Second Amendment

[swansont]

You do realize that "the government" is not some separate entity, right? It's a government of the people. So a rebellion of "the people vs. the government" is a nonsensical phrase. Factions can exist, and maybe one faction controls the government another other decides to raise arms against that government, but that's not "the people." The American Revolution was different. Yes, we were technically citizens of the British Empire, but for all practical purposes we were a people ruled by a foreign government.

 

<sigh> If you'd read Federalist #46 you'd see that there was a worry that it would not be a government of the people, if someone were able to sieze power. As in, say, a military coup, but then we haven't had any of those recently.

[ParanoiA]

Concering the O/P: That's the reason I've always known as number one. It still matters today. Just before the gulf war everybody seemed to have this mentallity that wars were for history books and there was no real threat to the world - my generation anyway. This is exactly how I see people who say it isn't necessary to keep arms in America to protect ourselves from our government. They're letting the status quo fool them into thinking these steps aren't necessary anymore - that we've "evolved" to the point that these kinds of thoughts are childish and not practical.

 

There is a lot of war still left in humanity. It's far from over, and every great civilization, so far, has fallen eventually. There's no reason to think we couldn't be fighting a civil war in our own country sometime in the near future.

[iglak]

Well you're wrong about that, because I'm an American, and I don't think either one of those is remotely true. It's not a separate entity. There's not a "government caste" and a "citizen caste." We ARE the government.

i'm sorry, i meant to imply that it's not an absolute thing by saying "(general)". in the sense that one person does not matter, nor do even 20% of people matter.

 

the point is that the general population sees the government as one of those two things. this is evidenced and enhanced (mostly enhanced) by the medias.

 

also, i consider the government a seperate entity simply because i have no idea what they're doing or why. they keep lying and hiding things. and i don't think it's possible to be a part of something that doesn't communicate except to appease

 

 

<sigh> If you'd read Federalist #46 you'd see that there was a worry that it would not be a government of the people, if someone were able to sieze power. As in, say, a military coup, but then we haven't had any of those recently.

"A coup d'état (pronounced /ku de'ta/), or simply coup, is the sudden overthrow of a government through unconstitutional means by a part of the state establishment, that mostly replaces just the top power figures. It is also an example of political engineering. It may or may not be violent in nature. It is different from a revolution, which is staged by a larger group and radically changes the political system." (Wikipedia)

 

this is a stretch, but could a coup include planting a political figure into presidency, and unconstitutionally bypassing many checks and balances (or psychologically controlling those checks and balances with threats)?

meaning: Bush Jr. and conspiracy theories.

[Severian]

Really? They had representation in government. "Taxation without representation is tyranny," a popular revolutionary slogan, implies that the colonials did not.

 

The complaint was really a bit rich, considering how capitalist the US became. Britain had just fought the 7 years war against the French, which was to protect the colonists. This war had the strong support of the colonists, and was eventually won by Britain, but at huge financial costs. The tax that was raised after the war was not to pay off the debt, but purely to pay for the upkeep of the defence of the colonies. And it was considerably less than the people were paying back in Britian.

 

At the time, voting in Britain was restricted to landowners, so only about 1/9th of the British (home) population got to vote. In the colonies, the landowners were similarly allowed to vote, but for the state assemblies. The complaint was that they were not represented in the British parliament, which is hardly the same thing as 'no representation'.

 

After the Revolution, the Congress, which had no official power of taxation, simply raised its funds by issuing money, causing huge inflation. There was even a saying "not worth a continental" for something worthless. A pound of sugar cost $10 after the war, which is particularly ironic considering one of the taxes the colonists originally started the war over was a tariff on sugar (the Sugar Act).

 

Anyway, after the revolution there were still plenty of people in the US who didn't get to vote, such as women, and of course the slave. Land of the free indeed...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Britain had just fought the 7 years war against the French, which was to protect the colonists. This war had the strong support of the colonists, and was eventually won by Britain, but at huge financial costs.

It was not solely for the colonists. First of all, it was more of a territorial dispute. Second, it wasn't even limited to America - the war was fought all over Europe, and was considered the "first world war" by some.

The tax that was raised after the war was not to pay off the debt, but purely to pay for the upkeep of the defence of the colonies. And it was considerably less than the people were paying back in Britian.

Much of that tax money was going straight back to pay for conflicts in Europe, not America.

At the time, voting in Britain was restricted to landowners, so only about 1/9th of the British (home) population got to vote. In the colonies, the landowners were similarly allowed to vote, but for the state assemblies. The complaint was that they were not represented in the British parliament, which is hardly the same thing as 'no representation'.

The state assemblies were not represented in British parliament, so the colonists were actually only represented at a state level; the higher levels of government could do whatever they pleased without the colonists' input.

 

Anyway, after the revolution there were still plenty of people in the US who didn't get to vote, such as women, and of course the slave. Land of the free indeed...

It was rather "free," relatively speaking.

 

Anyways, I'll split this if we think there can be more discussion about the American Revolution.

[hotcommodity]

"If we want freedom, there should be an armed rebellion every 20 years."

 

-Thomas Jefferson

 

I like that quote,

 

It sounds nice, but it certainly doesn't provide for a country that is progressive, efficient, or prosperous. Such freedom-inspiring quotes led to a mindset promoting a government with little regulation, a government under the Articles of Confederation. This government, lacking the authority to control its citizens, led to riots and inflated currencies. Fortunately, the Friends of Order stepped in to correct the imbalance buy drafting and establishing the Constitution.

 

Our society proves effective when there exists a balance between freedom and control- too much of either one can be destructive. I can list 100 reasons why a strong federal government is necessary. On the other hand, I can list 100 reasons why that government should in turn be regulated.

 

The problem today is an unawareness among the majority of Americans. The average American cannot tell you their basic civil rights- although I'm certain they can tell you their favorite sports team and all the latest scores. My history professor has a name for these types: voters. And that says it all. The second point I'm getting at is simply this: We may have a second amendment that would allow for us to rebel as armed citizens under certain circumstances, but the majority of people would most likely neglect its usage out of ignorance.

[Pangloss]

Jefferson was kind of a curmugeon anyway. He'd be right at home in the blogosphere.

[swansont]

At the time, voting in Britain was restricted to landowners, so only about 1/9th of the British (home) population got to vote. In the colonies, the landowners were similarly allowed to vote, but for the state assemblies. The complaint was that they were not represented in the British parliament, which is hardly the same thing as 'no representation'.

 

Not represented in Parliament is not represented in Parliament. Southerners had federal representation. It's not the same.