I would not have taken that bet if you gave me 100 to 1 odds
That "prediction" was pretty easy, but how dare you state the obvious, we3 have to pretend such terrorists are anything BUT Islamists. C'mon get with the liberal agenda Steve!
(Christian until proven otherwise, and even then we should avoid any such connection between radical religious beliefs and terrorist acts ...unless actually Christian, then you can play the religion card but ONLY then)

GMTom wrote:As stated, Jefferson's baby was the declaration and I misspoke there, but he most certainly had his input in the Constitution but especially in the need for a Bill of Rights. Not the driving force but certainly a vocal part.

I'm sorry Tom but you are 100% wrong. Jefferson had no influence on the drafting of the Consitution. The Philadelphia convention was done completely in secret. Jefferson's first knowledge of the Constitution didn't come until he received a draft of it while in France. At which point, he started writing to friends urging them to vote against the Consitition.

Now, I could possibly agree that he had some correspondence with Madison while he was drafting the Bill of Rights. However, the Bill of Rights was not "Jefferson's Idea". He was one of many who thought it was required. He did not write the proposed Amendments. He did not tell Madison what they should be. As a matter of fact, Jefferson's influence of Madison were very limited. If anything, Madison had more influence on Jefferson's writing.

I was not wrong in the freaking least ...He received a draft before it was ratified, he wrote to others, he was instrumental in the bill of rights (and was an idea of his among others who thought similarly, his opinion helped make that so, he was not the ONLY one ...no as was stated he "had his input" if he had no input why was he sent a draft? Why was he consulted?),
His thoughts, his writings, his feelings at the time were influential as well. Influential certainly with those he was in correspondence with, but he was an influential and important person of the time to all.
THAT would make him a part of it no doubt. No he did not write it, Yes he had influence whether he wrote it or not.

You are trying to be a history teacher correcting a minor issue while ignoring the theme.
I stated a while back I had confused the declaration with the Constitution, but I have not been wrong about his influence nor the general prevailing thought and attitude of the time, the theme of this topic is whether the 2nd amendment was added in part to allow the populace to be able to resist a government that might turn tyrannical. Can't see the forest because of the trees kind of thing here professor. Is that assertion wrong? Ricky wants to think so and since he assumes so, that is the case. I admit to being wrong where I misspoke confusing Jefferson's role in the Constitution but did take that back changing it to him having influence and your assertions he had none is simply wrong, my statement was he was a vocal part of things, as pointed out, he tried to get others to vote against it. He was vocal about it, he need not be FOR the thing to have influence over it.

Archduke

For purposes of this hypo, the next election gives the CPC overwhelming majorities in Parliment. Parliment passes a law saying Harper can rule by decree

well, it couldn't happen that way . We have a constitution, which mandates how the country is governed. And we have a very very difficult amendment process (like the US) so the way the country is governed is as protected as the US. (Although a majority govenrment has a lot more power than a governing power in most other democracies. Something few Canadians truly realize. There are few checks on a majority government.)
If a person seized power through force they would have contravened the constitution and in that situation the laws no longer exist. Nor do the rights. In that situation we have exited the realm of rule of law.

Steve , Archduke agrees with me that there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that provides a "right" to people to take up arms against their government IF they perceive that it has become tyrannical. Was this written this way to protect the government? I've never said that. I think it was written that way to protect against anarchy....
Imagine if that were a right. Armed camps competing with each others vision of "tyranny and freedom" battling with government forces. That's anarchy.
And yet that essentially is what Jefferson's vision amounted to, and yet he's the guy gun lobbyists point to when they want to justify why arms are essential to American freedom..
And when proponents of gun freedom spout this it generally goes unchallenged . (And the historical accuracy of Jeffeson's image could do with a little learning. Maybe they could interview some of Sally Hemmings descendants.)
It is reliance on that myth that I think needs to be confronted. It props up much of the opposition to responsible limits upon gun ownership and gun use.

Beyond that Archduke: If you would respond to my point about the Militia Act of 1903 I'd appreciate it. To reiterate. The Militia Act of 1903 took command and control of the Militias away from the States and put them under the National Guard. I believe that if an independent militia was specified in the Constitution this couldn't have happened. Is that correct in your opinion?
If I am correct, thats further refutation to the idea that the 2nd Amendment is genuinely a formal, constitutional balance against a percieved tyrannical government.

rickyp wrote:Archduke
well, it couldn't happen that way . We have a constitution, which mandates how the country is governed. And we have a very very difficult amendment process (like the US) so the way the country is governed is as protected as the US. (Although a majority govenrment has a lot more power than a governing power in most other democracies. Something few Canadians truly realize. There are few checks on a majority government.)

for the purposes of this hypothetical, Harper ignors the Canadian Consitution and has the support of the police and military. Think Seven Days in May but in Canada. Come Ricky, you can work through the hypo. It's called critical thinking.

rickyp wrote:If a person seized power through force they would have contravened the constitution and in that situation the laws no longer exist. Nor do the rights. In that situation we have exited the realm of rule of law.

So does that mean you agree that the people of Canada would have the right to use force to over throw Harper in my Hypo?

rickyp wrote:Steve , Archduke agrees with me that there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that provides a "right" to people to take up arms against their government IF they perceive that it has become tyrannical

That is not what I said. I said the 2nd doesn't give any rights to people it limits the power of the government. However, I have made no comment what so ever on the "natural" rights held by the people

rickyp wrote:Beyond that Archduke: If you would respond to my point about the Militia Act of 1903 I'd appreciate it. To reiterate. The Militia Act of 1903 took command and control of the Militias away from the States and put them under the National Guard. I believe that if an independent militia was specified in the Constitution this couldn't have happened. Is that correct in your opinion?
If I am correct, thats further refutation to the idea that the 2nd Amendment is genuinely a formal, constitutional balance against a percieved tyrannical government.

That is not what the Militia Act of 1903 did. The National Guards are still under the command of the various state Governors. What the Act did was update the standard to which the state militia's had to be trained as required under Art. I, sec. 8 cl. 16. which says in part

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, ... reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

archduke

for the purposes of this hypothetical, Harper ignors the Canadian Consitution and has the support of the police and military. Think Seven Days in May but in Canada. Come Ricky, you can work through the hypo. It's called critical thinking

In democracies the armed forces are generally sworn to uphold the constitution. It is true that in young democracies democracys have been over turned and the army has taken power in places like Chile (assisted by outside forces) but generally armies in mature democracies have guaranteed the constitution is followed. Indeed, in citizen armies, that is armies made up largely of ordinary citizens conscripted into service - the imposition of tyranny through force alone is difficult.
Witness Egypt. Witness Tunisia. Witness Bahrain.
its not universal but generally if an unpopular figure seeks to take hold of power a show of force by demonstration has proven that it can be effective.In China, the Chinese demonstrations in Tiananmen were put down by units brought in from the provinces because units from Beijing weren't trusted. In Libya, Ghadaffi is heavily reliant on mercenaries..In the past, tyrannts controlled their forces through reward and personal loyalties. In modern democracies - this doesn't occur.

Archduke, you're largely talking science fiction in a mature democracy like Canada or the US. What has happened in your nation when a populace thinks the government has over stepped its authority? Wisconsin leaps to mind.
Theoretically the belief that the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to violently oppose a "tyrannical government" could be applied in Wisconsin. Theoretically those protestors could have come armed and ready to take out the governor.
According to the belief that citizens have a right to this action, this would be acceptable.


archduke

However, I have made no comment what so ever on the "natural" rights held by the people

Oh. "Natural rights"?
And how is it that the natural right to armed insurrection is protected? If a citizen takes action against his government, say the protestors in Wisconsin or say a militia group in Texas who decide that ATF agents are agents of tyranny ...
These people, should they be brought up on charges in a court of law, can appeal to their "constitutionally protected natural rights" as justification for their action? As a way to confirm the legitimacy of their actions. Its the natural rights that are speficically enumerated in the Bill of right no?
If they have no recourse to a "right of insurrection", when charged in a court of law with an offence of insurection, , then this "natural right" is a fiction isn't it?

I am looking forward to the Archduke's response. He will, I'm sure, shred Ricky's straw man.

rickyp wrote:blah blah blah

Good gods man can't you answer a simple question?. Do people have the right to use force to overthrow a authoritarian government?

Witness Egypt, Libya, Tunisia...
Yeah, good thing for those conscripted soldiers, they swiftly acted to do away with their tyrannical leaders 30 years later.

and you still insist on the ability vs rights angle? It has been pointed out the two are not the same yet you continue to say the same thing as if it were factual. All while ignoring the questions posed to you...
What would be done in Canada under the example posed?
If what you say is true, then those in Egypt, Libya, etc have all been wrong as they were illegal.

archduke

Good gods man can't you answer a simple question?. Do people have the right to use force to overthrow a authoritarian government?

You think its a simple question? Maybe you havn't given it enough thought?
Who gets to deterrmine whats "authoritarian" or "tyrannical"?
The Bader Meinhoff Gang, the Black Panthers, Al Queda all might have different opinions about what is tyranny than you...
So might some crazy militias in Florida, Arkansas and Texas...
Do you think your Constitution gives self described militias the right to decide whats too much authority? Do they get to decide when and where the Federal government of the US has become tyrannical? Becasue thats the right you are arguing exists.
In a functioning responsive democracy ...no people don't have the right to use force.
That your constitution exists, and works, means that no, your populace doesn't have the right to unilaterally take up arms.
You cannot at one time hold faith in the constitution, and support its workings, and at the same time hold that individuals have the right to unilaterally decide when and where to violently oppose a constitutional government.
That this is an an impossibility means that it is not a natural right. Try claiming it in a court of law after you've attacked Federal agents....

rickyp wrote:blah blah blah..

It is a simple question. Does your personal belief structure include the people having the right to use force to over throw an authoritarian government? Yes or no.

no answer yet, lot's of opinion on what should be but no answer
You state "In a functioning responsive democracy ...no people don't have the right to use force." yet in the question you refuse to answer, the hypo is this was taken away and you are no longer living this way. But instead you argue who gets to decide?

Ricky, what about the people of Libya right now?
They are finally rebelling after what 30 or so years of a tyrannical government, why is it so hard to answer? Who decided there?

Who gets to decide anything? There are always different opinions, if you want to zero in on that angle, then you have answered and, it being "illegal" and there being no one person or group decide what is right, then it must always be wrong (in your world) and these people who want their freedoms back should all be tossed in jail and the rest of the world should support Gadaffi since he is the ruling power and has "law" on his side.

Myself, I don't subscribe to that thinking but based on your skirting the question and your replies, that must be your position.

You state "In a functioning responsive democracy ...no people don't have the right to use force." yet in the question you refuse to answer

How did I refuse to answer? I gave a full reasoned answer. You guys, on the other hand, want to live in a fantasy world.
The United States is not Libya.

The question we're debating is whether or not the US Consitution's 2nd Amendment is written because people in the United States have a natural right to take arms against their goverment if they perceive it to be "tyrannical".
I say no.
1) Its not included in the amendment in its ratioanale. People can imply and infer, but its not written into the amendment. (Please show me the language that outlines this "natural right". )
2) its contradictory. You can't agree to, and abide by the constitution and at the same time reserve the ability to unilaterally rise up in arms in opposition to the constituional govenrment.

Now, you guys keep these fever dreams about the United States suddenly turning into Libya. Thats the same kind of nonsense that the right wing self styled militias retain. That some how the IRS and the ATF are agents of a despotic government. By their reckoning, and apparently yours, they have every right to rise up violently because they hold the view that paying taxes represents tyrrany.
Here's the thing, that "natural right" that Archduke refers to is what they believe gives them that right. And they, like you, quote Jeffersons nonsense up the ying yang.
Tom

Who gets to decide anything?

The Consittution decided the way you would govern your country. And nothing in it specificies a right to violent opposition to it... (That would be fundamentally self defeating.)

how is your answer any different to Libya?
You mentioned yourself that a military of enlisted men will prevent this from happening yet in your very own examples in the middle east you were wrong ...unless several decades later is acceptable?

You still refuse to answer the hypo
You simply can not claim "it can't happen here" of course it can
It is unlikely, but it is possible and if such a thing happened, what is your answer?

If you actually answer the question