• 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
A threat, unless willing to be actually carried out, is not a threat - it's a lie, and therefore useless.

Nobody said it wouldn't be used. Just not frequently - only when needed. And the rebellion should be defeated. That's what Jefferson was saying.
 
Nothing about having an armed rebellion every generation there.

What do YOU think it means "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion"?

Hint: He is saying God should forbid us to go more than 20 years without having a rebellion.
 
Nobody said it wouldn't be used. Just not frequently - only when needed. And the rebellion should be defeated. That's what Jefferson was saying.

Profound yet moronic ... in other words blood of patriots and tyrants, turns to the blood of traitors and victors - since the defeated are criminals or will be and the tyrants the victorious. If as you say, that was his meaning, it was both short sighted and detached from reality.

Not only do the spoils go to the victors, but history is written by the victors and somehow, I'm sure the victorious will not see the rebellious as "patriots".
 
Nobody said it wouldn't be used. Just not frequently - only when needed. And the rebellion should be defeated. That's what Jefferson was saying.

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

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

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

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. Which is precisely what everyone pro 2nd amendment has been saying here.
 
I agree Rev. The conservatives freaked out just as much when Clinton got elected.
Not hardly. There was no run on ammo when Clinton got elected. Obama never even mentioned gun rights.
 
Freaked out? He banned certainweapons based on cosmetics... As a freesom loving American, we all should have been freaked out.

What?

And here we are in 2010 and I still have all my guns, how about you? :2wave:
 
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.

Actually, this weekend there was a PBS Special by Ken Burns on Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson Online
They specifically mentioned that Jefferson feared that the federalists led by Adams and Hamilton were subverting the Constitution and that another revolution might have to take place.
 
Actually, this weekend there was a PBS Special by Ken Burns on Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson Online
They specifically mentioned that Jefferson feared that the federalists led by Adams and Hamilton were subverting the Constitution and that another revolution might have to take place.

Which is just a fascinating thing, when you try to consider originalist jurisprudence for interpreting the Constitution. I mean, whose original meaning do we go with? Jefferson's? Hamilton's? The people's? Which people?

They didn't all agree what it meant even then. How do we choose what the original meaning was?

Sorry, off topic really, that.

Your point is valid; at least some of the founders viewed the 2nd in the context of believing that we have the right to rebel against tyranny.
 
Side topic, feel free to yell at me and I will make a new thread for this, but...

Explain this attitude to me. A gun is a tool, I read this as similar to "I would rather die than let some one take my screwdriver". It just makes no sense.

Screwdrivers cannot secure your right to self-determination, guns can.

Further, why is this the right people say this about. You don't ever hear "I would rather die than give up my right to peaceably assemble" or "I would rather die than give up my right to trial by an impartial jury by the sate".

Why do people have such a strong reaction about this one right?

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.
 
Great summation! This is as ridiculous a hypothetical as if some rightee said, "If your governor, or mayor, came to your house saying he had the right to take your wife for a night or take your first born would you object?

Dumb.

If governors and mayors had a history of kidnapping wives like the government has a history of violating the Second Amendment, I'd say you have a point.
 
The second amendment is there, end argument.

Trust me. This argument has been tried. Some people, however, have a very "creative" interpretation of the Second Amendment. Some of them are even on the Supreme Court.
 
Isn't there some study that showed that there's a greater risk to the gun owner and his/her family through accident/suicide/domestic violence than the risk of needing it for self-defense in the home?

Pools are more dangerous.
 
Oh, good grief.

"The evil socialist gummint is comin to take mah guns!"

:roll:

I didn't say that, did I? I don't even own a damn gun for Chrissakes. I'm not sure why you felt the need to make this snide comment.
 
I might be bias as I don't have a gun... but my life is worth much more than a gun.

If the government takes your gun, how will you protect your life?
 
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.

Oh my gawd! You're such a gun-nut freak job! Waaaaah!

;)
 
Which is just a fascinating thing, when you try to consider originalist jurisprudence for interpreting the Constitution. I mean, whose original meaning do we go with? Jefferson's? Hamilton's? The people's? Which people?

They didn't all agree what it meant even then. How do we choose what the original meaning was?

Sorry, off topic really, that.

Your point is valid; at least some of the founders viewed the 2nd in the context of believing that we have the right to rebel against tyranny.

Hamilton certainly shouldn't be discounted, but that doesn't mean we should ignore his monarchist tendencies. Were it entirely up to him, we'd have a parliament and life-time executives. But, even if we take the most "liberal" interpretation of the Constitution (which I feel is Hamilton's), it's still a far-cry from the prevailing interpretation.

Hamilton didn't even want a Bill of Rights because he thought it was redundant. The Federal government's authority was supposed to be strictly limited to its Constitutionally Enumerated Powers, and the current interpretation of the General Welfare Clause is far beyond the scope of what Hamilton advocated. Don't even get me started on the Interstate Commerce Clause...:cool:

I think Madison and Jefferson (in that order) should be given the most preference in Constitutional interpretation. Madison, because he is principle architect of the Constitution, and Jefferson, because he articulated the political philosophy underlying the Constitution via the Declaration of Independence, which I feel is the most neglected document in our history.
 
Just something I learned in highschool :2wave:

I swear you and I must have had the same teacher. My high school history teacher used to say the same thing.
 
I didn't say that, did I? I don't even own a damn gun for Chrissakes. I'm not sure why you felt the need to make this snide comment.

'Cause its true! The Obama man's gonna taken mah guns!
 
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:
 
What do YOU think it means "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion"?

Hint: He is saying God should forbid us to go more than 20 years without having a rebellion.

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.
 
Profound yet moronic ... in other words blood of patriots and tyrants, turns to the blood of traitors and victors - since the defeated are criminals or will be and the tyrants the victorious. If as you say, that was his meaning, it was both short sighted and detached from reality.

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:

And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.
...
Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.
 
Back
Top Bottom