stahrwe wrote:toodeemo wrote:It doesn't surprise me that someone who has little understanding of law and lawyers would make that comment about those who do. You can fight your battles with theory, or you can face the reality of what is and is not the law. The idea that losing an election gives you the right to overthrow the government with violence is ludicrous. Especially when you are in a clear minority on the issue in the first place. People who think they have the right to "reclaim" their country seem to miss the point that it is not THEIR country. It's OUR country. Weeding out politicians through elections is the way to effect change. Threatening to overthrow the duly elected government...the one elected by the PEOPLE...is treason. Pure and simple. Even the framers would agree with that. And they did. In the Constitution. So go on screaming about socialism and Obamacare and whatever you find actionable tyranny. It's difficult to find tyranny in policies founded by elected representatives. In fact, that is quite the opposite of tyranny. You're just angry about being on the less popular side. That's your right. To deny that right WOULD be tyranny. But don't come knocking on my door with musket in hand expecting me to join your numbers. Then, you understand, you would be faced with my brand of justice in the face of treason.
Do you hurt yourself with your random jumps to conclusions?
No one in the Tea Party movement or the Republican party is seriously advocating the overthrow of the US Government, nor do we envision that ever being necessary, I am merely pointing out that the constitution and the founders of this nation believed that such a possibility might come about and that the best defense against a despotice government was an armed citizenry.
There is a real danger, if you ask me, in elevating any particular concept or theory on to a pedestal, and then giving it reverential treatment. If nothing else, history tells us that our experience here in the universe is fluid; it is changing, and can change quite significantly within a short period of time. This is why I think the scientific method is best: do a methodical and comprehensive job in trying to model reality, but also be prepared to have this model swept away if new evidence comes in.
The case in point here is the US constitution. Some on the political right seem to speak of this in the same dewy-eyed terms as do those speaking of the Koran, or perhaps the bible. But the reality is that it is a document that was written by a bunch of entrepreneurs, speculators, landowners, and businessmen over two centuries ago. Historically, this is interesting, but it is a huge stretch to give blanket application to its ideas and admonitions in today’s world.
Even at the time, this was not a document that was received to universal acclaim. Many historians estimate that only about 30-40% of the population of the original thirteen colonies were enthusiastic about independence from Britain. Many of the interests of the revolutionaries were self-interests. They coveted the land and resources that were potentially available in what then seemed like a huge and unpopulated land. At the time, it looked like Britain’s strategic interests may have been diverging from those of the colonists. This ruffled more than a few feathers.
To be sure, there were some thinkers that probably wanted to make the best of what was becoming a new reality, like Jefferson and Franklin- and they did, to an extent.
But to take, for example, the concept of having an armed citizenry, the differences between now and 230 years ago are stark. At that time, having just about everyone armed was a reasonable idea; in fact it was pretty much a fait accompli. The majority were either farmers, or lived in rural, or very small settlements where having a gun was a part of life. It was needed for hunting, and protection from wild animals, if nothing else. The concept was also a reflection of the times. Revolutionaries had just won a war against a much bigger power, using an irregular armed militia. So this just seemed to make sense.
Fast-forward to today, and having everyone armed in the US, all 300 million, is a recipe for disaster. Almost no one lives the lifestyle that was common in the eighteenth century today. Guns simply introduce an ultra-lethal element into a complex urban society; they serve no purpose other than mayhem. Even playing devil’s advocate for a moment, and accepting the premise that guns are needed for protection against “government”, the idea is still absurd. If there truly was some sort of coup d’etat; a takeover of the country, contrary to popular wishes, it would either have the support of the military to some degree, or it would not. If it did not, it would not survive long. If it did, the civilian type weapons in individual hands would make little difference. “Militias” wandering about with various small arms would be no match for any modern military force. In other words, the whole thing is ridiculous.
We can take certain principles from the past, for sure. The US constitution itself drew heavily from the British Bill of Rights from the previous century for example. But the narrow-minded worship of populist clichés, so favored by the tea party and its supporters, does nothing to address the very many modern day problems that confront society today in the US.
