Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678
Results 141 to 144 of 144
  1.    #141  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    1911: you have made some good points. I also agree that the government crossed the line with Randy Weaver and Waco. The problem is that even at the point of them 'carting away my friends' I don't know if that justifies armed resistance (the reason is because we don't know why they may be legitimately dragging someone away - i.e. search warrant/arrest warrant). [On a side note-how supportive are you of the Patriot Act? ]

    The only time I could justify armed resistance is if in was in protection of my life or my family's lives. If we allow it for less than that (even if the government was taking my property) then we cross the line like McVeigh. We still have recourse through democratic channels when property is taken. When those democratic channels are closed (or when we don't have the opportunity and lives are at stake-that is when it would be justified in my mind). My .02
    What if the only "crime" your friends committed was refusal to pay a poll tax? Or hosting a website that called into question government activity? Refusing to turn in firearms which were legal just the day before? Participating in a public demonstration about unlawful incarceration? Here's an example of what could be coming:
    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8145

    Obviously, resorting to violence against the government is a drastic step, particularly in a flawed democratic republic such as ours. At what point do such actions gain legitimacy, and in whose eyes? The canard of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" carries with it a fundamental truth, but still there is the matter of scale. How big must the movement be? Can it be a small group, or does it have to involve at least a plurality of a population? Must every option of redress be exercised? (The U.S. Civil Rights movement.) What will be the endstate in the event of success? (Replacing a dictatorship with anarchy?) I think Patrick Henry pretty well nails it with this speech: http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/henry.html.

    "CHANGE NOW!" in a society with a free press, accessible courts and friendly legislators is the way of the unkempt radical. Violence used to "educate the ignorant masses" is a sure sign that a movement is illegitimate. (Communists, ELF, PETA, the Weathermen, Aryan Nation, etc.) These causes can be dismissed out of hand for both their tactics and their unpopular idealogies.

    My position is this. We must never lose the capacity to pay the cost of resisting tyranny, whatever its source, to maintain righteous government that will abide by its own laws and steer the course the people set. In our nation, that resistance can be as simple as putting a stamp on a letter or standing in peaceful protest, and for that we owe much to those who came before us. And from their example we learn that man is flawed, and that even a perfect form of government, neglected by the people it protects, will collapse to a state of self-perpetuation where bureacracy exists to act against those it was created to serve. For this day we must be ever vigilant and maintain the character that made us American, along with the means to effectively resist. As long as we retain the capacity, we need never face the eventuality. The Framers saw this over 200 years ago, and their wisdom on the matter of instituting government has withstood the test of time like few others.

    God spare me the day that I should have to lift a hand against my countrymen, and the day that I am too weak to do so.
    Last edited by 1911sforever; 05/10/2005 at 08:43 AM.
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Rather than call me a terrorist by innuendo, why won't you answer my question? I've made every attempt to answer yours, even publicly taking very controversial stands. Yet you continue to bob and weave...unable or unwilling to say what you would do when confronted with a government, even a democratically elected one, that is killing people outside the bounds of the law and getting away with it.
    You expressed understanding for somebody like Timothy McVeigh, saying at that his actions were not justified at that time. But Timothy McVeigh was a cruel murderer of innocent people, civilians, women and children. He was also a coward, placing the truck with that bomb in front of the building and walking away. There is never a time in which something like this is justified, shouldn't that be obvious?

    What would I do if I was "confronted with a government, even a democratically elected one, that is killing people outside the bounds of the law and getting away with it?" I would fight that government, too, if necessary also with force.

    With evey comment on the history of Switzerland you reveal how little you know about it. The Swiss were among the first to overthrow foreign rulers and set up their own government (it started 714 years ago). Much of the history of Switzerland was about kicking out and keeping out foreign powers like the Habsburg monarchy, the German Emperors, etc.

    Being neutral was one means of staying independent and free during the many wars in Europe since the Middle Age. Switzerland had the same position also during WWII for political reasons, but Hitler and his ideas were strongly rejected by the great majority of the population. That is not true for many other nations, and knowing how racist e.g. the south of the US was at that time, I am not so sure how some parts of the US population would have reacted in the same situation. Switzerland was determined to keep Hitler out and conviningly showed the Wehrmacht that it would cost too much to invade Switzerland, more than they could afford. For sure Hitler would have loved to support his troops in Italy via Switzerland (the main north-south route), but he couldn't, which was quite convenient for the Allied Forces when they attacked Italy.

    True, the borders were officially closed after 1942, but inofficially, there was also support for refugees and border patrols that looked the other way. In the end, close to 300'000 refuges were allowed to enter Switzerland, while about 20'000 were turned back. 300'000 is quite a lot for a population of about 4 million, totally surrounded by the enemy, a population that was was struggling to grow enough food.

    It is strange how e.g. occupied Denmark is lauded because "only" about 500 Danish Jews were sent to concentration camps, while Switzerland is constantly bashed, although many Jews found a safe place in Switzerland, and no Swiss Jews were ever deported. Still, too many were turned back at the border, that is sure, and there are many dark chapters in Swiss history of that time.

    When hearing what you say about immigration the US, even now in peace and prosperity, I am not sure at all that you would have been in favour of totally open borders if you had lived in Switzerland at the time. I think I would have supported refugees entering Switzerland, but what do I know, I wasn't faced with war.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #143  
    Let me just say thanks (with no intention of being sarcastic) for this history lesson. Most of this stuff I have never heard.
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    What if the only "crime" your friends committed was refusal to pay a poll tax? Or hosting a website that called into question government activity? Refusing to turn in firearms which were legal just the day before? Participating in a public demonstration about unlawful incarceration?
    Thats why my litmus test was only "if it was in protection of my life or my family's lives." If you go beyond that, you run the risk of the slippery slope argument (which also brings about other peoples subjectivity with the examples you cited...see below)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Obviously, resorting to violence against the government is a drastic step.
    I would characterize it as the ultimate step...something like a bell that cannot be unrung.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    At what point do such actions gain legitimacy, and in whose eyes? The canard of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" carries with it a fundamental truth, but still there is the matter of scale.
    Again, this brings about the problem of subjectivity. One person may be more sensitive to having their gun taken away then others. You mentioned this "Refusing to turn in firearms which were legal just the day before?" Do you think you should be able to overthrow the government for this? Before you answer, this has happened...think about the Cleary Act? Where if you were charged with domestic battery, you lost the right to own a firearm, it was retroactive as well (I think that is the law). Should people who have been subject to this law have the 'right' to overthrow the government with armed resistance?

    How about your poll tax...people can kill federal agents over a tax? Thats the only 'real' option for them? Or how about laws that dont allow you to harass people by using public demonstrations...if the government stops that, you can bare arms against them? What about a website that calls into question government activity (that may be secret or concerning national security). If the government shuts down the site by getting a court order because of the "government's compelling interest in protecting the State's security", you are in favor of people overthrowing the government?

    By advocating a position that people have to decide for themselves if its 'justified' in overthrowing the government, it makes it so subjective that even ridiculous (IMHO) reasons could (and would be used...i.e. McVeigh).

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    How big must the movement be? Can it be a small group, or does it have to involve at least a plurality of a population? Must every option of redress be exercised? (The U.S. Civil Rights movement.)
    Again, this is the problem of the 'slippery slope'. Not every option can be attempted if myself or my family is going to be murdered. I defer to my test above.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    God spare me the day that I should have to lift a hand against my countrymen, and the day that I am too weak to do so.
    Good quote (but it assumes only two possibilities)...its an either/or argument and we *almost always have more options than that.
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678

Posting Permissions