Friday, February 8, 2013

Resist/Revolt/Insurrection...Tyranny? Prove It!

---from huffpo comment re: insurrectionist theory/ "jay carney drones"

Jack Davies on Feb 5, 2013 at 20:51:41

“And yet we got the 2nd, with much thanks to the likes of Alexander Hamilton.

The point was not that we should rise up whenever we don't like something, but that the government be always discouraged from ever ruling by force, knowing that we are armed as well. It's a fine distinction, but one that needs be made, and every last founder would have agreed, if the government ever gets that bad, then yes, turn to the guns to resist. Resist, not revolt.” “You are confusing the concepts of "revolt" aka "insurrection" with "resistance". The first implies rising up against the government for whatever arbitrary reason, which OF COURSE people have a problem with, but the second implies that the government in question has already broken their contract with the people, and are attempting to impose unjust tyranny at gunpoint, which is EXACTLY why we have the 2nd. The founders went to great lengths to avoid such a possibility, including but not limited to the 2nd Amendment and the constitutional provision that we not have a standing army.

You cannot have an honest conversation about this while confusing the two.”

“Dear Jack,

Um- "...every last founder would have agreed, if the government ever gets that bad, then yes, turn to the guns to resist." ? No. This is an ignorant statement.

"With few exceptions, the Founders were never insurrectionists in the sense that they believed the people should take matters into their own hands by force of arms. Garry Wills notes that even as late as 1775 John Adams denied that the Continental Congress was engaging in rebellion.[453] "[T]he people of this continent have the utmost abhorrence of treason and rebellion," he said.[454] Wills explains that the Founders took great care to stress that they were engaged in "revolution," not rebellion. They associated the word revolution, derived from astronomy, with ordered and prescribed movement and considered themselves engaged in an orderly and legally justified endeavor.[455] And Gordon S. Wood notes that the Founders repeatedly stressed that American resistance was supported by "both the letter and the spirit of the British constitution."[456]"

Try Again!


Jack Davies on Feb 6, 2013 at 03:17:14

“Way to miss the point. Read what i wrote again, and then what you posted, and then get back to me. Also, bear in mind, they DID take up arms against their government, and the exact " letter and the spirit of the British constitution" was a huge influence on our own, most certainly when it came to the 2nd.

I strongly advise you to go read the wiki entry on specifically "the second amendment" before arguing further.” 2 seconds ago (12:32 PM) HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1 second ago (12:32 PM)
This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

Dear Jack

"...which is exactly why we have the second? The level of your denial is astounding.
("... the Second Amendment was written to assure the South that the militia ¾ the very same militia described in the main body of the Constitution ¾ could be armed even if Congress elected not to arm them or otherwise attempted to "disarm" them...the Amendment deals with keeping and bearing arms in the militia, subject to federal and state regulation." from link)
We have a second amendment to prevent states from being unable to shoot slaves should they ever be freed. Read. It isn't that hard. :-/
We cannot have an honest conversation if you aren't willing to read and consider thoughtfully the UC Davis Law Review (Peer Reviewed Research, Buddy) paper upon which I based my dialectic.

to be continued-

Question for ya, Jack...who gets to say when the "government in question has already broken their contract with the people, and are attempting to impose unjust tyranny at gunpoint,"-- What's the justification for action? What is 'unjust tyranny'? Is it different than 'just tyranny?" When will you know beyond a doubt that the time for violent action against your government? If not now, when? I keep hearing 'tyranny' but find no-one willing to say which action would prod them to violently overthrow their legitimate government. American government remains legitimate.

Do you see a gun pointed at you as you read this? Then stop bitching about tyranny.

Again, has our 'proper governmental structure' so far provided us with the process by which to maintain peaceable transfer of power? When exactly would you propose abandoning that process? How exactly do you propose, in that light, someone 'resist'?

Is Christopher Jordan Dorner a resister? Or a revolter?



No comments:

Post a Comment