The homeless are not being oppressed simply by living in American society. American society is not wholly greedy. There is also much generosity and compassion. And America does not comprise one common society. There are different kinds of societies in different regions.
Yes, we are to judge the government, but using peaceful means, such as peaceful protests. My point is not to take up arms against the government for whatever the reason. This is what I meant by not judging the government.
hmm. We may be in agreement on that. At least to an extent. I would add that sometimes in this world there are times when violence is required. Though I think a lot of people use this as an excuse. When it should really be a last resort.
When have the police or military refused to show up when the government sees a threat? They always show up.
The homeless are most certainly oppressed in our society (see definition below). Their plight is a prime example of how green and apathy is severely lacking in America. Yes, their are some kind and generous individuals in society, but, again, they are greatly outweighed by greedy and apathetic individuals.
Show up for what? No laws were broken. Or, perhaps the wackos with guns would hold a violent protest, in which case they would die in a bloodbath, as just happened in Egypt. Again, the wackos would be wiser to merely go to the shooting range and relief their pent-up aggressions there.
Wackos? Who are you talking about?
Wackos like those in Waco TX. Wackos who might be willing to use their weapons in a violent protest. Wackos who might use innocent women and children as a shield, as has happened in Waco TX. Wackos that somehow believe that they can prevent tyranny by engaging in violence against the US government.
Absolutely, Robert! The picture provided of the Swiss Guard’s stockpile of weapons is a clear indication that even the Vatican understands that the purpose of having weapons is to ward off opposition both foreign and domestic. Every government, likewise, has a military for this same reason, so I’m sure it comes as no surprise that a government made for the people, by the people, and of the people would include a right to bear arms; especially when the founding fathers of said government also stated that if the current form of government was to fail its people, then it should be destroyed and a new one built in its place.
Show me where the Just War Doctrine and the Right to Bear Arms are incompatible with each other.
The purpose of the Vatican having guns is for national security, and if Pope Francis has his say, I think that stockpiling of weapons may come to an end. In any event, this in no way justifies Americans taking up arms to prevent a perceived tyranny.
The right to bear arms is far different from using those arm to ward off a perceived tyranny. Again, our allegiance as Catholics is to the great nation of the Vatican, and not the constitution per se.
But this isn’t the point. The point is can the 2 amendment help citizens ward of an actual threat of tyranny, whether foreign or domestic?! The answer is yes! Even if Catholics are suppose to only go to war when the Vatican approves it, does not void the need for the 2 amendment. It is this very amendment which will help ensure that Catholic citizens have arms to take up when the situation calls for it.
What about when the constitution gives citizens certain rights that help them follow the Church’s direction? Should I not see my right to bear arms as important because there may be a case when the Church approves my use of said arms to ward off a tyrannical threat?
The original post has to do with the taking up of arms to prevent tyranny, not the right to bear arms per se. Where does the 2nd amendment give citizens the right to cause a civil war? It’s ‘ridiculous,’ ‘quaint’ and ‘nonsensical’ to think the 2nd Amendment can prevent perceived tyranny in our great nation. It’s far more likely that the 2nd amendment would be used by a group of rebellious wackos to engage in a violent protest, in which case they would simply die in a bloodbath. The average gun owner may have a handgun, and not military grade weapons. To plan and carry out an organized effort to rebel is far, far beyond average citizens.
Tell that to the headless ghosts in French Purgatory from 1789.
Yes, and the modern U.S. military is armed with far better technology than the musket. The notion that some fat cowboy types armed with rifles and civilian issue firearms could prevent outright tyranny should it occur is laughable. The government has drones, ballistic missiles, tanks, jet fighters, nuclear weapons for Heaven’s sake! I’m pretty sure if the French aristocracy had had a couple of Apache helicopters at their disposal the Revolution would have gone rather differently.
Trying to equate the French Revolution and citizen uprising in 2013 is nonsensical!Again, the average gun owner usually has access to a simple hand gun, and few have access to military-grade weapons. It’s simply is not realistic to think that these inexperienced and poorly planned rebels would be any match for the military. It would be a bloodbath.
This thread has nothing to do with gun control, and I have not argued for or against it anywhere in this thread. The thread has to do with whether a handful of poorly trained and haphazard renegades could effectively fight, and defeat the military, in the event of perceived tyranny. It’s a joke to think that they could.
The American army certainly could indiscriminately bomb Afghanistan into complete submission.
The government doesn’t just send soldiers or police when laws have been broken. It sends them when there is a threat or a perceived threat to the public or to itself.