Actual act of rebellion in America

[eclipse]

I am serious. From all of the sources I have read, the government seems to be the jerk here. And when people, free people, cant stand anymore, they rebel. What about it that you dont understand? They are the same with people in Syria and in many other places. The oppressed should be helped. If the rebels in Syria got helped then I dont understand why these people shouldnt be helped. After all, all of the rebellions start from somewhere, no?

The moment the suppressors pour in and kill these freedom fighters will be a very sad moment for me. If these people were black, the media could have stand with them. But since they were white, everything is blamed on them. America, a country that values freedom and justice, a country that is friend to all the righteous causes, a friend of freedom fighters everywhere, should help them.

When you live in a country, under a government, you've already given up some of your freedom. For example, most governments don't allow you to walk up to a random person and murder them. Or set fire to the house of someone you don't like.

These guys apparently broke federal laws, and are not willing to accept the consequences of those actions. Furthermore, instead of using more acceptable ways of getting redress (appeal, writing to politicians, protesting with signs in front of their state capital building), they've chosen to trespass on a federal compound. Any claim to being wronged they had flew out the window with their actions - it tells me they respect the law only when it's convenient for them.

[blah the Prussian]

The issue is, they had already been trialed and served a sentence for it. Instead, you could set a precendence for new laws being retroactive, which would be far more dangerous.

Actually, from what I've seen, they are named as Militia in multiple sites, which unless I'm wrong, is the same as calling them militants.

Fair: here is an even more damning cause: they are rebelling despite the fact that the people they are claiming to protect are saying they do not want their help.

[Anouleth]

Oh goddammit. These people are rebelling because they don't want their neighbors to face justice. The precedent of violent rebellion should not be set. Also, don't pull a reverse racism on me, if black people were doing this it would be just as bad.

As far as I know, nobody has actually been hurt or injured, so I don't know if it really justifies the label of "violent rebellion" just yet. Fort Sumner this ain't.

I know everyone here is eager to see some people get killed, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

When you live in a country, under a government, you've already given up some of your freedom. For example, most governments don't allow you to walk up to a random person and murder them. Or set fire to the house of someone you don't like.

These guys apparently broke federal laws, and are not willing to accept the consequences of those actions. Furthermore, instead of using more acceptable ways of getting redress (appeal, writing to politicians, protesting with signs in front of their state capital building), they've chosen to trespass on a federal compound. Any claim to being wronged they had flew out the window with their actions - it tells me they respect the law only when it's convenient for them.

That's the entire definition of civil disobedience; refusing to follow laws and regulations, whether that's in the form of refusing to pay income taxes, sit-ins, or destroying draft cards (during the Vietnam War, for instance).

Edited January 4, 2016 by Anouleth

[CyborgZeta]

Basically, it needs to be said that you can't just rebel over any little thing. Thirdly, I am not suggesting bypassing the Constitution, I am suggesting changing the Second Amendment.

We can agree on those then. I admit I do not know how the National Guard would function in an armed rebellion, since any serious event might have the states divided. Regardless of how effective any rebellion would be, I support the ideal of armed citizenry.

you talk a big game on this here internet forum from the safety of your home and while enjoying the amenities of modern society, but you know, you can always move to somalia, where you can enjoy absolute freedom

It's not a big game. Supporting the basic freedoms as defined by the Constitution is not a radical idea. The government is not infringing on any of those basic freedoms, so I'm not complaining about them. I am only explaining why I would be concerned over increased gun control (which largely favors urban areas while disparaging rural areas), since it restricts on a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

I'd like to add that I'm not some gun-toting redneck either, in case the thought ever crossed your mind. You don't need to be liberal or conservative to support a particular issue.

[eclipse]

That's the entire definition of civil disobedience; refusing to follow laws and regulations, whether that's in the form of refusing to pay income taxes, sit-ins, or destroying draft cards (during the Vietnam War, for instance).

So, acting like a toddler. Unfortunately, the best society can do is jail, which is grown-up time-out.

[blah the Prussian]

As far as I know, nobody has actually been hurt or injured, so I don't know if it really justifies the label of "violent rebellion" just yet. Fort Sumner this ain't.

I know everyone here is eager to see some people get killed, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

That's the entire definition of civil disobedience; refusing to follow laws and regulations, whether that's in the form of refusing to pay income taxes, sit-ins, or destroying draft cards (during the Vietnam War, for instance).

Oh, of course this isn't anywhere near the magnitude of Fort Sumner. You might be right that this is not yet violent, however is consider that irrelevant as the traitors are quite willing to use violence. And I have to say, civil disobedience is very much a victors write history affair.

We can agree on those then. I admit I do not know how the National Guard would function in an armed rebellion, since any serious event might have the states divided. Regardless of how effective any rebellion would be, I support the ideal of armed citizenry.

It's not a big game. Supporting the basic freedoms as defined by the Constitution is not a radical idea. The government is not infringing on any of those basic freedoms, so I'm not complaining about them. I am only explaining why I would be concerned over increased gun control (which largely favors urban areas while disparaging rural areas), since it restricts on a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

I'd like to add that I'm not some gun-toting redneck either, in case the thought ever crossed your mind. You don't need to be liberal or conservative to support a particular issue.

Fine, then. Let me ask you this: when has an armed citizenry led to positive change that could not have been achieved non violently within a democracy?

[Moblin Major General]

Would you consider prison riots? The Sing-Sing riots of the 80s brought positive prison reforms, in a place where a protest would be met with counter-riot and even lethal force. Only a Democracy would attempt to cater to the condemned, because other governments torture or abandon criminals to fates worse than death.

[CyborgZeta]

Fine, then. Let me ask you this: when has an armed citizenry led to positive change that could not have been achieved non violently within a democracy?

Is the US, none that I'm aware of. I know that during the end of the Cold War, Czechoslovakia had a peaceful revolution while Romania had a more violent one.

However, you speak as if it is pointless for citizens to be armed at all; at least in the case of going against the government. That it won't change anything, so don't bother. I can't agree with that.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter how much of a difference it makes. In the unlikely event the government did seriously become tyrannical, it's better to die free and fighting than unarmed and defenseless.

[tuvarkz]

Fine, then. Let me ask you this: when has an armed citizenry led to positive change that could not have been achieved non violently within a democracy?

As far as I've understood the Second Amendment, the purpose of armed protest amongst the citizenry is meant for a situation when democracy is endangered. We've seen armed protest work in non-democratical governments throughout history with positive results, such as the creation of the Magna Charta in 1215.

[blah the Prussian]

Is the US, none that I'm aware of. I know that during the end of the Cold War, Czechoslovakia had a peaceful revolution while Romania had a more violent one.

However, you speak as if it is pointless for citizens to be armed at all; at least in the case of going against the government. That it won't change anything, so don't bother. I can't agree with that.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter how much of a difference it makes. In the unlikely event the government did seriously become tyrannical, it's better to die free and fighting than unarmed and defenseless.

Of course violent rebellion against the likes of Ceausescu is a good thing. The question is, why is this still relevant in a democracy, where if you really want something to change you vote in a government running a platform of making that change.

As far as I've understood the Second Amendment, the purpose of armed protest amongst the citizenry is meant for a situation when democracy is endangered. We've seen armed protest work in non-democratical governments throughout history with positive results, such as the creation of the Magna Charta in 1215.

In any real life situation where democracy is threatened, it would be a threat from the people. If that were to be the case, an armed citizenry would hurt the situation, not help it, acting as paramilitaries.

[Makaze]

When you live in a country, under a government, you've already given up some of your freedom. For example, most governments don't allow you to walk up to a random person and murder them. Or set fire to the house of someone you don't like.

What if I live in a place that is not claimed by a government, but an invading force conquers the territory by force? Have I legitimately signed their new social contract? If you want to argue that I can leave, that is not necessarily the case. Suppose that they require me to pay $1.00 to leave. Have I signed the contract that says I have to abide by that restriction (extortion)? In order to work to get that money, they require you to pay taxes. Have I legitimately agreed to work for my conqueror's benefit (slave labor)? Now think of today. Every government I know of requires money to leave its borders, above and beyond the private transportation costs.

What if they kill me and everyone who lives there, then claim it for their own? Does everyone who comes there afterward have to succumb to their new social contract, despite their crimes? If that is not basis for a legitimate government, then every government is illegitimate. If it is a basis for legitimate government, then I can get a group together and become that invading force, destroy the government that exists there and claim the land as my own. Everyone who comes there afterward is signing my social contract so long as I say it is legitimate and enforce that idea on my land from then on.

The idiots who did this have no right to do so. But neither does the government. Who can tell which is which in the grand scheme? If these ruffians win this conflict and grow in number, they could one day be the power that governs these states. People who are born after their victory will feel exactly like you do and argue that anyone who comes to these states has to abide by their rules. Just a few hundred years ago, a rebellion took place by a militia against what was believed to be an oppressive body. That militia made its own state. Then it crushed rebellions by the people it conquered, the natives of the land.

There are arguments against what is happening, but they do not stem from something as stupid as social contract theory.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Makaze

[tuvarkz]

In any real life situation where democracy is threatened, it would be a threat from the people. If that were to be the case, an armed citizenry would hurt the situation, not help it, acting as paramilitaries.

Bullshit. Military leaders have quite often taken power via rebellion in history, as well as would be democratically elected governors becoming dictators themselves.

[CyborgZeta]

The question is, why is this still relevant in a democracy, where if you really want something to change you vote in a government running a platform of making that change.

It's there if democracy fails. Whether democracy in the US is failing right now is a whole other topic.

Edited January 4, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[blah the Prussian]

Bullshit. Military leaders have quite often taken power via rebellion in history, as well as would be democratically elected governors becoming dictators themselves.

First point: when coups happen, they have at least tacit support from the masses. Second point: yes, that is exactly what I am talking about.

It's there if democracy fails. Whether democracy in the US is failing right now is a whole other topic.

But how do you know that whatever new government installed by violence will not be worse than before? Further, if democracy has failed, what do you intend to do once the dictatorship is dealt with?

[BrightBow]

If criminals can always get guns, then so can freedom fighters. So I don't really see the point.

The easy access of tools to easily end someone's' life allows the average Joe to practice vigilante justice against his neighbour for his perceived wrongdoings but I find it hard to imagine that it allows for a meaningful resistance against a corrupt government.

Edited January 4, 2016 by BrightBow

[dondon151]

It's not a big game. Supporting the basic freedoms as defined by the Constitution is not a radical idea. The government is not infringing on any of those basic freedoms, so I'm not complaining about them. I am only explaining why I would be concerned over increased gun control (which largely favors urban areas while disparaging rural areas), since it restricts on a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

you realize that the constitution can be amended right

if the second amendment were repealed, then bearing arms would no longer be a right. you may not justify a right simply by citing its assertion in a document if that document can be changed. if that were your only justification, then as soon as the second amendment is repealed, you'd be hunky-dory with all sorts of gun control.

Edited January 4, 2016 by dondon151

[Makaze]

If criminals can always get guns, then so can freedom fighters. So I don't really see the point.

The easy access of tools to easily end someone's' life allows the average Joe to practice vigilante justice against his neighbour for his perceived wrongdoings but I find it hard to imagine that it allows for a meaningful resistance against a corrupt government.

Would your logic justify taking guns away from the citizens of the original colonies?

[Yojinbo]

I think 'blatant rebellion against authority' is not only legitimate but also a very important measure to achieve political or social progress. How would racial policies in the USA look today if it weren't for Rosa Parks' 'blatant rebellion against authority'? Or Cassius Clay's refusal to serve for the army in the vietnam war?

Once violence and guns come into play things get dangerous though and that's where I object. The USA have an iffy history with both so there's a somewhat reasonable chance that things can get ugly pretty quickly. Let's hope not.

[CyborgZeta]

But how do you know that whatever new government installed by violence will not be worse than before? Further, if democracy has failed, what do you intend to do once the dictatorship is dealt with?

I feel like this might be going off topic, but there's no guarantee whether a new government installed by any revolution would automatically be better or worse. As to what I'd do, I couldn't say, since I don't know what the sides would be.

you realize that the constitution can be amended right

if the second amendment were repealed, then bearing arms would no longer be a right. you may not justify a right simply by citing its assertion in a document if that document can be changed. if that were your only justification, then as soon as the second amendment is repealed, you'd be hunky-dory with all sorts of gun control.

Amendments need to be ratified by each of the state legislatures. If that were to happen, and the overwhelming majority approves of it, then I won't speak out against it.

As things currently stand however, that can't happen. A proposal to repeal the Second Amendment would not be able to pass each of the state legislatures, and a lot of people would be (are) against it. As long as it is still a right, I will support it.

People need to willingly disarm themselves, you cannot force them.

Edited January 4, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[blah the Prussian]

Would your logic justify taking guns away from the citizens of the original colonies?

Well I myself am pro British re independence, so yes I would.

[Admiral "Bull" Halsey]

What about asymmetric warfare?

[Makaze]

Well I myself am pro British re independence, so yes I would.

Neither the question nor the person I asked, to be blunt.

[tuvarkz]

First point: when coups happen, they have at least tacit support from the masses. Second point: yes, that is exactly what I am talking about.

But how do you know that whatever new government installed by violence will not be worse than before? Further, if democracy has failed, what do you intend to do once the dictatorship is dealt with?

Not necessarily support, actually. A coup could just very well work as long as the masses don't actively oppose it-Indifference would be enough.

[blah the Prussian]

I feel like this might be going off topic, but there's no guarantee whether a new government installed by any revolution would automatically be better or worse. As to what I'd do, I couldn't say, since I don't know what the sides would be.

Amendments need to be ratified by each of the state legislatures. If that were to happen, and the overwhelming majority approves of it, then I won't speak out against it.

As things currently stand however, that can't happen. A proposal to repeal the Second Amendment would not be able to pass each of the state legislatures, and a lot of people would be (are) against it. As long as it is still a right, I will support it.

People need to willingly disarm themselves, you cannot force them.

Exactly. There is no guarantee that the rebellion will lead to good things, because rebellions as a whole are very, very unpredictable. Look at the situations in Syria and Libya.

I think 'blatant rebellion against authority' is not only legitimate but also a very important measure to achieve political or social progress. How would racial policies in the USA look today if it weren't for Rosa Parks' 'blatant rebellion against authority'? Or Cassius Clay's refusal to serve for the army in the vietnam war?

Once violence and guns come into play things get dangerous though and that's where I object. The USA have an iffy history with both so there's a somewhat reasonable chance that things can get ugly pretty quickly. Let's hope not.

What do you mean by legitimate? Civil disobedience is quite dangerous because, once again, it is entirely subjective what constitutes an unjust law. I agree that it is morally right to disobey an unjust law, however legally speaking the law must be enforced to not give in to lawlessness.

@Tukvarz: Exactly. If the majority of the people are indifferent, the kind of mass resistance needed for a successful rebellion will not materialize, and so the resistance will be crushed.

Edited January 4, 2016 by blah2127

[BrightBow]

Would your logic justify taking guns away from the citizens of the original colonies?

Hard to say, considering that I don't know enough about that time. Obviously the world is a lot smaller these days. Information travels a lot faster so the government can react to an uprising before it really gets steam. So what might have worked back in the day might not work today.

At the very least it means that I do follow the logic of pro-gun advocates that criminals (aka, people who oppose the state) will always have guns, at least if they are dedicated enough to their cause. I just think they underestimate what ordinary people are capable of when acting on a mere whim and the consequent dangers of easily accessible firearms. And impulsive violence can end the lives of unsuspecting individuals but it cannot overthrow a country. If a rebellion was organized enough to actually have a shot at overthrowing the country, I bet that getting it's hands on the kind of destructive power that you can find in your local gunstore is trivial for them. I mean, by the time you actively oppose the government, it's not like it matters anymore to obtain a gun legally, seeing how you would be a criminal in the eyes of the government either way.

Edited January 4, 2016 by BrightBow