Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Since when does "throwing off a government" always equate to "armed rebellion?"

If one side of an issue results in major tyranny then in most cases the other side of an issue can also result in major tyranny.
One right doesn't trump other rights absolutely.

Quote:

Since when does "throwing off a government" always equate to "armed rebellion?"

If you can work within the system of that government to change that government then it would not be overthrowing that government any more then going from the articles of confederation to our current constitutional an act of overthrowing the older form of government.

But then you are playing games ...............

Quote:

If one side of an issue results in major tyranny then in most cases the other side of an issue can also result in major tyranny.
One right doesn't trump other rights absolutely.

Of course that is one of the many reasons why such changes should not be done for light reasons and should be reserved for a last resort not the first or second or third resort.

See the outcome of the French revolution for an example of an armed rebellion going very bad.

No, you don't have either.

It people like you that are the reason that the safe guard of having a heavily armed population is important in cased the government ever started to declared that you can not read the wall street journal or anything else that expressed opinions that the government does not care for and begin to try to turn the American public into serfs and slaves to the ruling class.

Once more..........

Quote:

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. -

So.. your argument is that we can change government when something upsets us EXCEPT when it is gun ownership? I think you fail to see the gaping holes in your arguments Bill.

Upsets?..........Far more then upsetting would be needed.

Except gun ownership?......... why except gun ownership? as all our freedoms including gun ownership of the population is important and the attempts to disarmed the public would be a first step to making more possible the setting up of a government dictatorship by and for the ruling class.

We need to be able to keep our lowlife employee, government, in line.

We need to be able to keep our lowlife employee, government, in line.

Are you referring to the people that you think are the most fit to lead us and are voted into office by you?

The 2nd Amendment safeguards the rest of the Constitution.

Yes; remember: no one is trustworthy,
particularly not holders of public office (of whom I used to be one).

The 2nd Amendment safeguards the rest of the Constitution.

That is a complete load of tripe David.
The 2nd amendment has never been used to safeguard anything in the Constitution.

As a lawyer you should understand that it is the courts
that safeguard the Constitution more than anything else.

Yes; remember: no one is trustworthy,
particularly not holders of public office (of whom I used to be one).

Just because you may have seen yourself as not being trust worthy,
"you do realize that others may try to hold to a more ethical standard don't you?

So the 2nd amendment protects us from RW fantasies?

I think I am protected from them without a Constitution.

And "light reasons" are defined by whom? Obviously you were not one of the French people that felt they needed to overthrow their government and yet you feel you can judge their reasons when you are outside their greivances? One could as easily argue that taxation wasn't much of a reason for the colonies to overthrow British rule.

parados wrote:

So the 2nd amendment protects us from RW fantasies?

It can't happen HERE, right????

History judge them and the results of their revolution just as history had judge us and the results of our revolution.

A people have a right to change any government that they are unhappy with by force if need be as there is no duty to access rulers that they are unhappy with and in their opinions are not meeting their needs.

There are no such things as rights and duties at that level of discourse.