The right (?) to bear arms

[diuretic]

How many rights must be stripped and new "laws" created before EVERYONE is a law breaker?

IMO, imposing one "NO" after another will eventually result in revolt.

But if an elected legislature is legislating, doesn't that mean the laws are valid and should be obeyed?

[diuretic]

Was taking up arms against the British in 1775 the right thing to do? Yes. Was it legal? No. The two don't always correlate.

Good point. But in a mature society with a democratically elected legislature would it be morally right to advocate overthrow? I know it's not legally right so that's not even in dispute, but what about the morality of the action?

[Kathianne]

Good point. But in a mature society with a democratically elected legislature would it be morally right to advocate overthrow? I know it's not legally right so that's not even in dispute, but what about the morality of the action?

I suppose it depends on what the legislature is doing? I live in IL, they've banned smoking in nearly any venue. Yet do nothing about crime of white or blue level. I live in the US, they are running up a deficit without end, if it were for a reason that would be understandable, but the idea of a war without other cuts? No. I live in a county that is totally out of control paying for privileges for the rich, while cutting services to all, yet raising taxes.

Am I angry? Yes. Question is, whom to blame. My own representatives on the state/local level vote the way I wish. On the national level, not so much, but more of IL citizens agree with them, so they are doing their best.

[LOki]

Good point. But in a mature society with a democratically elected legislature would it be morally right to advocate overthrow? I know it's not legally right so that's not even in dispute, but what about the morality of the action?

[ I ] hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[Little-Acorn]

Good point. But in a mature society with a democratically elected legislature would it be morally right to advocate overthrow? I know it's not legally right so that's not even in dispute, but what about the morality of the action?

Since when does "mature" and "democratically elected" inoculate government against violating our rights?

Loki quoted the Declaration of Independence, and it's the most bedrock of all our founding documents. The most important passage is the one that says the purpose of government is to protect our rights. It may come as a surprise to those on the left, but there is no other purpose for government.

And another part that's almost as important: If govt doesn't protect our rights, and starts violating them instead, then it's our duty to change or abolish it.

And it doesn't say "Unless society is mature or govt is democratically elected".

BTW, the Fed govt has NO authority to make laws that violate the Constitution. That can only be done by the amendment process, which they have been careful NOT to use, knowing they could never get the states to agree with most of their agenda. So laws regulating guns, in particular, should be null and void on their faces.

[diuretic]

Heck Bush can't even get himself impeached. You blokes are living in fantasy land. Overthrow your government

[Hobbit]

Heck Bush can't even get himself impeached. You blokes are living in fantasy land. Overthrow your government

Bush has committed to crimes while in office, so impeachment wouldn't be an option, even if he were the main problem. The problem is entrenched, career politicians who see MY money as their own, personal expense account. If I thought that both government corruption and citizen readiness merited a new revolution, and I led it, the first thing I did after taking the capital would be to forever bar anyone currently in a federal elected or politically elected office or working directly for such a person from ever holding any of those positions in government ever again. The next thing I'd do is repeal nearly every law passed since 1900, and many passed before that, so as to get rid of all of these vote-buying projects and government overreaches that the incumbents use to stay in office. I'd also repeal the income tax and senatorial election amendments.

Good point. But in a mature society with a democratically elected legislature would it be morally right to advocate overthrow? I know it's not legally right so that's not even in dispute, but what about the morality of the action?

A government that remains truly accountable to its people and protects the rights it is supposed to and nothing more has nothing to fear from an armed populace. However, an unarmed populace is always just one election removed from tyranny.