• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

Would You Resist Federal Confiscation of Arms?

  • Total voters
    65
I might be bias as I don't have a gun... but my life is worth much more than a gun. I don't think confiscation would be fair, nor do I think it would ever happen... but I would not resist.

Now if they want to take more of my hard earned money or hamper my other rights then I'd resist. As I said, I don't own a gun so they aren't a big deal to me. When I buy one my opinion will likely change.
 
Blackdog said:
So what?
Click to expand...

It means that just because those in office make laws it does not always mean those laws are constitutional.


Hmmmm at the right time? So it is subjective, I see. :lol:
Click to expand...

A supreme court with judges full of those who interpret the constitutional literally will rule anti-2nd amendment laws to be unconstitutional.

Not true at all. Some would say it goes right to the ownership of property. Since I own my body and I am not infringing on someone else's rights by smoking crack, it is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Since I am not infringing on anyone's else's rights then I can own anything I want?

See this is the mistake zealots make. Our rights have been restricted since day one.
Click to expand...

We know rights have been restricted it still does not make those restrictions constitutional.

As society changes and it's needs change, so do the laws, and in some cases rights.
Click to expand...

The need to defend against a tyrannical government is just as important today as it was over 200 years ago when the 2nd amendment was written. It doesn't matter if the military back then used cannons,black powder muskets,primitive rockets and grenades,bombs and while today we have machine guns,more complex rockets and better grenades and bombs or if one day someone invents hand held solar powered laser pistol.


I mean lets look at the real picture here.

Without the threat of force to back up and protect perceived rights, do we really have them?
Click to expand...
Seems all the more reason why the government has no business restricting 2nd amendment rights so that the people have the force to protect rights.
 
Jucon said:
I might be bias as I don't have a gun... but my life is worth much more than a gun. I don't think confiscation would be fair, nor do I think it would ever happen... but I would not resist.

Now if they want to take more of my hard earned money or hamper my other rights then I'd resist. As I said, I don't own a gun so they aren't a big deal to me. When I buy one my opinion will likely change.
Click to expand...


If the government came in and took firearms, how would you resist them taking away your other rights?
 
Jerry said:
If the Constitution were so amended in a lawful manner, then it's time for a new Constitution.
Click to expand...

What would be the point of that? If the Constitution were so amended, it would prove that constitutions are useless instruments for guiding government action.
 
I don't personally own any firearms.

But if I did, I would resist.

Not sure exactly how.

Perhaps hide the weapons and report them stolen?

I'll have to think about this...

*Goes of to plan laughing manically*
 
jamesrage said:
If the government came in and took firearms, how would you resist them taking away your other rights?
Click to expand...

Do you really think the government only respects your rights because you own a gun?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
What would be the point of that? If the Constitution were so amended, it would prove that constitutions are useless instruments for guiding government action.
Click to expand...

We were never meant to keep this Constitution for as long as we have.

The founders envisioned a revolution every generation, and I'd say that's about how long any Constitution is good for before it's corrupted.

We were meant to be a society under constant rebirth; as I understand it that's why some wanted our national birth to be the phoenix.
 
Last edited:
I don't currently own a gun, but if the govt was coming around to collect them all, I'd arm myself with someone elses gun and stand with them against such tyranny.
 
misterman said:
They did? Where'd they say that?
Click to expand...
Jefferson's writings.
Jefferson -- Quotations on Liberty
Thomas Jefferson: 1787 Nov. 13. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." (to W. S. Smith, B.12.356
Click to expand...
Thankfully, we still have many liberties even 200 years after those writings, but freedom requires eternal vigilance.
 
Jerry said:
Just something I learned in highschool :2wave:
Click to expand...

Damned public education...

;)

I kinda got the sense they built the constitution with the intent to ensure the GOVERNMENT didnt become tyrannical and that as long as the rights of the citizens remained paramount there was a greater liklihood the government remained in check.
 
samsmart said:
Jefferson was only one Founding Father, and hardly representative of the rest.
Click to expand...
You're right.....kind of.
Founding Fathers Quotes
John Adams: Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it
-Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.

John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765
Click to expand...
Check out the rest of the site, many of the founders were of similar thought on liberty and an armed populace.
 
jamesrage said:
It means that just because those in office make laws it does not always mean those laws are constitutional.
Click to expand...

So what?

jamesrage said:
A supreme court with judges full of those who interpret the constitutional literally will rule anti-2nd amendment laws to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

And when was the last time that happend? Again more proof it IS subjective.

jamesrage said:
Since I am not infringing on anyone's else's rights then I can own anything I want?
Click to expand...

Because as I mentioned ALREADY, even rights have limits.

jamesrage said:
We know rights have been restricted it still does not make those restrictions constitutional.
Click to expand...

It also does not make them un-constitutional. It works both ways.

jamesrage said:
The need to defend against a tyrannical government is just as important today as it was over 200 years ago when the 2nd amendment was written. It doesn't matter if the military back then used cannons,black powder muskets,primitive rockets and grenades,bombs and while today we have machine guns,more complex rockets and better grenades and bombs or if one day someone invents hand held solar powered laser pistol.
Click to expand...

That all sounds wonderful... And then reality sets in. :lol:

jamesrage said:
Seems all the more reason why the government has no business restricting 2nd amendment rights so that the people have the force to protect rights.
Click to expand...

I do not believe it covers anything beyond small arms, so no agreement from me.

I agree the right to own guns is important. I don't believe it is a right that means any idiot can own explosives etc.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Jefferson's writings.
Jefferson -- Quotations on Liberty
Thankfully, we still have many liberties even 200 years after those writings, but freedom requires eternal vigilance.
Click to expand...

Yes! You took the bait!

Jefferson was NOT advocating rebellion in this quote. Not even close.

From the letter (he is speaking of Shay's Rebellion):

I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.
Click to expand...

Jefferson was saying that rebellions are not a sign of weakness for a healthy democracy, and that the threat of them keeps the government honest. He was certainly not saying they should actually succeed, nor did he think we needed a new constitution every few generations.

Note that he wrote that the rebels were ignorant.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Yes! You took the bait!

Jefferson was NOT advocating rebellion in this quote. Not even close.

From the letter (he is speaking of Shay's Rebellion):



Jefferson was saying that rebellions are not a sign of weakness for a healthy democracy, and that the threat of them keeps the government honest. He was certainly not saying they should actually succeed.
Click to expand...
Actually, he was saying that the people have a right to revolt when a government becomes tyrannical, though success is not guaranteed, btw, Shay's rebellion was all part of the big picture. But thanks for playing.
 
LaMidRighter said:
John Adams: Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it
Click to expand...

Nothing about having an armed rebellion every generation there.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Actually, he was saying that the people have a right to revolt when a government becomes tyrannical, though success is not guaranteed, btw, Shay's rebellion was all part of the big picture. But thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, he wasn't. Actually read the quote I posted, carefully. In fact, read the whole letter. He was absolutely NOT saying anything about the right of the people to revolt, not on a regular basis anyway. Obviously he supported the right to revolt when a government became tyrannical - he wrote the Declaration of Independence after all - but he certainly was NOT advocating that armed rebellion happen every time somebody has a grievance, the way this tree of liberty quote is misrepresented as saying by people like you and Jerry, who learned it in high school or saw it on a sign and never bothered to read the whole letter. Not at all. Read the letter.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Actually, no, he wasn't. Actually read the quote I posted, carefully.
Click to expand...

A threat, unless willing to be actually carried out, is not a threat - it's a lie, and therefore useless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom