First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[Terraceth]

We are in charge of the government Sparko, this is a democracy, and if we decide there is a need for strictor gun laws then we can vote on them and enact them. If the Constitution need be amended in order to do so then we can do that as well, but it is my opinion that no such amendment is needed since, as Scalia himself put it, the right to bear arms is not unlimited.

Scalia did say the right to bear arms is not unlimited, absolutely, even giving examples of allowable limits. However, that came in the context of a decision that did strike down some gun control laws that were viewed as infringing upon that right.

[JimL]

Scalia did say the right to bear arms is not unlimited, absolutely, even giving examples of allowable limits. However, that came in the context of a decision that did strike down some gun control laws that were viewed as infringing upon that right.

I agree, but what it means is that the right to bear arms according to the 2nd amendment as interpreted by the SC is not an unlimited right and is subject to being regulated by law. Of course the government could go to far, as a 5-4 SC decision held in the Heller case. But, as you say, in that same case, they held that the right to bear arms is not an absolute right beyond government regulation. It seems to me that an absolute right, an inherent right, beyond the reach of any government regulation, is what the gun enthusiasts here are arguing.

[Leonhard]

Do you think that anyone would say yes?

Then I submit he got himself killed.

If he had complied legally and peacefully he would be alive, and he would likely have gotten his guns back.

[Sparko]

That is a nice speech, but it doesn't answer the question I asked.

You said "It is always the people's 'fault' if they continue to live in subjugation instead of rebelling against their oppressors."

I pointed out the difficulties posed by the current technologies and environments which simply did not exist in the time of the American Revolution, or Cuba, or Russia, or China. And I am asking how those people, now, realizing the previous revolutions that promised freedom from oppression but lied and in fact solidified repression, can be held responsible in such an absolute way for not 'rebelling' when in our day and time the outcome is more likely to be a slaughter like in tiananmen square rather than an actual government overthrow/replacement like happened previously.

There is a second question that hasn't been asked, but can't be ignored. It really does matter a very great deal the integrity and core world view of those leading/doing the rebellion. America and other western democracies tend to have at their core the sorts of values that derive from a Judeo Christian world-view and that - as can be seen historically - tends to produce a very different sort of outcome from a freedom perspective that those that stem from an anti religious/communist source. I don't think that can be minimized. A revolution that has at its core a flawed philosophical base will not result in greater freedom for its people. And that is not to say atheist vs religion, because the recent Islamic Revolutions have produced governments even more oppressive than the communist ones. All philosophical bases are not the same or even close. It is the unique combination of Judeo-Christian individual and societal morality coupled with and perhaps even moderated by many of the enlightenment concepts of the 16 and 1700's that have given us what we have.


Jim

I answered you Jim, read it again.

Nearly every change in government in history has happened because of rebellion or war. When a people has had enough and rise up, no government can stand against them. Eventually even the people that comprise a country's army will rebel against an unjust government. And unless the government is prepared to wipe out their own population, they can't stand against the people. As long as the people just put up with the government that subjugates them, it is their 'fault'. They do have the power to change it if they want it bad enough.

as far as your second question, I don't see an actual question there. Just a statement. I agree, that the values that are at the root of a rebellion will determine the type of government the people will have at the end. Which is why Cuba is now a defacto communist dictatorship after their previous revolution and we are a democratic republic after ours.