mandates is "government going too far."  i kinda doubt that the founders intended the people to "draw the line" at the lawful fulfillment of constitutional mandates.  more-so than any other time i've said it, what you're saying is literal nonsense. 

i guess i didn't read the bit in the constitution about how the second amendment is immune from judicial review.  which section is that in again?

I'm saying that myself and a great many others will utilize our rights to defend those rights, as is your right to defend your own rights. That you can't, or don't want to, is entirely your choice.

[garygreen]

for context, except that i don't believe in god or the divinity of christ, i'm basically a quaker, so i pretty much never think it's ok to be violent.

Actually, that's not at all how laws work. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's justifiable or socially acceptable to perform a legal action.

in the context of a freshman ethics seminar, i completely agree.  in the context of 'when is it acceptable to use violence to get what you want," i completely disagree.

You keep wanting to make this a "well, you think violence is only okay when you do it." No, I believe the right to be armed and fight for what you believe in is justifiable for every human being. Just as it is the right of the people they are fighting to fight back.

my problem is actually with the latter.  i don't think it's ok to hurt others simply because you really really really believe that you're entitled to the thing you're demanding.  that's just terrorism, and i don't think it's an acceptable mode of political change in a free republic.

How many people really believe universal healthcare is worth fighting for? Or any other given group? When you approach a "very many" answer, then you get violence. We're seeing groups like BLM approach that answer and that is their right.

i think this is the very problem that the constitution is designed to solve: everyone disagrees on what their rights ought to be, so let's let the people settle those differences with rules and words, not force and violence.  i don't want to live in a place where it's ok for groups and individuals to settle those disagreements with violence.  those places already exist and they fucking suck.

In other words, you want to force people to adhere to your beliefs, you simply don't like that other people try to do the exact same thing, albeit they take a different route.

twist my words all you like, but i was super clear: i want the president, whomever that may be, to do what is lawful and constitutional, regardless of whether or not i personally like or agree with the outcome.  i would never suggest that president trump's supreme court nominee should be resisted with force or violence.

You live in a place that only exists because once upon a time a great amount of people unilaterally usurped the law. If you don't want to rock the boat, then I suggest you stop moving around.

they didn't unilaterally usurp a free republic, which is what we are.  they didn't overthrow a democratically elected government.  they actually fought and died to create the very document that you apparently have absolutely no regard for.

I'm saying that myself and a great many others will utilize our rights to defend those rights, as is your right to defend your own rights. That you can't, or don't want to, is entirely your choice.

no, i get it.  if the state and society doesn't give you what you believe you're entitled to, then you're going to hurt people.  you've made yourself perfectly clear on this point.

[Blanko]

What is the purpose of this split and why does it contain several completely on-topic posts?

[Jura-Glenlivet]

I'm saying that myself and a great many others will utilize our rights to defend those rights, as is your right to defend your own rights. That you can't, or don't want to, is entirely your choice.

Oh dear! I don't think he's even joking.

[Rushy]

in the context of a freshman ethics seminar, i completely agree.  in the context of 'when is it acceptable to use violence to get what you want," i completely disagree.

Then we're at a basic impasse, then. You agree violence isn't acceptable and I agree that it is.

my problem is actually with the latter.  i don't think it's ok to hurt others simply because you really really really believe that you're entitled to the thing you're demanding.  that's just terrorism, and i don't think it's an acceptable mode of political change in a free republic.

What's the difference between a group of people demanding a certain action be taken or they'll punish you versus the government doing the same thing? You seem to give the term "government" more weight than people in general. The true pinnacle of authoritarianism and fascism: the government knows what is best for you, even if you don't agree.

i think this is the very problem that the constitution is designed to solve: everyone disagrees on what their rights ought to be, so let's let the people settle those differences with rules and words, not force and violence.  i don't want to live in a place where it's ok for groups and individuals to settle those disagreements with violence.  those places already exist and they fucking suck.

Well, the key here is that it is currently working because what the population currently considers rights aren't being massively oppressed, though that depends on who you are. For example, BLM and many blacks feel that their rights are not being met so they lash out, sometimes violently, at government and society in general. After all, it did take an entire war just to free much of the black population from slavery. It's not surprising that more extreme measures must be taken to ensure your rights are where they should be.

twist my words all you like, but i was super clear: i want the president, whomever that may be, to do what is lawful and constitutional, regardless of whether or not i personally like or agree with the outcome.  i would never suggest that president trump's supreme court nominee should be resisted with force or violence.

That you don't suggest it, doesn't mean that it's not your right to do so. To wish the world is a different place and to do little to make it so is the gravest of sins.

they didn't unilaterally usurp a free republic, which is what we are.  they didn't overthrow a democratically elected government.  they actually fought and died to create the very document that you apparently have absolutely no regard for.

That depends on what you call a "free republic." A republic that has citizens which cannot own weapons is not free at all in my eyes.

no, i get it.  if the state and society doesn't give you what you believe you're entitled to, then you're going to hurt people.  you've made yourself perfectly clear on this point.

You may be willing to bend over for others, but I am not. You are the 'useful idiots' that Lenin loved. Only the government should be armed, my dear citizen, as you are not able to defend yourself. Only the government should provide healthcare, dear citizen, as you are not able to care for yourself. Only the government should provide food, dear citizen, as you are not able to feed yourself.

The federal government needs to learn which pies it can stick its fingers in and which pies are going to get its fingers burnt.

Oh dear! I don't think he's even joking.

It is why "they'll take ur guns!" fearmongering is irrelevant. No one is taking guns from Americans, because the first one to reach out for the gun is going to be the first one killed by it.

[Rushy]

What is the purpose of this split and why does it contain several completely on-topic posts?

While the topic is tangentially related to the election, I felt like it would dilute other possible presidential topics. Also, gun rights threads go on for a very long time.

[garygreen]

i think our primary divergence is that you view this through a lens of outcomes and not procedures, and i think that preference is at the heart of totalitarianism.  in other words, your arguments suggest to me that you would take no issue with living under an authoritarian regime so long as that regime gives you want you believe you're entitled to.  you'd be fine living with lenin so long as lenin says you can own guns.

i'm more interested in whether or not our society is procedurally free, and i don't think that procedural freedom can exist in a world in which votes are nullified by violence to achieve an outcome.

in the context of a freshman ethics seminar, i completely agree.  in the context of 'when is it acceptable to use violence to get what you want," i completely disagree.

Then we're at a basic impasse, then. You agree violence isn't acceptable and I agree that it is.

let's assume that i think violence is sometimes acceptable.  i still don't think individuals or groups should get to unilaterally create their own laws, and then enforce those laws on others using violence.  that's all you're saying when you talk about how not everything that is legal is permissible.  forget terrorism: the unchecked use of violence by one group to enforce its views on all the others is pretty much the definition of authoritarianism.  that you're advocating turning this violence against the democratic will of the citizens is even more authoritarian.

What's the difference between a group of people demanding a certain action be taken or they'll punish you versus the government doing the same thing? You seem to give the term "government" more weight than people in general. The true pinnacle of authoritarianism and fascism: the government knows what is best for you, even if you don't agree.
...
You may be willing to bend over for others, but I am not. You are the 'useful idiots' that Lenin loved. Only the government should be armed, my dear citizen, as you are not able to defend yourself. Only the government should provide healthcare, dear citizen, as you are not able to care for yourself. Only the government should provide food, dear citizen, as you are not able to feed yourself.

The federal government needs to learn which pies it can stick its fingers in and which pies are going to get its fingers burnt.

dunno how much more clear i can be.  i am not saying that citizens should not own guns, nor that state violence is preferable to non-state violence, nor that the state should monopolize the capacity to use force.  i am saying that, in a free republic, all citizens, even those who work for the state (especially those who work for the state), should be bound to to the constitution.  their adherence to it should not be resisted with force and violence.

at no point have i suggested that "the government knows what's best for you."  i'm arguing that citizens should govern themselves, that our constitution in this republic facilitates that self-governance, and citizens who unilaterally usurp that facility are doing something both illegal and immoral.  you're using guns to nullify votes.  that's all you're suggesting.

if lenin comes back to life, seizes dc and rips up the constitution, then i'll have more sympathy for your position.  until then, you're comparing leninism to the us constitution, and i don't buy it at all.

It's not surprising that more extreme measures must be taken to ensure your rights are where they should be.
...
That depends on what you call a "free republic." A republic that has citizens which cannot own weapons is not free at all in my eyes.

there is no objective measure of what your rights "should be."  there is no universal agreement on what counts as a right or not.  this is my whole point.  since we live in a society that uses voting/words/rules/persuasion to determine those rights and their boundaries, then let's keep doing that instead of the "might makes right" world you so desperately want to live in.  again, that's how we get mosul.  i don't want to live in mosul.

To wish the world is a different place and to do little to make it so is the gravest of sins.

then you should abandon your support for force and violence as a means of political change.  nonviolent resistance is empirically much more effective than violence at achieving the goals of its users.

the most effective protest that second amendment supporters could mount against a government trying to disarm them would be to, very publicly and with much protest, simply refuse to relinquish them.

[Rushy]

i think our primary divergence is that you view this through a lens of outcomes and not procedures, and i think that preference is at the heart of totalitarianism.  in other words, your arguments suggest to me that you would take no issue with living under an authoritarian regime so long as that regime gives you want you believe you're entitled to.  you'd be fine living with lenin so long as lenin says you can own guns.

i'm more interested in whether or not our society is procedurally free, and i don't think that procedural freedom can exist in a world in which votes are nullified by violence to achieve an outcome.

Actually, our divergence is in what procedures we deem acceptable. I never once stated that violence always has a desirable, or even righteous, outcome. You've placed that idea of me into your own mind.

let's assume that i think violence is sometimes acceptable.  i still don't think individuals or groups should get to unilaterally create their own laws, and then enforce those laws on others using violence.  that's all you're saying when you talk about how not everything that is legal is permissible.  forget terrorism: the unchecked use of violence by one group to enforce its views on all the others is pretty much the definition of authoritarianism.  that you're advocating turning this violence against the democratic will of the citizens is even more authoritarian.

But who makes those laws, if not a group of people unifying themselves? If a group of people becomes so powerful that the original group to have created the laws is diminished or destroyed, then does that not mean the government was corrupt regardless? My process for conflict resolution only has a chance of succeeding if the group of people in conflict with the government is large enough to destabilize the government in question. Random and individual suicide bombers or mass shooters (the "terrorism" I assume you refer to) cannot actually topple a government. It would take a concerted effort from a fairly large group of people.

If a large enough group exists to challenge the authority of a "democratically elected" government, then maybe that government wasn't quite as democratically elected as you had thought.

i'm arguing that citizens should govern themselves

We're both arguing this, it seems. It is simply that you believe some X amount of citizens have more of a right to govern themselves then some Y amount. I am trying to point out that the notion of "if 75% of the people believe gun ownership is not a right, then it isn't" is inherently wrong, because that last 25% of people might not agree. And if that last 25% of people sufficiently rebel to make their voices heard, either through the ballot box or the ammo box, then so be it.

there is no objective measure of what your rights "should be."  there is no universal agreement on what counts as a right or not.  this is my whole point.  since we live in a society that uses voting/words/rules/persuasion to determine those rights and their boundaries, then let's keep doing that instead of the "might makes right" world you so desperately want to live in.  again, that's how we get mosul.  i don't want to live in mosul.

We already live in a "might makes right" world, gary. Why do you think police and the government exert the power that they do? If you don't do what the police say, they punish you. If you don't do what the government says, it will punish you. Of course the natural progression is Islam, since how can one argue with "if you don't do what God says, He will punish you."

The thing is, gary, I don't think you comprehend just how close to Mosul we really are and how something like the second amendment keeps us from descending into that realm. If you concentrate power into the hands of a few, you open yourself up to be very easily used by them. The government should never, ever be the only armed entity in a modern society.

then you should abandon your support for force and violence as a means of political change.  nonviolent resistance is empirically much more effective than violence at achieving the goals of its users.

History disagrees. Ideas like "peace solves all" is why Islam is winning an ideological war with the West. Europe is the new Byzantine Empire and let's watch how fast it falls.

the most effective protest that second amendment supporters could mount against a government trying to disarm them would be to, very publicly and with much protest, simply refuse to relinquish them.

Something tells me that gathering in a big public group whilst brandishing rifles may very well be the worst possible way to go about protecting the second amendment.

[garygreen]

Actually, our divergence is in what procedures we deem acceptable. I never once stated that violence always has a desirable, or even righteous, outcome. You've placed that idea of me into your own mind.

my criticism is that you think violence is an acceptable mode of political change in a free republic, not that you think it's always good.  our divergence is that i think the procedure should be "one person, one vote," not "one person + x guns, x votes."

We're both arguing this, it seems. It is simply that you believe some X amount of citizens have more of a right to govern themselves then some Y amount. I am trying to point out that the notion of "if 75% of the people believe gun ownership is not a right, then it isn't" is inherently wrong, because that last 25% of people might not agree. And if that last 25% of people sufficiently rebel to make their voices heard, either through the ballot box or the ammo box, then so be it.

lol.  you really don't get it, do you?  in the losers of a 75/25 vote split decide to use force and violence to change the outcome, that's authoritarianism at best and terrorism at worst.  there isn't any other way to describe it.  you're just using guns to nullify votes.  nullifying votes with guns is, to me, the exact opposite of living in a free society.

but...but...the tyranny of the majority!  lmao.  yeah shit doesn't always work out the way you want, but you got your vote, and that's how democracies go.  since it's not a dictatorship where the folks with guns write the rules, then there will be future opportunities to lobby for what you want.  frankly, "if 75% of the people [in a free republic] believe gun ownership is not a right, then it isn't" is more sensical than "if i really really really think it's a right, then it must be a right and everyone else must agree with me."  protip: you can't prove to anyone what your rights are.  feeling really really entitled to something isn't a demonstration that you actually are.

History disagrees. Ideas like "peace solves all" is why Islam is winning an ideological war with the West. Europe is the new Byzantine Empire and let's watch how fast it falls.

you're obviously not interested in a factual discussion of the merits of nonviolence.  hint: "peace solves all" isn't anywhere in the literature. 

empirically, nonviolent resistance is a more effective means of affecting political change than violence, even when it comes to resisting totalitarian regimes.  the literature on this subject is compelling.

since 1900, nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their objectives as violent campaigns, and they come at a much lower cost.

civil resistance is empirically better at securing rights.

terrorism is empirically awful at achieving its objectives.

Something tells me that gathering in a big public group whilst brandishing rifles may very well be the worst possible way to go about protecting the second amendment.

if you think that, then i'm not sure how you think using them is going to be better for you, but whatever.

that said, nonviolent protests would be much more effective in this specific instance because it doesn't alienate you from either the military, or the rest of the population.  if guns were actually outlawed, the best thing you could do would be to protest in large numbers and not shoot anyone.  prove to citizens and the rest of the globe that you aren't violent and that guns aren't about that.  let the federal government arrest people and use their own force if they want.  that only makes you look better to everyone else, including military personnel who are more likely to align themselves with a nonviolent movement than one that is shooting at them.

if you think an armed resistance against the government to secure the right to own some shit you really really really think you should get to own, then i would point out that this actually happened once and didn't go well for the instigators at all.

[Rushy]

my criticism is that you think violence is an acceptable mode of political change in a free republic, not that you think it's always good.  our divergence is that i think the procedure should be "one person, one vote," not "one person + x guns, x votes."

That violence is considered an acceptable means of change is the reason the second amendment exists at all. This "free republic" was created through a violent uprising and its creators wanted to ensure that violent uprising remained to be a means to change, albeit a method of last resort.

lol.  you really don't get it, do you?  in the losers of a 75/25 vote split decide to use force and violence to change the outcome, that's authoritarianism at best and terrorism at worst.  there isn't any other way to describe it.  you're just using guns to nullify votes.  nullifying votes with guns is, to me, the exact opposite of living in a free society.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Do gay men in Muslim countries really deserve to be thrown off a rooftop simply because the majority of the nation thinks it's alright to do so? It seems like you're alright with oppressing people's rights as long as those people happen to be in the minority.

but...but...the tyranny of the majority!  lmao.  yeah shit doesn't always work out the way you want, but you got your vote, and that's how democracies go.  since it's not a dictatorship where the folks with guns write the rules, then there will be future opportunities to lobby for what you want.  frankly, "if 75% of the people [in a free republic] believe gun ownership is not a right, then it isn't" is more sensical than "if i really really really think it's a right, then it must be a right and everyone else must agree with me."  protip: you can't prove to anyone what your rights are.  feeling really really entitled to something isn't a demonstration that you actually are.

"Tough luck, buddy, you voted and it turns out it didn't matter at all, none of your concerns matter!" Haha, good one.

you're obviously not interested in a factual discussion of the merits of nonviolence.  hint: "peace solves all" isn't anywhere in the literature.

A combination of violent and nonviolent measures is what must be taken. Violence is a last resort, but it is still a resort.

empirically, nonviolent resistance is a more effective means of affecting political change than violence, even when it comes to resisting totalitarian regimes.  the literature on this subject is compelling.

There are thousands of violent revolutions in history that have resulted in what you may say is a desirable outcome. Two of the most powerful countries on the planet have the governments that they do because of violent uprising: the United States and China.

Clearly violence has not only a great impact on change, but a very long lasting one. The French Revolution is my favorite.

if you think that, then i'm not sure how you think using them is going to be better for you, but whatever.

that said, nonviolent protests would be much more effective in this specific instance because it doesn't alienate you from either the military, or the rest of the population.  if guns were actually outlawed, the best thing you could do would be to protest in large numbers and not shoot anyone.  prove to citizens and the rest of the globe that you aren't violent and that guns aren't about that.  let the federal government arrest people and use their own force if they want.  that only makes you look better to everyone else, including military personnel who are more likely to align themselves with a nonviolent movement than one that is shooting at them.

if you think an armed resistance against the government to secure the right to own some shit you really really really think you should get to own, then i would point out that this actually happened once and didn't go well for the instigators at all.

You seem to have a strange idea of how armed resistance takes place, and I think this is why you keep saying "but but this is terrorism!!" Taking a rifle and shooting fifty people at a mall is terrorism. It accomplishes nothing and just generally pisses everyone off. To form a resistance, one must attack the sources of the government's power, which is generally logistics.

[garygreen]

That violence is considered an acceptable means of change is the reason the second amendment exists at all. This "free republic" was created through a violent uprising and its creators wanted to ensure that violent uprising remained to be a means to change, albeit a method of last resort.

a violent uprising against a minority imposing its will on the majority through the use of force.  the thing you're advocating is the thing they fought to stop.  they then wrote a constitution that included gun rights and multiple mechanisms for citizens to reevaluate and modify those rights, a constitution that you would abandon in favor of effectively reestablishing minority rule through violence.  as i already mentioned, the framers did not write that the second amendment, or any other amendment, was immune from change.  that's why we have rules for amendments.  that's why we have courts.  that's why we have all these checks and balances.  you know what doesn't have any checks and balances?  mobs with guns.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Do gay men in Muslim countries really deserve to be thrown off a rooftop simply because the majority of the nation thinks it's alright to do so? It seems like you're alright with oppressing people's rights as long as those people happen to be in the minority.

but the minority enforcing its will on everyone with guns is somehow not tyranny?  i can't think of any new ways to say it: when the majorty gets what it wants through free and fair elections and universal sufferage, then no, i don't think that's tyranny.  that's democracy.  when those votes are nullified because "but i didn't get what i want!," then i think that's tyranny.

"Tough luck, buddy, you voted and it turns out it didn't matter at all, none of your concerns matter!" Haha, good one.

awwwwww i'm so sorry that you didn't always get exactly what you wanted from the electoral process.  how sad for you

"tough luck, buddy, you voted in a free and fair election, but fuck that and fuck you, i've got a gun and i'm willing to be violent.  do what i say or you'll regret it."  yeah that's much freer...

There are thousands of violent revolutions in history that have resulted in what you may say is a desirable outcome. Two of the most powerful countries on the planet have the governments that they do because of violent uprising: the United States and China.

Clearly violence has not only a great impact on change, but a very long lasting one. The French Revolution is my favorite.

it's almost as if my evidence never once said that violence never works ever.

You seem to have a strange idea of how armed resistance takes place, and I think this is why you keep saying "but but this is terrorism!!" Taking a rifle and shooting fifty people at a mall is terrorism. It accomplishes nothing and just generally pisses everyone off. To form a resistance, one must attack the sources of the government's power, which is generally logistics.

well, your advocacy doesn't delineate between justified and unjustified uses of violence beyond "but i really think i'm entitled to that right."  i genuinely don't know how what you're saying wouldn't justify a lone gunman simply shooting someone for taking a legal action that the assailant believed infringed on his or her rights.  you can't prove what your rights are.  there is no objectively verifiable, universally acceptable set of rights. this is the whole reason for codifying our rights into a document that can be modified democratically. 

my advocacy provides a super clear delineation: do you live in a democratically free society with universal suffrage?  then you should not be violent.  you should vote.  you should not decide to hurt people because the outcome of the free and fair election didn't go the way you wanted it to.  forget about terrorism or authoritarianism.  that's just childish.

and with that, i'll let you have the last word.  i don't mean that sarcastically; i just doubt we're going to get any further.  for the record i'm not saying you're a terrorist.  i just don't really get how anyone could be more outraged at 75% outvoting the rest to get its way than 25% out violence-ing the rest to get its way.  there will never be universal agreement on anything.  lets resolve our differences with votes instead of guns.

[Rushy]

a violent uprising against a minority imposing its will on the majority through the use of force.  the thing you're advocating is the thing they fought to stop.  they then wrote a constitution that included gun rights and multiple mechanisms for citizens to reevaluate and modify those rights, a constitution that you would abandon in favor of effectively reestablishing minority rule through violence.  as i already mentioned, the framers did not write that the second amendment, or any other amendment, was immune from change.  that's why we have rules for amendments.  that's why we have courts.  that's why we have all these checks and balances.  you know what doesn't have any checks and balances?  mobs with guns.

You're right, any of those amendments can be repealed through a consistent majority. Even the 13th amendment could be wiped away. That wouldn't mean it's right to do so, no matter how many people say it is.

but the minority enforcing its will on everyone with guns is somehow not tyranny?  i can't think of any new ways to say it: when the majorty gets what it wants through free and fair elections and universal sufferage, then no, i don't think that's tyranny.  that's democracy.  when those votes are nullified because "but i didn't get what i want!," then i think that's tyranny.

One man's utopia is another's dystopia. I wouldn't be very happy in Saudi Arabia, but if the majority of people are, then I guess that's the right thing to have. Moral relativism strikes again.

awwwwww i'm so sorry that you didn't always get exactly what you wanted from the electoral process.  how sad for you

Reaching this point with you was inevitable, I suppose.

"tough luck, buddy, you voted in a free and fair election, but fuck that and fuck you, i've got a gun and i'm willing to be violent.  do what i say or you'll regret it."  yeah that's much freer...

You seem to be completely missing the point. The guns aren't used literally to defend the right to have guns. The guns are used to defend all of the other rights. When someone removes your ability to defend yourself, they can do whatever they like with you.

it's almost as if my evidence never once said that violence never works ever.

...I didn't say you said that? Hello, Rushy here, yes, I am the one you've been arguing with, not this magical force that appears to be whispering sweet nothings into your computer screen.

well, your advocacy doesn't delineate between justified and unjustified uses of violence beyond "but i really think i'm entitled to that right."  i genuinely don't know how what you're saying wouldn't justify a lone gunman simply shooting someone for taking a legal action that the assailant believed infringed on his or her rights.  you can't prove what your rights are.  there is no objectively verifiable, universally acceptable set of rights. this is the whole reason for codifying our rights into a document that can be modified democratically. 

my advocacy provides a super clear delineation: do you live in a democratically free society with universal suffrage?  then you should not be violent.  you should vote.  you should not decide to hurt people because the outcome of the free and fair election didn't go the way you wanted it to.  forget about terrorism or authoritarianism.  that's just childish.

and with that, i'll let you have the last word.  i don't mean that sarcastically; i just doubt we're going to get any further.  for the record i'm not saying you're a terrorist.  i just don't really get how anyone could be more outraged at 75% outvoting the rest to get its way than 25% out violence-ing the rest to get its way.  there will never be universal agreement on anything.  lets resolve our differences with votes instead of guns.

My point is that just because you have a "democratic" document doesn't mean that document even remotely represents the people it governs and it definitely isn't a catch-all for what we as humans can or cannot do. I don't personally see the difference between an oppressive tyranny of the majority situation or a literal monarch/tyrant simply oppressing their people outright. It is your natural right, as is the natural right of all humans, to defend themselves and their beliefs by nonviolent or violent means. Their religion, their family, their livelihoods. I'm not advocating terrorism and I'm not patting some fool on the back saying "good on you, sonny, for strapping bombs to yourself in the name of Allah" that's not defense of yourself in my eyes, that's simply waging an offense on humanity.

You should always seek to keep yourself in a defensible position and it should alarm you if anyone, friend or foe, seeks to undermine your position by removing tools that serve that purpose. Especially when the justification is that those tools are too dangerous for anyone but those in power to possess.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

To Rushy in his foxhole out in the backwoods of human understanding.

Stop watching infowars and Fox news or at least balance it with a bit of Realnews Network or the Independent. Stop getting your view of the world from endless apple-pie tub-thumping jingoistic shit movies like Captain America, Flags of our Fathers and American Sniper, try Gandhi, Pans Labyrinth or Grave of the fire flies. Get some history books, America didn’t win the second world or Vietnam wars (Russia & whatever kids were left after you napalmed their parents did).

America is locked in a hideous cycle of self-destruction because of this 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms shackles you into a downward spiral of fear of each other. The police stop someone with a busted tail light but fear drives the need to draw guns, and the guy ends up dead, way to go America.

Unfortunately, there is little to be done, take away your guns and you freeze up. On a similar thread someone bought up the fact a man had been gored to death by a goat, his point that the area was designated gun free was the problem, but his buddies shorn of their guns and therefore their courage had stood and waited while he bled out only for the park keepers to chase it off throwing rocks, way to go!

Many countries have gone through revolutions, none of them have private gun ownership of 89 out a hundred, they have moved on, civilised, and as a result aren’t slaughtering each other at the rate you are. You feel you need your guns to feel safe from terrorism, we live with it, but they have always been there, ISIL, al Qaeda, IRA, RAF, PLO etc., They come they go and we are no nearer losing the ideological war with Islam as we did with them.
   
Britain (member of the byzantine club and about to be consumed in some apocalypse apparently) bans the ownership of “Zombie killer knives” as some lad was killed in a gang fight. (Zombie knives are stylised combat orientated blades with names such as Head splitter), not one complaint about not being able to wave a matt black machete called the widowmaker around to feel macho, but if you were to come here with your “Sir yes sir”, “You can’t handle the truth”, Halls of Montezuma crap, we would kick your ass just like those Vietnamese kids did.

Sorry, it's all that testosterone you were giving off.

[George]

Stop watching infowars and Fox news or at least balance it with a bit of Realnews Network or the Independent. Stop getting your view of the world from endless apple-pie tub-thumping jingoistic shit movies like Captain America, Flags of our Fathers and American Sniper, try Gandhi, Pans Labyrinth or Grave of the fire flies. Get some history books, America didn’t win the second world or Vietnam wars (Russia & whatever kids were left after you napalmed their parents did).

None of this has anything to do with what Rushy was saying.  He's expressing skepticism and mistrust of the government, not jingoistic celebration of it.  Also, the Captain America movies aren't about what you and John McTiernan think they're about.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

He mentioned guns, the second amendment, terrorism, revolutions and “byzantine Europe”, I replied mentioning those things.

Stop trying to suck up to Rushy in the hope you last one round more in next game of werewolf, Rushy hates suck-ups, Sir yes sir!

[Rushy]

Gary could put together a reasonable argument about his own stances and moral foundations. His stance was his own, even if I disagree with it.

Jura, however, is simply parroting nonsense. I can easily identify someone whose opinions have been formed by other people and then simply given to them to repeat whenever the they encounter an opposing opinion.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Of course you can Rushy, especially when it neatly absolves you from answering.

[Rushy]

Of course you can Rushy, especially when it neatly absolves you from answering.

Answering what? You didn't propose any questions and you didn't make any points worth discussing. All I saw was an emotional outbreak where you made parroted statements.

Read some of Gary's posts and learn how to maintain some semblance of social competency.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Of course you can Rushy, especially when it neatly absolves you from answering.

Answering what? You didn't propose any questions and you didn't make any points worth discussing. All I saw was an emotional outbreak where you made parroted statements.

Whereas your mantra that owning an arsenal is the only thing that keeps the (Feds’, reds, ragheads, anarchy …….) at bay, hasn’t been drummed into you since you saw your first John Wayne film, and we haven't heard a thousand times?

I agree that governments, especially those that are financed by billionaires and “interest groups” as most seem to be now (yours in particular) show a broken democratic process.
But your intimation that you and your rifle are the antidote, doesn’t stand up, in fact a government intent on takeover needs divide and rule to succeed. A few militias stirred to action by violation of their rights blowing a dam, taking a radio station and you sitting on your porch taking pot shots at all and sundry, is fifteen minutes work for a C130 gunship followed by martial law.

[Rushy]

Whereas your mantra that owning an arsenal is the only thing that keeps the (Feds’, reds, ragheads, anarchy …….) at bay, hasn’t been drummed into you since you saw your first John Wayne film, and we haven't heard a thousand times?

I agree that governments, especially those that are financed by billionaires and “interest groups” as most seem to be now (yours in particular) show a broken democratic process.
But your intimation that you and your rifle are the antidote, doesn’t stand up, in fact a government intent on takeover needs divide and rule to succeed. A few militias stirred to action by violation of their rights blowing a dam, taking a radio station and you sitting on your porch taking pot shots at all and sundry, is fifteen minutes work for a C130 gunship followed by martial law.

Well, first off, a C-130 is a cargo aircraft. You're thinking of an AC-130.

Secondly, it would be a wildly unpopular move to use military force on domestic targets. That would only further encourage domestic rebellion and cause your military to start defecting or deserting.

This is also why the "Obama will institute martial law! Third term!" is nonsense. He can't do that because the military wouldn't agree, likewise he can't go around taking guns, either. These are all functionally impossible to accomplish.