Second Amendment March
How does this fit?
This is a discussion on Rattling the Second Amendment Saber within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by kdydak Their current game plan is expand the government (and decrease freedom) at the cost of loosing this election in November. Their ...
Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. PSALM 144:1
I CLING to my guns and my Bible.
I would ask people to refer to the Milgram Experiment It is quite depressing, but often a true statement of human nature. The good news is that the longer such a thing would continue the more defectors you would end up having.
The Ballot Box is much stronger than most people realize, and it is indeed time for people to start taking part instead of sitting on the fence and refusing to vote for whatever reason.
However, I do disagree with your overall opinion that because one can't seem to win, and that the consequences of losing would be so great, that one shouldn't try. What good are values and principals if you don't risk some sort of harm for keeping them?
In short in such a situation, we wouldn't have to win, just fight.
Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.
I whole heartedly agree with the ballot box comments. Are folks angry and discouraged? You bet. But elections come in November. Make yourselves heard at the ballot box, participate in the process. Until that happens, 30 percent of the population that actually turns out to vote will continue to decide what happens to the other 70 percent.
I agree on the ballot box. He disscussion about our military is interesting, but do not forget the millions of former trained servicemen among us now. I have not forgotten my oath to this country, against ALL enemys, foreign and domestic. Just because we no longer serve in an official capacity does not mean we no longer bare the responsibility of our country and it's people.
i look at it this way, along with several people i've spoke to. the government WILL NOT win if the military revolts too and doesn't do government's bidding. the government can't throw every single military member in jail or put them to death all at once. not to mention, if we win, there will be a new government and they won't throw us in jail or put us to death. if not the whole point was to fight for what we believe in. if a someone comes up to mug you, there is a chance they have a gun, there is a chance you will loose/die. but you still fight.
The article had this line in it: " Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating the immediate use of force against the government."
Actually implanting the idea of rebellion is precisely what the creep who wrote that article had in mind, and then he hopes he'll have clean hands while fools do the dirty work he is too cowardly to do himself. There is no constitutional right to rebellion. That is a ridiculous notion. It is crazy talk.
I can't believe an LEO here support this sort of talk. I can't believe the Owner here tolerates encouragement of illegal acts or rebellion on a board with rules against promoting illegal activity.
There is a deep anti-government strain that runs through too many posts here. Nothing good can come from any of that.
Last edited by Hopyard; March 25th, 2010 at 01:49 PM. Reason: changed word "my" to "mind" first was typo
Hopyard, if you read my post, you will see that I am in favor of the ballot box. But since when do I give up my rights to stand with my fellow Americans or give up my right to express my thoughts due to my profession? I am first an American, and also realize that I work for the people as a paid servant, not someone who is above everyone else. I or noone else is advocating an overthrow, but discussing he topic of the op. But if you read he founding fathers comments and thoughts on liberty and freedom in the federalist papers,you will see this is what their thoughts were, and in fact, advocated. So just enjoy the conversation and keep it light .
I do not or would not encourage armed rebellion, especially at this time. But armed rebellion was the beginning of our country. If things ever got to the point that things were so bad that citizens had to
rise up, who has become the unlawful ones? I think this is a very interesting and thought provoking subject.
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world...."
"When the last dutiful & humble petition from Congress received no other Answer than declaring us Rebels, and out of the King’s protection, I from that Moment look’d forward to a Revolution & Independence, as the only means of Salvation; and will risque the last Penny of my Fortune, & the last Drop of my Blood upon the Issue."
George Mason, October 2, 1778
My bet would be that if armed conflict happened, the "rebels" would be considered to be an enemy force under some sort of civil war thought process. And we have a well documented history to prove that brother will kill brother under that sort of situation.
As a serviceman, your duty is to follow orders. IF your orders are to put down the insurrection you WILL follow those orders regardless of your personal feelings on the issue. I, and the rest of America, would expect nothing less from you than that because you do not have the luxury of choosing whether to defend this nation or not or even how that is to be done under any situation.
If you cannot, then quit your service because you will be of less value than those who currently refuse to deploy or join because they "might get shot" or are "conscientious objectors."
Rings a bell, does it not?
Crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction. Because it is limited to organizing and encouraging opposition to government rather than directly participating in its overthrow, sedition is regarded as falling one step short of the more serious crime of treason. In the U.S. the display of a certain flag or the advocacy of a particular movement, such as syndicalism, anarchism, or communism, has periodically been declared seditious. More recently, the courts have applied a more stringent test of sedition to ensure that constitutional guarantees regarding freedom of speech are not abridged. See also Alien and Sedition Acts.
For more information on sedition, visit Britannica.com.
Last edited by Rock and Glock; March 25th, 2010 at 08:45 PM.
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."
Looks like this applys to people who are plotting to, or discussing the desireability of overthrowing the government. I don't think anyone here wants to overthrow the government. On the contrary, I think folks here (I know I do) would defend our United States government and want to make sure that no one ever does attempt to undermine our constitution. We may have some corrupt politicians but this is still the greatest Republic that ever existed and our government needs to be protected.
Last edited by dustinfox; March 25th, 2010 at 06:02 PM.
I think some folks here who are in one of the services, or still subject to recall, need to give very careful thought to what the definition of sedition is within the UCMJ. There are people here treading a fine line they should step back from.
As for the rest of us, as always, there is a very fine line between free speech and criminal speech-fire in the theater. Yelling that our government is tyrannical (in the present circumstances) and applauding violent or threatening anti-government acts is pretty darn close to that level of irresponsible speech.
The law aside, it is not OK to engage in seditious rhetoric, even for some distant hypothetical situation. Because, as a practical matter there are simply too many people incapable of using sound judgment who will mistake such as calls for immediate violence as something realistic.
We are of course seeing the fruits of this kind of talk right now. It is ugly, it is wrong, it is criminal, and it is about as "un-american" in spirit and act as one can possibly get short of aiding Bin-Laden.
To respond to Glockman10mm and his interesting question, when if ever would rebellion be justified, I have this thought:
Should it happen that a sufficient numbers of state legislatures vote for a constitutional convention, but that convention is somehow prevented from taking place solely to perpetuate something the states clearly want to amend. That is the point at which I would feel that there is tyranny of a degree possibly justifying rebellion.
In the meantime, short of that circumstance, the individual states hold all the cards. They can change our Constitution any time that a sufficient number of them are of a mind to do so. That doesn't sound like tyranny by the Federal government to me. Hence, no need to be thinking about "rebellion or advocating sedition.