Guns used for lawful self defense

[FBM]

Damned royals and their bodyguards! They're a menace to societ...themselves!

[FBM]

Bravo, old soldier!

[Seth]

If they amend the amendment and make it the law that no citizen shall be armed, then the legitimate (in the sense of lawful) society is those citizens who obey the law and disarm. So you would be a sociopath in that you are working against legitimate society by manufacturing and distributing firearms within that society.

It's a fine point and not particularly important.. so meh. That's all I'm going to say about it.

They can try. But the required process is to amend the Constitution. It cannot be done legislatively or administratively by Congress or the President (and in fact cannot be done at all with respect to my fundamental rights, of which the right to keep and bear arms is exceeded only by my right to life, liberty and property), which requires a) a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress to send the Bill to the states; or b) by Constitutional Convention and a two-thirds vote of the Convention, either of which must then be submitted to the state legislatures where two-thirds of the states must ratify the Bill by a simple majority in each state. I think it unlikely, and would not recognize such a collective decision, for the reasons I elucidate below, even if it did.

Now, it's possible that Congress might pass out a Bill to amend away the 2nd Amendment, but it's highly unlikely, to the point of being moot, that two-thirds of the states will ratify the Bill by a majority vote, in no small part because any attempt to do so in at least half of the states (the western ones) would result in the immediate replacement of the state legislature involved, possibly by force.

You see, more than half of the citizens of this nation, probably far more than half, believe in the protections of the 2nd Amendment and will not tolerate any attempt to repeal it and indeed themselves keep and bear arms. This sentiment is so strong in many of those states that a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would likely result in dissolution of the Union and formation of new nations comprised of those states that still value liberty and freedom that would go to war with those who would attempt to disarm them. That, in fact is the main purpose and intent of the annunciation of the ABSENCE of power or authority on the part of our elected representatives to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms found in the 2nd Amendment, which is not an announcement of rights that may be enjoyed, it's a proclamation by the People that Congress HAS NO AUTHORITY to exercise control or governance in that area. No authority AT ALL. This makes even the federal regulations that exist today entirely unconstitutional because they clearly infringe upon that right.

And I'd be one of the freedom fighters opposing attempts by the illegitimate and tyrannical occupants of Washington, D.C. to impose such a law on anyone because in even attempting to do so, those occupants have lost legitimacy and any authority to exercise ANY power over others. They become usurpers who may be disposed of as would-be tyrants must always be disposed of; by death.

Just as the British subjects of the Colonies rebelled against the tyrant King George (and would have killed him if they could have done so), despite the fact that they were claimed as subjects of his, the ultimate guard of my and everyone else's liberties is, in fact, the effectuating of the right to keep and bear arms by doing so that gives us the ability to resist tyranny so "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This right is enjoyed by each and every citizen of the United States (and indeed every individual in the world), and they have full moral and legal authority to cast off a tyrannous government and institute a new one at their will.

And any government which disarms its citizenry is, ipso facto an illegitimate tyranny that can, should and indeed must be overthrown and extirpated. The right to keep and bear arms does not flow from the permission of government, it is an inherent, natural right that accrues to each and every individual on the planet simply by virtue of their existence and their organic need for freedom and protection.

Therefore, refusing to acknowledge or obey a command to disarm given by persons who presume to exercise authority they have not been given or abuse authority that they have been delegated, which authority (the disarming of the people) cannot be given in the first place because that authority does not exist in the body politic to begin with because it is an INDIVIDUAL right not subject to majority rule, is an inherently lawful act that relies upon a higher authority than that delegated to elected representatives; the laws of Nature, or if you prefer (or don't), God, for those who hold such beliefs.

The majority cannot exercise or delegate power or authority that each member of that collective, as an individual, does not him or herself enjoy. You, as an individual, have no moral authority to disarm me, and I may resist by force your individual attempts to do so, up to and including the exercise of deadly force, because my right to be armed in self defense is an inherent characteristic of my existence as a living human being.

The collective cannot legitimately exercise that authority over the individual merely because many individuals decide they wish to do so. That's mob rule (otherwise known as collectivism, Socialism, Marxism, Communism etc..) Their mere numbers do not legitimize their actions, no matter how many of them there are. You, the individual, have no moral authority to kill me without provocation or steal my property or constrain my liberty for your own convenience or to fulfill your own needs, and society does not "create" a collective right to kill me without provocation or rob me or enslave me for its convenience or to fulfill its needs merely because there are many individuals in the collective.

My individual right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness (among others) is not subject to collective repeal. Ever. Under any circumstances. And therefore I am fully justified in resisting with all necessary force any attempts by the collective, or any individuals within the collective (like those purporting to wield the authority of the collective through democratic means) to infringe on my rights to life, liberty, property or pursuit of happiness, which happens to necessarily include my organic and natural right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of resisting such infringements.

So no, the collective cannot vote away my right to keep and bear arms under any circumstances because that right does not come from the collective in the first place, and I will actively resist any such illegitimate attempt to enslave me with whatever force is necessary.

[amused]

Slippery slope there Seth. What's to prevent anyone from picking any issue and declaring it off limits from restriction by the law? Which has already happened with the people who refuse to pay taxes, keep multiple underage wives, and other issues. I'm not equating you personally with those people, they are just examples that come to mind. But given your argument, I could pick any number of issues that are currently illegal and declare myself not subject because the laws violate my rights. I'd go to jail I know, but why is that different at its core from what you are arguing regarding gun ownership?

[tattuchu]

Just saw this this morning. Pretty interesting:

Vigilantes Seize Mexico Town After Murder

http://news.sky.com/story/1006381/vigil ... ter-murder

[Seth]

To Seth



Disarming does not create tyrannies.

Historically it is the first step in enslaving a people.

Take my country.

No thanks, don't want it, it's an island full of sheep and sheeple who know nothing but slavish obedience to their masters.

It has been declared, by international survey, the most peaceful and the least corrupt (and one of the least religious) nations on Earth.

And Mussolini made the trains run on time. Whoopee. Like sheep, you sheeple in NZ are too dull-witted to even know what you have thrown away.

And no-one thinks of firearms as a means of controlling the government.

Just as sheep don't have the first clue about controlling the wolves that predate upon them. Dumb animals, sheep and sheeple both.

This idea of citizens needing arms to keep the government from becoming a tyranny is not a result of history. It is a result of paranoia and propaganda from the NRA and other groups with their own agendas.

Um, no, like any stupid sheep(le) you have the cart before the horse. The NRA was formed to defend the right that was clearly explicated by those who founded this nation, who recognized and acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect both the individual and society against the malefactions of either individuals or government functionaries is a natural, organic and fundamental right that does not come from the collective or the government, but which pre-exists both and is an inherent part of each individual human being that cannot legitimately be infringed.

Also, the French aided the USA in your War of Independence because it suited them to do so, in that they were hostile to Britain, and the war of independence drew British forces away. Their motives had nothing to do with fellow feeling, and everything to do with expedience. Several nations hostile to Britain helped the rebels, and without them, the war would have been lost real quick.

Nor have I ever said we should disarm the citizenry. That is your twist on what I said. I have noted the disproportionate nature of hand guns in murders and suicides, and said hand guns are the problem and hand guns should be removed. I have said consistently that any firearm with a legitimate (not killing people) use should be permitted. Hand guns in fighting a government are pretty nearly useless anyway.

The right covers "arms," which includes every kind and sort of arms, from rocks and sticks to machine guns and RPGs.

And handguns have a valuable place in fighting government. Most presidential removals have been performed or attempted with handguns (sometimes bombs) and removing a tyrannical despot by killing them at close range with a handgun is a perfectly legitimate means of protecting and preserving the rights of the people, so you're absolutely wrong in that respect. The same applies to resisting military forces. As you may know, we dropped hundreds of thousands of "liberty pistols" to the French during WWII. These single-shot .45 caliber, small, cheap and highly concealable handguns were specifically intended for partisans (civilian soldiers) to use to execute a Nazi soldier when such an opportunity arose so that the citizen-soldier can take his weapons and ammunition to be used against other Nazis.

So, we can conclude again that the United States recognizes and understands the utility of handguns to the soldier (citizen or professional), which is why most of our troops in combat are issued sidearms along with their battle rifles. The Liberty Pistol example proves the theory upon which this nation was founded; that an armed citizenry is the best bulwark against tyranny that can possibly exist, and handguns, being small, concealable, and deadly, are particularly suitable for exterminating the minions of the tyrant by surprise.

Hand guns do not save lives.

Lie.

That is shown very conclusively by the enormous toll on life hand guns take in the USA, where there are lots of hand guns, and the lack of such toll in other western civilised nations, where hand guns are few.

It's not an "enormous toll" when compared to the truly enormous toll that would be exacted if the citizenry were disarmed. When the Marxists of the Russian Revolution did it, it ended up costing 40 million people their lives. When the Marxists of Communist China did it, it ended up costing about 60 million lives.

The reason the Progressive Marxists in this country are so quiet and relatively well-mannered (as compared to other Marxists in other nations) is because they know perfectly well that if they try to foment a Marxist rebellion in the United States, the People will take up their arms and solve the problem without the let or hindrance of government by simply killing all Marxists. The Marxist Hugo Chavez (among many other Marxist despots like Castro) only achieved and remains in power because the people of Venezuela have never been adequately armed against such tyranny.

Hand guns kill people.

Mostly bad people who richly deserve to be killed because they are violent criminals.

More hand guns kill more people, not fewer.

More bad people who richly deserve to be killed because they are violent criminals, and they protect and preserve the lives of millions more innocent, law-abiding citizens than they harm.

Your thesis is utterly ridiculous.

No it's not, you're just too much of a mindless sheeple and dupe to understand the concepts involved. Your arguments are childishly simplistic and ignorant of reality.

The killing situation in the USA is so bad that, during the Viet Nam war, when over 50,000 Americans were killed, murders with hand guns back in the States were killing two people for every one killed in Viet Nam. Wanting to keep hand guns widespread is insanity.

And allowing your masters to disarm you is sheep-like complacence that will one day come around and bite you, or perhaps your children, in the ass because history proves that an unarmed citizenry is always ripe for picking by any demagogue or despot who actually has arms and can suppress the sheeple effectively when they begin to bleat about the restraints on their liberties imposed by their masters.

That's your fate, so enjoy it.

I have other plans in mind which include requiring my government to respect my rights, all of them, including the right to keep and bear arms.

[Seth]

Slippery slope there Seth. What's to prevent anyone from picking any issue and declaring it off limits from restriction by the law?

Nothing other than the ability to enforce that decree.

Which has already happened with the people who refuse to pay taxes, keep multiple underage wives, and other issues.

Yup.

I'm not equating you personally with those people, they are just examples that come to mind. But given your argument, I could pick any number of issues that are currently illegal and declare myself not subject because the laws violate my rights. I'd go to jail I know, but why is that different at its core from what you are arguing regarding gun ownership?

It's not. If you truly believe that some law is violating your rights, you may take any of several courses of redress. The best way is to prevent such laws from being enacted in the first place, and there are many ways to do that. I'm speaking of the ultimate check and balance that is available when all other reasonable means have failed.

The legitimacy of your complaint is not dependent upon your ability to succeed in your protest, as Rosa Parks knew.

Yes, you can be imprisoned or killed for standing up for your rights, and a great many people have been victimized by tyrants, but in the end, history is written by the winners. The way to protect the right to keep and bear arms is simply to keep and bear arms no matter what the government says about it and if necessary band together with other like-minded individuals to enforce that right against attempts at infringement by bureaucrats and politicians.

Nobody said it was easy, and yes, sometimes you die, but that's just one of the burdens of freedom, and from time to time the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

[Blind groper]

What Seth does not realise is that, as soon as he descends into insult, like referring to New Zealanders as "sheeples", he is immediately revealing the fact that he has no case. Opinion and emotion are not arguments for rational people. They are arguments for those who cannot use their brains.

Also, Seth does not realise that his "natural rights" argument is a religious one. There are no"natural rights", because only a deity can create such a supernatural item. Human rights are created by human beings, from the minds of human beings. They can also be uncreated, and often are. The best list of human rights is that written as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration notably does not list possession of weapons of murder as a human right. Only the bizarreness of America could ever term such a stupid thing as a human right.

As I have said before, the Second Amendment was an accident of history. It was created at a time when the new government of the new country needed to preserve civilian militias, because that was their only way to defend the new nation. Of course, telling people that the government wanted them to have guns so that they could become cannon fodder was not a smart move. So the new government poured on the bullshit propaganda, calling it a human right. And the naive and idiotic people of today who still believe that are quite common. Those with more brain power can see through it.

[Seabass]

What Seth does not realise is that, as soon as he descends into insult, like referring to New Zealanders as "sheeples", he is immediately revealing the fact that he has no case.

Pfft. You have got to be kidding me. You routinely say far worse about Americans and gun owners. Hypocrite.

[Animavore]

It is a bit ironic a constitution-olatrous right-winger like Seth who sounds like any other person on Fox News calling anyone a "sheeple" though

[Blind groper]

Pfft. You have got to be kidding me. You routinely say far worse about Americans and gun owners. Hypocrite.

Fair point.

Actually, I have no problem with individual Americans, many of whom are really good people. My main quibble with America surrounds the American administration, who have done a number of truly evil things (like invading Iraq), and have done some really weird things - like refusing to go metric, supporting a system in which incredibly massive pay outs from law suits raise the cost of a whole lot of stuff, and maintaining possession of weapons of murder as a supposed, but very stupid human right.

I also have a quibble with the American religious right - in fact with extreme right wingers of all ilks. (I am not fond of extreme left wingers, either.) We have a few of them in NZ also, but it seems that America is able to create the weirdest right wingers of all.

On the plus side, I admire America for its output of wonderful movies, TV shows, the writings of its brightest authors, the space program, the advances in science by top American scientists and teams of scientists, the production of medical products, and a bunch of toys like computers, cell phones, iPads etc.

With all that, I still claim the right to go for the jugular in relation to the harms and vices of things American.

[MrJonno]

It is a bit ironic a constitution-olatrous right-winger like Seth who sounds like any other person on Fox News calling anyone a "sheeple" though

Actually sheeple was originally used to describe religious right wing nuts who would do anything their local priest told them to do, its anti religious insult related especially to Jesus being a shepherd of his flock

[Animavore]

It is a bit ironic a constitution-olatrous right-winger like Seth who sounds like any other person on Fox News calling anyone a "sheeple" though

Actually sheeple was originally used to describe religious right wing nuts who would do anything their local priest told them to do, its anti religious insult related especially to Jesus being a shepherd of his flock

I know. I'm only jostling

[amused]

...

If you truly believe that some law is violating your rights, you may take any of several courses of redress. The best way is to prevent such laws from being enacted in the first place, and there are many ways to do that. ...

Here is where you and I differ, I'm pretty sure. I think 'prevent such laws from being enacted' is the ONLY way to proceed. Unfortunately, that method is currently blocked because of the gerrymandering of US congressional districts. Up to 85-90% of of every US congressional district election results in the incumbent being re-elected because gerrymandering ensures it. That makes our 'elected' representatives totally unresponsive to the electorate, both those who voted against and especially those who voted for them. Fix that from within and you fix everything wrong with this country. I think it can be done peacefully when the moral outrage reaches the tipping point, still some way off. Violence against this system just ensures its continuance.

[Blind groper]

On violence.
There is a saying : "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent."

This saying is false. The correct saying is : "Violence is the last resort of those who are truly competent". It is, sadly, the first resort of the incompetent. Those who believe violence is the cure are normally part of the incompetent. Violence is a resort, when all else fails. But for anyone who is capable, and a good leader, that violence will only be used if utterly, absolutely necessary, and nothing else will work. Those who resort to violence too readily are not only incompetent, but usually total assholes.