Actual act of rebellion in America

[blah the Prussian]

He has the right to go quietly, but the judge violated amendment 8 because he sent them back to prison because new laws were passed. What the rioters are doing is wrong, but if they have good lawyers, they could get away with this. And since when has an armed uprising in America not led to reform, no matter the result? Regardless of the combatants or the cause, this could change things for the better

Reform gained by armed uprising I would rather do without. We cannot set the precedent that force leads to you getting what you want. Ask Louis XVI and 40,000 other victims of the Terror how that worked out. What reforms can you seriously see passing because of this? Oh yeah, and to answer your question, the single biggest uprising in American history, the American Civil War.

[Duff Ostrich]

This is what happens when you get a culture of people thinking that blatant rebellion against authority is okay. So there you have it. Hopefully this at least adds more fuel to the gun control fire.

You're right, if only America was under the rule of a divinely ordained despot it would never have isolated pockets of anti government activity.

The use of a fire metaphor is appropriate given the context, but on the subject of gun control advocacy it would be closer to the truth to compare it to ashes buried under a mound of snow. They try and fail to pass laws as inane as high capacity magazine bans.

[Water Mage]

So, I've read the new posts here and it seems to be a bit different than I imagined, I was going to say why this whole ocuppation is badly organized, but it doesn't seem to be the subject here.

Anyway, first I want to understand how this all started, it was because two farmers refuse to go to jail for a crime they commited and started this whole thing, right? Then other groups (who the farmers refuse to work with) started to support them.

But if the farmers themselves does not want support from the militia, why are they still there?

Perhaps I read something wrong or maybe I missed a fact, but this whole occupation seems meaningless if the farmers don't want support.

And maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but doesn't any act that defies the law and demand for it to change could be considered treason? And what acts are considered treason by the american law?

To be honest, I read every single article posted and I still don't fully understand this, so maybe I shouldn't be giving my opinion.

[blah the Prussian]

You're right, if only America was under the rule of a divinely ordained despot it would never have isolated pockets of anti government activity.

The use of a fire metaphor is appropriate given the context, but on the subject of gun control advocacy it would be closer to the truth to compare it to ashes buried under a mound of snow. They try and fail to pass laws as inane as high capacity magazine bans.

America, my good man, never was under the rule of a divinely ordained despot, though I occasionally wish it was. I would pay good money to see Joseph II, Louis XIV, or Suileman the Magnificent whip Congress into shape. I would sooner trust any one of them with my country than a good 90% of the Presidential candidate list. Ah well. In any case, rebellion is only good if there is a just cause, and I think that any rational human being can agree that there is no just cause here.

So, I've read the new posts here and it seems to be a bit different than I imagined, I was going to say why this whole ocuppation is badly organized, but it doesn't seem to be the subject here.

Anyway, first I want to understand how this all started, it was because two farmers refuse to go to jail for a crime they commited and started this whole thing, right? Then other groups (who the farmers refuse to work with) started to support them.

But if the farmers themselves does not want support from the militia, why are they still there?

Perhaps I read something wrong or maybe I missed a fact, but this whole occupation seems meaningless if the farmers don't want support.

And maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but doesn't any act that defies the law and demand for it to change could be considered treason? And what acts are considered treason by the american law?

To be honest, I read every single article posted and I still don't fully understand this, so maybe I shouldn't be giving my opinion.

No one really knows why the militia is still there. Their leaders are part of a family with a track record of being whiny little bitches about everything the government does, though, so my guess would be that they were just looking for an excuse and they don't care what said excuse has to say.

[tuvarkz]

From what I understand of the situation, allegedly the farmers had already been trialed for the two incidents (While they seem to have been accused of spreading a fire to cover tracks of illegal hunting, from what I've gathered on their side it would seem like the first incident was a permit-given controlled fire getting a bit out of hand, but that they managed to control themselves; and the second one being a backfire to stop a larger fire from spreading); and already served sentence, but a federal judge had decided that said punishment was not enough and re-trialed them; which caused the militia to gather and barricade themselves.

I wouldn't really call this terrorism as much as armed protest, considering that they don't represent an active danger, and the government's building was empty of people when they took over it; and effectively no people have been harmed in any way due to their actions; and while they haven't made any clear requests, it seems pretty obvious that the risk level has been wildly overblown.

[CyborgZeta]

I wouldn't call this a rebellion. It's an armed protest.

From what I can tell, this protest is unwanted by the people they're protesting over.

[Moblin Major General]

But slavery ended, didn't it? The results weren't what was expected, but drastic changes did occur. As for the French Revolution, they failed to separate church and state, not to mention Robespierre tried to create his own State Religion. You are well-informed and rational, though, and it might be that I'm Amerocentric and a democrat rather than a monarchist (both definitions of such, but gun control never works).

[blah the Prussian]

From what I understand of the situation, allegedly the farmers had already been trialed for the two incidents (While they seem to have been accused of spreading a fire to cover tracks of illegal hunting, from what I've gathered on their side it would seem like the first incident was a permit-given controlled fire getting a bit out of hand, but that they managed to control themselves; and the second one being a backfire to stop a larger fire from spreading); and already served sentence, but a federal judge had decided that said punishment was not enough and re-trialed them; which caused the militia to gather and barricade themselves.

I wouldn't really call this terrorism as much as armed protest, considering that they don't represent an active danger, and the government's building was empty of people when they took over it; and effectively no people have been harmed in any way due to their actions; and while they haven't made any clear requests, it seems pretty obvious that the risk level has been wildly overblown.

Te risk is that people will think that they can pull stuff like this. And occupying the building is disrupting the business of the government, which can in fact harm people. It would be an armed protest if they stood outside with guns, but they are not doing that.

[tuvarkz]

A Wildlife refuge building? Are you serious? The very worst it could happen from a wildlife refuge being taken over would be a school trip being cancelled.

[blah the Prussian]

But slavery ended, didn't it? The results weren't what was expected, but drastic changes did occur. As for the French Revolution, they failed to separate church and state, not to mention Robespierre tried to create his own State Religion. You are well-informed and rational, though, and it might be that I'm Amerocentric and a democrat rather than a monarchist (both definitions of such, but gun control never works).

The example doesn't work, because the rebellion itself was a reaction by the South to the threat of slavery being abolished. The point I was making is that the First Republic slid further and further down the slope of outright mob rule because no one had the balls to tell the mob "no." This culminated in Robespierre exploiting the fear of the mob to take power. And I'm pretty sure that most countries in Europe would disagree that gun control never works.

[CyborgZeta]

And I'm pretty sure that most countries in Europe would disagree that gun control never works.

How many of those European countries have a long established equivalent to the Second Amendment that guarantees the right to bear arms?

Harsh gun control is a slippery slope that could only make it harder for average citizens to obtain guns. Even Jefferson knew this.

[blah the Prussian]

A Wildlife refuge building? Are you serious? The very worst it could happen from a wildlife refuge being taken over would be a school trip being cancelled.

It could affect the nature reserve, which was already damaged due to the actions of the people that started this whole mess.

How many of those European countries have a long established equivalent to the Second Amendment that guarantees the right to bear arms?

Harsh gun control is a slippery slope that could only make it harder for average citizens to obtain guns. Even Jefferson knew this.

And what is so bad about that?

[Moblin Major General]

You experienced two wars in the last 100 years that ravaged and gutted the continent, I get that. But that leaves almost all countries in Europe vulnerable to radical regimes like the one that inspired gun control in Europe.

[blah the Prussian]

You experienced two wars in the last 100 years that ravaged and gutted the continent, I get that. But that leaves almost all countries in Europe vulnerable to radical regimes like the one that inspired gun control in Europe.

No, gun control was around before then. I honestly don't see how no gun control hurts radical parties. The Nazis, for example, used their Brownshirts to intimidate voters (yet another example of the government not having the balls to intervene) and imagine how much more intimidating they would have been with guns.

[CyborgZeta]

And what is so bad about that?

You're infringing on personal liberty, a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. Take away one right, and who's to say what they decide to take away next?

Citizens were given the right to bear arms to protect against a tyrannical government. Disarming them only empowers the government.

This quote by Benjamin Franklin sums it up best: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[blah the Prussian]

You're infringing on personal liberty, a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. Take away one right, and who's to say what they decide to take away next?

Citizens were given the right to bear arms to protect against a tyrannical government. Disarming them only empowers the government.

This quote by Benjamin Franklin sums it up best: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Regardless of what Mr. Franklin may have said, empowering the government is not bad, and at this stage guns are pointless. You have your AK-47. Good for you. The government has fucking drones. You're running around with your gun and you are blown up. If you make it past that, then the government has tanks. You can't win. Not to mention the fact that if the government has the support to do something like insert evil act here, those resisting would be in the minority. Less people would die if the people kept their heads down. Besides, belief that people have the right to rebel against a tyrannical government led to the most bloody war in US history. If you are rebelling, either you are wrong or things have gotten so bad that that right is rendered moot. The Constitution can be changed. It's not the bible. Personal freedom must end at a point, all we are arguing about is at what point is the most appropriate. I believe that that point is the point with the best freedom to dead people ratio. Also, slippery slope fallacy.

[Moblin Major General]

Not radical movements, but radical governments. That is why the PRoC is still a thing. Without it, Tienamen Square could've succeeded.

[blah the Prussian]

Not radical movements, but radical governments. That is why the PRoC is still a thing. Without it, Tienamen Square could've succeeded.

The only radical government within the EU is that of Viktor Orban in Hungary, and his regime is not posing an active threat to its citizens. Tienamen Square was a non violent protest because again, in this day and age, a superpower like China can decimate and rebels. The FSA is only getting somewhere because of Uncle Barack. And may I remind you that the PRC also came into power because they had guns. The same is true of the Soviets, the Khmer Rouge, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[CyborgZeta]

The military cannot be deployed on US soil, nor can it be used to enforce domestic policies. The bit about drones and tanks is moot.

Besides, belief that people have the right to rebel against a tyrannical government led to the most bloody war in US history. If you are rebelling, either you are wrong or things have gotten so bad that that right is rendered moot.

The way you phrase this suggests that rebellions are either inherently wrong, or pointless. The US itself was founded upon a rebellion, so you will have to clarify this for me.

The Constitution can be changed. It's not the bible. Personal freedom must end at a point, all we are arguing about is at what point is the most appropriate.

Yes, the Constitution can be amended, but the amendments need to be ratified by the states. To go outside the Constitution is just ignoring it.

[Moblin Major General]

This argument will go in circles, because the evidence is there for all sides. What works and what doesn't changes, as does the justification. We can do this all day, but the reality is, neither of us are right or wrong. We hold to what is taught, and we discuss it and try to form a consensus, but fail to. For adults, it's best to agree to disagree. Adolescents and Children would be less civil or even petty in this situation, but they wouldn't discuss something like this in the first place.

[Naughx]

Most other western countries do fine without the "right to bear arms".

[Bishop Rodan]

You're infringing on personal liberty, a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. Take away one right, and who's to say what they decide to take away next?

Citizens were given the right to bear arms to protect against a tyrannical government. Disarming them only empowers the government.

This quote by Benjamin Franklin sums it up best: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

lmao if you think your rifle will protect you from military-grade weapons and trained soldiers

The military cannot be deployed on US soil, nor can it be used to enforce domestic policies. The bit about drones and tanks is moot.

Sure it can. What's stopping them?

I mean, it's not like it it hasn't been done before.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Bishop Rodan

[Duff Ostrich]

Most other western countries do fine without the "right to bear arms".

"Fine" is such a cynical measure of success. For that matter most non western countries are more or less "fine", but I wouldn't want to live there. The prosperity of America is due to a variety of factors, and possibly the most important among these is that our civil liberties are codified in a series of documents in such a way that they cannot be simply handwaved or rewritten on a whim by the leaders of the day. Sweeping policy changes are difficult to implement in America, and that is intentional. The right to bear arms is a natural right, which means that it is universal and protected under the law. Protected from what, exactly? The government itself. Hundreds of years later and the idea is still an incredible novelty.

America, my good man, never was under the rule of a divinely ordained despot, though I occasionally wish it was. I would pay good money to see Joseph II, Louis XIV, or Suileman the Magnificent whip Congress into shape. I would sooner trust any one of them with my country than a good 90% of the Presidential candidate list.

Why not Louix XVI, Richard II or Mary, Queen of the Scots? Poor American leaders eventually leave office, and they wield much less power. The increasingly grotesque offspring offered by European royalty ruled for life and had full control over all matters of policy. The only guarantee out of a Hapsburg was the shape of his jaw: Everything else was a dice roll. What good is a dictatorship if it doesn't even offer the stability of modern liberal democracies?

[CyborgZeta]

lmao if you think your rifle will protect you from military-grade weapons and trained soldiers

Never said it would. You can laugh at the idea if you want, but using "lol you couldn't beat the military anyway" isn't a good argument for removing a right.

Sure it can. What's stopping them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Edited January 4, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[tuvarkz]

lmao if you think your rifle will protect you from military-grade weapons and trained soldiers

Sure it can. What's stopping them?

I mean, it's not like it it hasn't been done before.

Simply put, the US government can't afford a civil war at this point. As the "Big Guy" in global politics, every single major power not aligned with the USA would very clearly want to intervene the conflict, with potentially quite catastrophic results.