Originally Posted by redes
I respect your views and only forward mine with great consideration. While I concede that observing this conterfactual law is replete with moral, legal, and practical quandaries, I am trying to answer honestly and thoughtfully. In doing so I would appreciate it if some people might refrain from platitudes about how my conclusions are the product of a weak mind, political bias, or a poor understanding of history.
I believe in the 2nd amendment and the constitution but in this counterfactual one of two things must have occurred. First, the 2nd amendment is no longer in effect (for whatever reason). Second, the constitution is intact and the law is awaiting adjudication by existing political institutions. In the first case, the constitution would have been changed or terminated and the government would have to be judged on its own merits (likely, it would be unjust). Second, the political institutions are intact and must be allowed to work according to their constitutional obligations. Based only on the proposition that law enforcement is asking for my guns...I am not prepared to mount an insurrection.
There is no doubt in my mind that narratives where violence is justified are myriad, I am not going to presuppose those here. In any case, I do not believe that such a law could pass, much less be enforced.
Again I answer for myself. The polling numbers suggest that I am in an extreme minority here. I would only ask that you state your opinion and allow me to state mine.
Wherein did I prohibit you from stating your opinion? You, in fact, stated it quite clearly--as I have stated mine. I made it clear from the outset that I do respect your viewpoint. I, however, disagree vehemently with your unwillingness to question the legal authority of the state, if and when such a law abridging our 2nd Amendment rights were enacted. In my own remarks, I stated that some things are worth fighting for, and of those, freedom and liberty are primary examples.
Adding to my previous comments, I think the difference between the majority in this poll and the minority is the latter may be exhibiting some naive blind devotion to the perceived beneficence of our own government. Sorry, maybe its because I have served now 20 years in government service, and I, unfortunately, know much better--not all of what the masses are told is true.
I, therefore, believe it is our duty as citizens to question our government and stand up to those in power when it is clear the rights of the people are being infringed. So, regarding any future government order to confiscate personally-owned weapons, I will remain openly defiant.
I believe this scenario is not only possible, I believe it is likely. How far must you look to see that our individual liberties are being slowly eroded for the security of the whole? The Patriot Act, newly adopted TSA screening procedures, and the mandatory requirement to purchase healthcare coverage to name but only a recent few. Benjamin Franklin is attributed for writing, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I think that dead horny-ass bastard was right on the money.
It is my opinion, that when a people no longer have the ability to defend themselves against the repressive and increasingly over-reaching powers of their own government, then all is most certainly lost. Again, I had no intention of barring you from your opinion and I believe you did an excellent job of making it clear to all of us. I respect your disagreement with my position.