105 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

Wearer of Hats, on 13 January 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

As I understood it, it was less about the tyranny of Britain and more the tyranny of lack of representation. If the King had said "rightio, have a few seats in Parliament, and a couple of Lords" America would still be a colony (or at least Federated a la Australia).

So the birth of the US amounted to nothing more than a few seats in Parliament so think you and questionmark.

[questionmark]

-Mr_Fess-, on 13 January 2013 - 04:08 AM, said:

So what's your solution for dire straights. Bend over and take it? Ah, vote you'll say. And what if votes become ignored? How can you so easily preach complacency? Even if such scenarios are unlikely why do you refuse to acknowledge the history of governments past? It's not impossible and even if we have no chance at all having a gun is a better chance than not.


Those with right on their side still found a way to pull it off. Who cares if it was sloppy? It still got done. Please don't make me make fun of Canada again for its mediocrity. I really likes ya guys but you have no bragging rights about anything except maybe hockey and in the grand scheme of things sports aren't important.

If rights get ignored the sensible think is to kick out the whole camarilla in the next elections in favor of those willing to reinstate rights. If in a democracy there is a revolution it hardly will end with a democracy, and then you really will have an opportunity to cry for your rights.

[AsteroidX]

@Yamato...Yes you are correct there was also an outcry as the British tried to enforce taxation on the Americas to pay for another war that Americans had fought and died in.

http://totallyhistor...olutionary-war/

[F3SS]

questionmark, on 13 January 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

If rights get ignored the sensible think is to kick out the whole camarilla in the next elections in favor of those willing to reinstate rights. If in a democracy there is a revolution it hardly will end with a democracy, and then you really will have an opportunity to cry for your rights.

Not saying your wrong but this is about overthrowing tyranny which suggests to me that elections would be meaningless or nonexistent. Wouldn't the outcome of a revolution depend heavily on who won and what the ideals behind the revolution are?

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 13 January 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

You must be talking about House and Senate voting because with the abuse of EO's anythings possible.

It is certainly not, executive orders can be overturned by the courts and both Clinton and Trumann got a bloody nose from them. The problem is if nobody goes to court because in reality all want the same thing.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

If rights get ignored the sensible think is to kick out the whole camarilla in the next elections in favor of those willing to reinstate rights. If in a democracy there is a revolution it hardly will end with a democracy, and then you really will have an opportunity to cry for your rights.

Last time that was tried it took 2 elections to turn the Presidency back into one of the people ala James Adams following the Whiskey Revolution.

http://www.ttb.gov/p...rebellion.shtml

[Yamato]

questionmark, on 13 January 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

If rights get ignored the sensible think is to kick out the whole camarilla in the next elections in favor of those willing to reinstate rights. If in a democracy there is a revolution it hardly will end with a democracy, and then you really will have an opportunity to cry for your rights.

*sigh*
There's a process for Amending our rights.  3/4 of the States must ratify any repeals of Constitutional law either by legislature or convention.   People aren't "crying for rights" they already have, they're responding to people crying about the rights expressly protected by law.

[AsteroidX]

Some rights are considered not be infringed upon even thouigh they were listed in the Constitution. Others are considered so basic that they werent even listed. Such as who you can marry.

[questionmark]

Yamato, on 13 January 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

*sigh*
There's a process for Amending our rights.  3/4 of the States must ratify any repeals of Constitutional law either by legislature or convention.   People aren't "crying for rights" they already have, they're responding to people crying about the rights expressly protected by law.

Anybody can sue the government if he feels his rights are violated. If nobody does I must conclude that those rights are either not important enough to the individual or they are complaining because that is what they do.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Anybody can sue the government if he feels his rights are violated. If nobody does I must conclude that those rights are either not important enough to the individual or they are complaining because that is what they do.

People shouldnt have to sue to keep rights there already guarenteed

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 13 January 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

People shouldnt have to sue to keep rights there already guarenteed

Then we don't need courts anymore. But wait...

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Then we don't need courts anymore. But wait...

  Theres still other things sue over just not basic rights

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Yamato, on 13 January 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

So the birth of the US amounted to nothing more than a few seats in Parliament so think you and questionmark.

yeap. they disn't like being taxed without having a say in what the taxes were used for. Which is perfectly fair, and somethnig the British should have known because they'd suffered similar uprisings amongst the peseantry over much the same things in the past.

[Kafkaesque]

questionmark, on 13 January 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Majority is not a loose term, it is 50% + 1. And to protect the minority basic laws can only be changed with at least 75%.

I was referring to my usage of the term majority - applying not political logistics of people voting, but rather the amount of support from people; Germany would never have operated so well if the population wasn't brainwashed into compliance; that's why Hitler was never at risk in his speeches - the idea of assassinating him at first was hogwash, as everyone loved him so much - the majority supported his actions - as he was a cult of personality.

That's my point. Get the jest of what I'm saying?

A commander is not strong without support from majority of his people, or fear from majority of his people..

And we all well know Stalin commanded both fear and support.

Edited by Eonwe, 14 January 2013 - 01:09 AM.

[Yamato]

Wearer of Hats, on 13 January 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

yeap. they disn't like being taxed without having a say in what the taxes were used for. Which is perfectly fair, and somethnig the British should have known because they'd suffered similar uprisings amongst the peseantry over much the same things in the past.

Then what you just described isn't this impossible thing that the gun controllers agreeing with you are claiming it is.  It happened before, multiple times as you yourself are admitting, it can happen again.   You've just admitted the real need for the 2nd Amendment.  

The profound moral question underneath all this surface buzz is this:   Should the government redistribute its citizens wealth by forcibly taking money away from some citizens through taxes in order to provide goods and services to others?   When that central activity of government is deemed by the people to be maldistribution, that may well be enough by the examples cited to reverse the polarity of this force, and it becomes the people who force government to the peoples' will.