The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

[carl]

Do you suggest that each individual has the right to take up arms against "the government" at any time the individual chooses and in response to whatever provocation that the individual sees as sufficient to justify it? Since taking up arms against "the government" would typically means taking up arms against against individuals perceived to be associated with the government, how does one balance such a proposed right against the rights of those one proposes to shoot?

Unless severely qualified, it sounds like a Timothy McVeigh argument.

I rarely use this form of text shorthand but...LOL.

I suggest just what I said, each man has the right to self defense. And an aggregate of men has the may exercise that right in concert "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents...".

Bad Dayuhan, bad. You are reverting to argument by suggestive questions again rather than just stating a position. Next thing you'll be using the word 'hysteria' again.

Mr. McVeigh made no arguments to my knowledge he just murdered. His name is very useful though to those who want to discredit. At least it is a change from 'hysterical'.

[Dayuhan]

I suggest just what I said, each man has the right to self defense. And an aggregate of men has the may exercise that right in concert "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents...".

What you actually said was:

Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense

So it sounds like you are saying that this hypothetical right to revolution is an extension of the right to self defense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what it sounds like.

However, the right to self defense is qualified, and it is not based entirely on the perception of the person taking the action. If you shoot a person who is shooting at you, that will be considered self defense. If you shoot a person who is throwing popcorn at you, that will not be considered self defense, because there was no imminent threat. To justify the exercise of violence as self defense you have to show some sort of threat, and it has to be a serious one: you can't haul off at someone with a fully automatic weapon of medium caliber with a large capacity magazine simply because that person seemed about to unclog his or her nose in your general direction, and then claim self defense.

It seems logical to me that if this presumed right to revolution is an extension of the right to self defense, there has to be a similar qualifier in place: to justify taking up arms against the government, there has to be a real, imminent, and serious threat involved. What level of threat is sufficient, and who makes the determination in any given case?

Another question generally not addressed by the proponents of a right to revolution is that no matter how much high sounding rhetoric we issue about "taking up arms against the state", or "taking up arms against tyranny", if arms are to actually be used, they will not be used against "the state" or "tyranny", but against other individuals. What level of fear, anger, or annoyance justifies depriving another individual of the right to life?

Again, the individual quoted in the opening post of this thread wrote:

you can easily find countless instances of the government stepping all over your rights, whether it be on social issues (marriage, gay rights, religious rights, etc.) or fiscal issues (taxation, property rights, business regulations, etc.)

While that may arguably be true (or not), when you discuss such issues in the context of a claim that they justify an individual declaration of independence and the associated need to use armaments, you have to wonder who he intends to shoot and how his disagreement with government over any of those issues can possibly justify depriving another individual of the right to life, which is what happens when people start shooting over politics.