What good is a rebellion, started and defeated, if it is known that there is no chance that it might have succeeded?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
To keep the government honest, as Jefferson wrote:
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 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.
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:
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.
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.
Neither is Obama. Not sure what that has to do with a run on ammo when he became president.Clinton wasn't from Illinois.
Depends on how many your opponent can drink and pass out before you. :2wave:Screwdrivers cannot secure your right to self-determination, guns can.
I'm sure they wouldn't, but like guns, Due Process is not being done away with.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.
Regardless, I still have my guns and ammo despite years of ranting by the paranoid.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.
Not to mention the 100-500% ammo taxes that have been floated since the Clinton admn.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.
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?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.
Not to mention the 100-500% ammo taxes that have been floated since the Clinton admn.
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.I'd say the center fire long rifle would be the most dangerous based on practicality.
But I do agree with what you say.
Fair enough. There are much better sub class guns out there though.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 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.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:
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Paranoid is an unreasonable fear. Most of the reasons here are more than reasonable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?