• 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
What good is a rebellion, started and defeated, if it is known that there is no chance that it might have succeeded?

To keep the government honest, as Jefferson wrote:

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?

He also is not saying that the rebellion's grievances should *all* be ignored.

True.

In short, you are being very one sided, very black and white about what he is saying in this writing. His position is nuanced.

I think I'm the nuanced one, and the people who go around spewing the "blood of tyrants" quote are the ones being black and white.

He is certainly not saying that rebellions should all fail. Do you think he thought the American Revolution should have been a rebellion that failed?

Of course not. He wrote the Declaration of Independence, as I noted.

He is acknowleging both the good and the bad that goes with armed insurrection. One key thing he points out is that armed rebellion is good for preserving liberty.

Yes.

He was NOT saying, as was claimed, that we should have a SUCCESSFUL rebellion every generation and rewrite our Constitution.

Which is precisely what everyone pro 2nd amendment has been saying here.

Yes. I'm pro-second amendment too.
 
But that wasn't his meaning either - he clearly states otherwise. Read the letter. He clearly said the rebels were not traitors nor the victors tyrants:

I understand that's what he meant, but that is not reality then or now. If only one dead person, Jefferson in this case, thinks rebels were not traitors and the rest of humanity doesn't think that because as I stated, the victors write the history, what Jefferson thinks/thought is/was irrelevant.

It's nice theory for statesmen to ponder. There are very few statesmen left and most either don't care or couldn't be bothered. Reality and theory very often never meet - therefore, reality is: If you bother to rebel, win and either preserve, build upon or recreate the country. On this issue, Jefferson seems to me weak.
 
What do you think he meant by "Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them."

Hint: it's not that he wants the rebellions to actually succeed.


And yet you didn't answer what you thought my quote meant... because you know that he is calling for rebellion each generation.

I agree with you that he didn't necessarily want them to succeed. He is addressing the issue as to what to do with them when they don't and additionally when they are wrong to have begun. He is addressing a broad swath of causes for rebellion, including when such rebellion has been entered into due to mistaken notions. Do you really believe that he thinks all rebellions are entered into for mistaken notions?

So, what do you think this has to say about the 2nd amendment? Do you think it supports any kind of argument as to whether the 2nd ought to allow gun control? Does he seem to you to be calling for confiscating the arms of these rebels?
 
I understand that's what he meant, but that is not reality then or now. If only one dead person, Jefferson in this case, thinks rebels were not traitors and the rest of humanity doesn't think that because as I stated, the victors write the history, what Jefferson thinks/thought is/was irrelevant.

It's nice theory for statesmen to ponder. There are very few statesmen left and most either don't care or couldn't be bothered. Reality and theory very often never meet - therefore, reality is: If you bother to rebel, win and either preserve, build upon or recreate the country. On this issue, Jefferson seems to me weak.

I was just responding to a certain claim about Jefferson's writings on this thread. Debunking it.
 
And yet you didn't answer what you thought my quote meant... because you know that he is calling for rebellion each generation.

Uh, no, I did respond.

He was saying that rebellion is not a sign of weakness, but strength. He was responding to critics in Britain at the time.

He was NOT calling for regular rebellions to be successful.

I agree with you that he didn't necessarily want them to succeed.

Then we agree.

He is addressing the issue as to what to do with them when they don't and additionally when they are wrong to have begun. He is addressing a broad swath of causes for rebellion, including when such rebellion has been entered into due to mistaken notions. Do you really believe that he thinks all rebellions are entered into for mistaken notions?

No, didn't say that. I'm putting the "tree of liberty" quote in context. It clearly doesn't call for a successful rebellion every generation, as some here claimed. That's all.

So, what do you think this has to say about the 2nd amendment? Do you think it supports any kind of argument as to whether the 2nd ought to allow gun control? Does he seem to you to be calling for confiscating the arms of these rebels?

That's a good question. He doesn't really address it here, though he does say "pacify" them. I think he would say they need to be defeated, then educated about why they were wrong to rebel and given concessions for some of their demands, and then sent home - with their guns.
 
To keep the government honest, as Jefferson wrote:

But, it wouldn't do those things unless it had the possibility of success. The warning would be without any teeth, and the spirit would be without substance.

I think I'm the nuanced one, and the people who go around spewing the "blood of tyrants" quote are the ones being black and white.
Perhaps they are. But if so, you are doing the same thing from the opposite stance. He doesn't seem to be saying that the rebellions should fail either. And the whole thing about preserving Liberty must of necessity have the notion of tyrants intertwined with it. There is no need of preserving Liberty if there are no tyrants from which to protect it.
 
I've just obtained my conceal and carry. I don't think it's as much being paranoid what the government will do, it's what it is capable of doing.

Just a quick look at history tells us what they do when they feel someone is building a militia. Now, I am NOT saying that those who have stock piled weapons were "all there" to begin with - but the point is, most were law abiding citizens and kept to themselves. They obtained their firearms legally and were breaking NO laws. Still, they were converged on and their weapons seized.

Well, enough of that... I'm sure someone will come along soon enough and call me a paranoid gun freak. :lol:

You paranoid gun freak!

;)

Ive carried concealed for...geez...30 years now. Ive had reason to pull a weapon 4 times. Point it once. Never had to fire it. Emphasis on HAD TO. Could have. Didnt. The presence was enough.

2 were directly involving someone confronting me...both times with weapons. The other two involved strangers...people I really didnt HAVE to get involved with. 1 of those incidents involved a very pregnant woman and her toddler being pulled out of a car by some very unsavory types. In exactly none of those incidents was there a police officer handy. I dont fault them...its not like they can be everywhere. It IS a little annpying that in the last case it took them over 20 minutes to respond...and I really dont want to imagine what might have happened.

I think the founders would roll over in their grave and tell us all to kiss their collective asses if they saw the pathetic nature of people today and their dependence on the government to take care of them. Knowing something of their history I cant imagine their intent in a bill of individual rights that they would ever conceive that we would ever even CONSIDER disarming ourselves as a people. I believe the ability to protect SELF was 'understood'. I believe the second amendment supports the right of the individual to protect themselves, their family, their state, and ultimately country from tyranny.
 
But, it wouldn't do those things unless it had the possibility of success. The warning would be without any teeth, and the spirit would be without substance.

He wasn't saying they couldn't succeed, only that they were not a sign that the government was weak or corrupt.

But if you think it's pointless to have a rebellion that can't succeed, you'll have to take that up with Jefferson.

Perhaps they are. But if so, you are doing the same thing from the opposite stance. He doesn't seem to be saying that the rebellions should fail either.

Yes, I think he is. He says the answer is to "pacify" them, and educate them, etc.

And the whole thing about preserving Liberty must of necessity have the notion of tyrants intertwined with it. There is no need of preserving Liberty if there are no tyrants from which to protect it.

Sure, but the threat of rebellion can also prevent or even overthrow tyrants.
 
Screwdrivers cannot secure your right to self-determination, guns can.
Depends on how many your opponent can drink and pass out before you. :2wave:

You don't think people would violently revolt if the Federal government did away with Constitutional Due Process? I'm pretty sure Americans would never stand for that.
I'm sure they wouldn't, but like guns, Due Process is not being done away with.
 
I haven't read up on what the executive branch has done so far but most presidents since GW 1 have "legislated" new rules about guns.

You just don't hear about it much.
Regardless, I still have my guns and ammo despite years of ranting by the paranoid.
 
Regardless, I still have my guns and ammo despite years of ranting by the paranoid.

I will grant you that some kind of nationwide total gun ban, let alone house-to-house confiscation, seems far-fetched. However, such things have happened in other nations as a prelude to tyranny, and I'm sure some citizens in those nations thought it was far-fetched also.

At this point in time, most politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to have realized that draconian gun control measures are a dead issue, and that they cost the proponents of same their seats at the table.

But the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, as one Founder said. We should indeed be jealous of all our rights and guard them carefully and, dare I say it, be "paranoid" about any smallest violation thereof.
 
Regardless, I still have my guns and ammo despite years of ranting by the paranoid.

In the past 15 years, excluding the the Clinton gun ban, you have slowly lost the ability to purchase some weapons of your choice at the real market rate.

Most of the time you didn't know it was happening because the methods of restriction have been done under regulation and not legislation.
 
Last edited:
In the past 15 years, excluding the the Clinton gun ban, you have slowly lost the ability to purchase some weapons of your choice at the real market rate.

Most of the time you didn't know it was happening because the methods of restriction have been done under regulation and not legislation.
Not to mention the 100-500% ammo taxes that have been floated since the Clinton admn.
 
Not to mention the 100-500% ammo taxes that have been floated since the Clinton admn.

Yea, It really started with GW 1 and the Mac 90 import ban and then during GW 2 we had more import bans and the "made in America" parts rule.

They do **** just to make it more expensive, it's gets ridiculous.
 
Yea, It really started with GW 1 and the Mac 90 import ban and then during GW 2 we had more import bans and the "made in America" parts rule.

They do **** just to make it more expensive, it's gets ridiculous.
Interestingly, and no one has satisfied a little survival scenario I posed years ago. Let's say you have three assailants, one has a scoped hunting rifle and knows how to move, one has a Barrett .50, and one has an AK-47. Of the three above which would you least want to go on a rampage?

My answer is in order of least desireable is B.50, long rifle, AK. The reason I posed this scenario is that many had this false assumption that automatics are the be-all end-all in rifles. The fact is that a good sniper with a Barrett has 2 miles to play with, someone who knows how to switch positions with a scoped rifle can present challenges to anyone trying to stop him and he has distance as an advantage. While the guy with the AK has the benefit of a barrage of bullets, he will not be as accurate, the reports will be a dead giveaway, and his range is much more limited, making identifying his position easier, allowing for at least a chance of adjusting to him and getting a stopping shot.

Of course, those who don't take the time to understand guns and their limitations usually choose the Ak as the least desireable because they swallow the media pill that automatics or my favorite false term "assault weapons" are so unbelievably lethal that civilians cannot be trusted with them. Never mind the fact that most mid-range rifles are a modified long .22 round.

EDIT- And the MAC-90 is a worthless gun, so ineffective at anything past short range it isn't even worth banning.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, and no one has satisfied a little survival scenario I posed years ago. Let's say you have three assailants, one has a scoped hunting rifle and knows how to move, one has a Barrett .50, and one has an AK-47. Of the three above which would you least want to go on a rampage?

My answer is in order of least desireable is B.50, long rifle, AK. The reason I posed this scenario is that many had this false assumption that automatics are the be-all end-all in rifles. The fact is that a good sniper with a Barrett has 2 miles to play with, someone who knows how to switch positions with a scoped rifle can present challenges to anyone trying to stop him and he has distance as an advantage. While the guy with the AK has the benefit of a barrage of bullets, he will not be as accurate, the reports will be a dead giveaway, and his range is much more limited, making identifying his position easier, allowing for at least a chance of adjusting to him and getting a stopping shot.

Of course, those who don't take the time to understand guns and their limitations usually choose the Ak as the least desireable because they swallow the media pill that automatics or my favorite false term "assault weapons" are so unbelievably lethal that civilians cannot be trusted with them. Never mind the fact that most mid-range rifles are a modified long .22 round.

I'd say the center fire long rifle would be the most dangerous based on practicality.

But I do agree with what you say.


EDIT- And the MAC-90 is a worthless gun, so ineffective at anything past short range it isn't even worth banning.

Norinco carbines aren't so bad.
The Mac 90 was special because they were altered to accept ak mags before they were imported.
It's a good infantry weapon.
 
Not to mention the 100-500% ammo taxes that have been floated since the Clinton admn.

"Floated?"

"since the Clinton admin?" (as in during Bush's tenure?)

Anyone can "float" anything. Doesn't mean it's a threat.
 
I'd say the center fire long rifle would be the most dangerous based on practicality.

But I do agree with what you say.
I agree when you base it on practicality. Either way most people don't stop and learn about what they should when they form an agenda.




Norinco carbines aren't so bad.
The Mac 90 was special because they were altered to accept ak mags before they were imported.
It's a good infantry weapon.
Fair enough. There are much better sub class guns out there though.
 
If the Federal government started confiscating weapons en masse, would you violently resist them?

I say absolutely. I would rather die than let that happen.

Do you own any illegal or unregistered firearms?

Are your guns stored in accordance with the laws of your state/county?

Then toss that copy of The Tuner Diaries in the trash and chill the f out...:2razz:
 
Do you own any illegal or unregistered firearms?

Are your guns stored in accordance with the laws of your state/county?

Then toss that copy of The Tuner Diaries in the trash and chill the f out...:2razz:
Do you understand the point Hazlenut? The point is that if sweeping legislation for registration and confiscation were passed which would be completely unconstitutional and thus completely illegal government action, there would be no such thing as legal arms.
 
I will grant you that some kind of nationwide total gun ban, let alone house-to-house confiscation, seems far-fetched. However, such things have happened in other nations as a prelude to tyranny, and I'm sure some citizens in those nations thought it was far-fetched also.

At this point in time, most politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to have realized that draconian gun control measures are a dead issue, and that they cost the proponents of same their seats at the table.

But the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, as one Founder said. We should indeed be jealous of all our rights and guard them carefully and, dare I say it, be "paranoid" about any smallest violation thereof.
There is a difference between being vigilant and being paranoid, regardless of how you present the word paranoid with parenthesis to try and temper the meaning.
In the past 15 years, excluding the the Clinton gun ban, you have slowly lost the ability to purchase some weapons of your choice at the real market rate.

Most of the time you didn't know it was happening because the methods of restriction have been done under regulation and not legislation.
I've never needed an assault rifle to hunt with nor to target shoot with. No one needs an automatic weapon outside of the military (not even law enforcement) and there is a reason why they were banned.
 
Last edited:
There is a difference between being vigilant and being paranoid, regardless of how you present the word paranoid with parenthesis to try and temper the meaning.

Paranoid is an unreasonable fear. Most of the reasons here are more than reasonable.

I've never needed an assault rifle to hunt with nor to target shoot with. No one needs an automatic weapon and there is a reason why they were banned.

They were not banned, they are restricted. You have to pay a tax and go through a background check. Some states banned them but not the Feds.

The 94 assault weapons ban was a joke. It was based on cosmetics that had little to no affect on the weapon or the use of one in a crime.
 
Back
Top Bottom