The American Constitution

[Donut]

Originally posted by VulcanRider: When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution & Bill of Rights, they had just recently finished revolting against a government they felt was unjust, unrepresentative, even tyrannical. That colored their thinking just a wee tad. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure the general population always has that ability -- to rebel against an unjust government. Does anybody here know the last time Americans took up arms against their own government this way? Colonial times? The Civil War? Spanish-American War era? WWI? Try a little bit more recent, like AFTER World War II. 1946 to be exact. Residents of Athens Tennessee had begged the FBI to come & monitor local elections for years. They were tired of their corrupt local government. WWII veterans tried to legally change it by running their own independant candidates. The incumbents used "special deputies" to intimidate voters, beating GI poll-watchers, and actually shot one African-American man for trying to vote (he lived). Then they grabbed the ballot boxes & holed up in the jail for an "impartial" count. The vets scavenged what weapons they could and forced the issue. They restored lawful government by force, the only means possible. The founders knew how important that ability was, and wrote the 2nd to guarantee it. "An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions." Read more about it: http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm It would be wonderful if we could depend on always having an open, honest, and fair government. But power corrupts, yada yada.

And that was over 50 years ago. I believe that the South is somewhat more democratic and less corrupt now and I also believe that this was achieved by a combination of two groups.

First the Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King who achieved their aims by a policy of non-violence. Secondly your own Federal Government whilst Kennedy was president. Perhaps the greatest threat to the American Way is not the Government but the ones with the guns.

Originally posted by Donut: Secondly your own Federal Government whilst Kennedy was president. Perhaps the greatest threat to the American Way is not the Government but the ones with the guns. I beg to differ. I think the Soviet Missiles in Cuba were the biggest threat during the Kennedy administration.

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: MagiK, MagiK, MagiK... I think you just proved to everyone here you have about the same understanding of Socialism as I do of PhD level Quantam Physics. Theres only so far a smiley will get you mate.

Oh very good, first you insult me, then you don't even to bother backing your statement up.

Perhaps I actually know more about both Quantum Physics AND Socialism than you?

On the other hand, perhaps I made a joke and someone took it personally and seriously [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-25-2002, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[VulcanRider]

Originally posted by Yorick: A populace does not need guns to rebel against an unjust government. I mentioned Ghandi's India vs the British Empire and I'll do it again.

After reading your post, I pulled up AskJeeves & searched on "How did India rebel from British". I found these in less than 60 seconds:
From: http://www.rrindia.com/history.)
"In 1915, Mohandas Gandhi returned from South Africa where he had practiced as a lawyer and devoted himself to fight against the racial discrimination, which the Indians had to face. He emerged as a new leader to fight his way to independence by adopting a policy of passive resistance "satyagraha". By the time WW II was concluded, independence was inevitable. In early 1946, India faced a major problem in terms of caste, creed powers. The demand for a separate nation, to be ruled by Mohammed Ali Jinnah became a major hurdle in declaring India as an "Independent Nation" by the British Empire. August 1946 WITNESSED BLOODY CLASHES (emphasis mine) between the two communities in Calcutta. In February 1947, the newly appointed viceroy Lord Louis Mountbatten made an attempt to convince the rival factions for a united independent India. However, he failed in his attempt and finally India was divided in two parts - India and Pakistan."

Apparently India's separation did include bloodshed. And there's this little tidbit describing the afteraffects of your "nonviolent" separation:
(From: http://www.emory.edu/ENGLISH/Bahri/Part.html)
"The partition of India left both India and Pakistan devastated. THE PROCESS OF PARTITION HAD CLAIMED MANY LIVES IN THE RIOTS (emphasis mine). Many others were raped and looted. Women, especially, were used as instruments of power by the Hindus and the Muslims; "ghost trains" full of severed breasts of women would arrive in each of the newly-born countries from across the borders."

edit: I had 2nd thoughts about including that last quote, but decided to leave it in as another example of how Homo Sapiens can use violence for intimidation. The mindset that came up with that idea will not be bargained with...

Yorick: I'll also mention the fall of South Africas apartheid, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the peaceful revolution in the Philipines only last year or so. There's also the eventual downfall of the Golkar party in Indonesia that went without violent overthrow.

I spent enough time researching India's peaceful transfer of power, I'm not going to do the same for the others right now. But I will ask you to tell me how to stop the next Hitler wannabe in a peaceful manner?

Yorick: When you choose violence and destruction as a means to achieving an end, you get death, misery and destruction. Americans do not need guns to rebel against a government. It could be argued that they didn't need to take up arms against the British either.... oh, now that's some heresy.

Not heresy, just a rhetorical question to which we'll never have an answer.

Yorick: But seriously, what if they didn't? What if they'd found a way around the problem and achieved independence without fighting a war? It's tantalising.

"Tantalizing -- To excite (another) by exposing something desirable while keeping it out of reach." Agreed.

Yorick: Instead we have a country that was conquered through violence, achieved independence through violence, fought itself violently, has a problem with violence in it's society, glorifies violence in the arts, sees an instrument of violence as the guarantee of freedom, and is pursuing violent activities abroad. Can we not see a thread here? Can we not see a foundational problem that taintingly permeates throughout the otherwise beautiful fabric of America?

As long as people covet the belongings of others, mankind will make war on itself, both individually, and as nations. When you can remove that desire from people's hearts, I will surrender my means of defense.

[ 10-25-2002, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: VulcanRider ]

[Timber Loftis]

Ummmm...... I was talking about this with the wifey last night. I think it is important to note something about this argument: An Important reason we have the 2nd Amendment in America is because at one time we actually had to take up arms against the government and free ourselves, and it may come to that again.

Oh, this is so romantic, no? And, to be sure, it was very prominent in the thinking of the founding fathers. And, it is oh-so-true that any system of government is only as good as its ability to oust the scoundrels who happen to come into power.

Nevertheless, I submit to you that in the modern day, this is an illusory notion. At the time of the American Revolution, the technology level between the citizens and the government was not so disparate. That is very very different now. Citizens can't generally own tanks, F-15Es, howitzers, bombs, grenade launchers, anti-tank sabot missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, etc. Some of these things may be available with lots of permits and legal wrangling, but you still will only catch a private citizen owning a "historical" item like a Sherman Tank as opposed to a true modern main battle tank.

This technology disparity makes the notion that we can pick up our hunting rifles, and even our CAW shotguns with hellfire rounds for those of us who are Rambo-wannabes, and march on D.C. a little frivolous, don't you think? Besides, the democracy we have and treasure is a governmental form whose biggest virtue is the institutionalization of the periodic overthrow of government based on the will of the people. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Yorick: 4.My problem with the car culture How did humanity survive without the car before it was invented? Did they all live in hell? Did they all not have free choice? The car is not the be all and end all of human achievement. [/b]

I can answer this easily. Prior to affordable and reliable transportation people walked, rode horses or carts drawn by some draft animal. If we were to return to that type of environment we would suffer the following problems.

1. The first and foremost problem, is that we would be drowning in horse shit.
2. People would die frequently due to no fast way to receive medical care.
3. Business transactions would take days, weeks, months or years.
4. Fresh Produce would only be available in rural communities

The Automobile is one of the greatest inventions in our nations history. It has allowed us to expand our economy, our industry and our quality of life. if you say fine only have commercial Autos such as delivery trucks you ignore the fact that it took masses of people to be interested in roads before the infrastructure could be built. I suppose if we completely gave up any sense of capitalism we could nationalize everythiung and form a communist or socialistic style...but MOST americans would never settle for this.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Yorick: [QB] I'll also mention the fall of South Africas apartheid, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the peaceful revolution in the Philipines only last year or so. There's also the eventual downfall of the Golkar party in Indonesia that went without violent overthrow.[QB]

Seems to me that South Africa fought a civil war for 20 or 30 years before the Government capitulated. A believe it was the ANC that fought the government. Sometimes you seem to mistake a peace accord for a peaceful revolution. South Africa's revolution was far from peaceful.

Didn't Yeltsin, after the fall of the Soviet Union have to keep his government from falling with tanks. Seems he ordered the tanks to attack the Duma (sp?) when it demanded more power for the ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES of the people. The Soviet Union is really nothing more than a Dictatorship with a RUBBER STAMP PARLIMENT. Granted the Soviet People vote for the President or whatever he is called. And anyone can run for that office. However if Putin decided he was going to remain Leader for life and he were ruthless enough to put down the street rebellion that would follow, what is to stop him.

Let's look at a country like Burma (it's called Myanmar or some such now by it's brutal dictatorship). The students there have tried repeatedly to overthrow the government there only to be met with tanks in the street and many innocent deaths. That might not be the case if they were armed.

Then there is Hungry in 1956, Estonia in the early '80's, Chile in 1968 and on and on and on...

Personally, I'd prefer death than to living a life in misery and subjegation. Who here wouldn't mind living like a Jew in the Warsaw ghetto prior to the rebellion there. Granted they lost the rebellion, but ultimately their action shorted the war by tying up many German soldiers that could have been used against the Soviets.

[Timber Loftis]

Let's do keep in mind that as the law currently stands, the privilege to drive is a governmentally-granted privilege, not a right. I don't think this disproves anything anyone has said, I'm just making a point of it.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Ummmm...... I was talking about this with the wifey last night. I think it is important to note something about this argument: An Important reason we have the 2nd Amendment in America is because at one time we actually had to take up arms against the government and free ourselves, and it may come to that again. Oh, this is so romantic, no? And, to be sure, it was very prominent in the thinking of the founding fathers. And, it is oh-so-true that any system of government is only as good as its ability to oust the scoundrels who happen to come into power. Nevertheless, I submit to you that in the modern day, this is an illusory notion. At the time of the American Revolution, the technology level between the citizens and the government was not so disparate. That is very very different now. Citizens can't generally own tanks, F-15Es, howitzers, bombs, grenade launchers, anti-tank sabot missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, etc. Some of these things may be available with lots of permits and legal wrangling, but you still will only catch a private citizen owning a "historical" item like a Sherman Tank as opposed to a true modern main battle tank. This technology disparity makes the notion that we can pick up our hunting rifles, and even our CAW shotguns with hellfire rounds for those of us who are Rambo-wannabes, and march on D.C. a little frivolous, don't you think? Besides, the democracy we have and treasure is a governmental form whose biggest virtue is the institutionalization of the periodic overthrow of government based on the will of the people. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Timber, think about what the Sniper did in Washington DC. Think what would happen in this country if you had a hundred such individuals running around doing that, but only targeting the government not civilians. Now think about what would happen if you had many thousands more... etc.

It would bring this country to a stand still. And any illegal or corrupt Government down. I can't see the people forming an army to march on Washington, but I could see this happening in some instances, such as a military over throw of the Republic or some such.

NOTE TO ALL READERS: I DO NOT ESPOUSE THESE IDEAS AT ALL AND I AM COMPLETELY HAPPY WITH MY GOVERNMENT!!! I HAVE NO INTENTION OF TRYING TO BRING DOWN MY GOVERNMENT OR OF OVER THROWING IT!!!

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Let's do keep in mind that as the law currently stands, the privilege to drive is a governmentally-granted privilege, not a right. I don't think this disproves anything anyone has said, I'm just making a point of it.

Yes, you are quite right, that the RIGHT to drive a vehicle in the US, isn't in the Constitution.