By now you guys know where I stand on the issue of gun control. I am not a member of the NRA, hopefully no one here thinks I'm a gun nut.

In John Locke's Two Treatises of Goverment specifically in the second treatise, he touches on the right (obligation in his opinion) of revolution. This is something that obviously strikes a chord with me. This and this alone forms the entirety of my opinion about whether or not the federal government should have the power to disarm citizens.

I'm surprised to see some posters with obvious grievances against our current government on the one hand declare that we are falling into tyranny, and on the other suggesting that we allow the same tyrants to remove our ability (hopefully as a last resort) to replace them when they no longer "act in the interest of citizens". Am I missing something key here?

(Just for you Min, a nice grab from my States Bill of Rights "All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper". See, we get things right here and there. You'd be surprised how few States make this guarantee.)

I believe the reason America does not revolt into civil war is exactly that it is largely weak-willed. It talks the talk, but it can't walk the walk.

It would be a funny civil war, since America has a glass jaw.

Quote:You'd be surprised how few States make this guarantee.)

Hmmm.... and if the governor saw an armed mob coming do you think he'd meekly surrender or call out the national guard to mow those assholes down?

I would absolutely assume the worst, and it would be unfortunate if those conscripted to enforce tyranny were the only ones left holding weapons. That's my point. It's a promise that is made more empty when the tools to collect on that debt are removed.
(In the end they'd still get mowed down, no mistake, but why make it easy for them?)

(August 19, 2011 at 1:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I would absolutely assume the worst, and it would be unfortunate if those conscripted to enforce tyranny were the only ones left holding weapons. That's my point. It's a promise that is made more empty when the tools to collect on that debt are removed.
(In the end they'd still get mowed down, no mistake, but why make it easy for them?)

This same weakness in the military is rather sad, I feel. It should ask itself who it serves: the people, or an emperor. Republics never can make up their minds.

Quote:if those conscripted to enforce tyranny were the only ones left holding weapons.

But we have an all-volunteer military.

It's just a job Sae. You expect the guy at the McDonalds to question his loyalties too? Soldiers do remove themselves from combat, time to time, or remove themselves from service entirely by gaming the system.

---

What people volunteer for and what they find themselves doing aren't always the same. In any case, they could just hire contractors couldn't they, if the service (as a whole) refused to fight?

(August 19, 2011 at 1:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's just a job Sae. You expect the guy at the McDonalds to question his loyalties too?

Yes.

But I recognize that I expect too much of people... after all: how could they possibly know who they are loyal to and why? That takes thinking, and we surely shouldn't anticipate anyone thinks.

Quote:In any case, soldiers do remove themselves from combat, time to time, or remove themselves from service entirely by gaming the system.

Good. Though that they must game the system to do so is ridiculous with a volunteer military.

---

Rhythm Wrote:What people volunteer for and what they find themselves doing aren't always the same. In any case, they could just hire contractors couldn't they, if the service (as a whole) refused to fight?

Mercs are always willing to fight (for solid pay). But it doesn't say much of a government if it must use mercenaries to get things done

Honestly, neither of you are uncomfortable with the idea of an armed government and an unarmed populace?

(August 19, 2011 at 2:01 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Honestly, neither of you are uncomfortable with the idea of an armed government and an unarmed populace?

What does it change, Rhythm? If the populace is armed and the government not: there is no stability in the government (it doesn't have control). It falls. If the government has enough power to retain control: it doesn't matter what the populace has access to. It is simply overpowered by the government whenever.

I'm not the slightest bit uncomfortable with it... what I would be uncomfortable with is not being myself armed. The government are assholes, and so are the people. If I had my way: they would all be disarmed and me armed. Good for personal security.