The Declaration of Independence shows clarity on this issue (Paragraph 2):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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 shewn 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. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Sounds like the founding fathers chose violence to overthrow tyranny.

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

again, try firefox, I cleaned up the spelling errors
again, this is your OPINION and not factual
facts were stated proving your OPINION wrong
please come up with a fact or two, opinions posed as fact are getting old...

rickyp wrote:more blah blah blah

Does your belief structure include the peopling having the right to use force to overthrow and authoritarian government.


How about his ricky. If you answer that question, I will address your nuaces (which is was always my intent).

green

Sounds like the founding fathers chose violence to overthrow tyranny.

Yes. Then they wrote a constituion that delivered democratic instituions that ensured that the government was at the consent of the people.
The possible removal of the government is now designed to happen through the same democratic instituions.
There is no provision within the 2nd amendment or any part of the Constitution (which is the document that sets out your form of government, not the delaration of independence) to abandon the democratic process and take up arms.
When groups have taken up arms, they have been charged with treason or other crimes. If it was in any way a basic right, how could they be charged with crimes?

Does your belief structure include the peopling having the right to use force to overthrow and authoritarian government

Totalitarian govenrment. yes. If faced with force in reply to peaceful disent. Although force isn't required all the time, as Ghandi taught us.
But Archduke, that describes something in conformity with moral law in the absence of a legal framework that represents democratic fundamentals.
We''re talking about an established constituitonal democracy.
A democracy with institutions that ensure that the governed have the ability to democratically express their opposition to governance.
Now, if you want to argue that individuals have the expressed right to resist what they consider to be tyrannical govenrnance through violent means you have to explain how that is accomplished?
Can 50 people decide to take up arms rightfully? 200? 1?
Are they free to decide for themselves what is tyranny? Do they need the consent of the majority? Do they possess a legal defence should they fail in their resistance and be arrested and charged with treason? If they have the right to do what they are doing, it would seem so...

A right, belongs to all and to the individual. A right means that an individual can, for instance speak freely. Or a group. It defines that which all persons have equal access to as well. You can't allow one person to speak freely but decide another cannot.
Compare that to apprehended tyranny and violent insurrection. An individual decides that ATF agents are committing tyranny when they shut down his ilegal distillery and he decides to violently resist their authority.
With a constittuion that protects his right to violent resistance to what he perceives as tyranny, he's done nothing wrong.
Its only logical Archduke, that in writing a document designed to provide a guarantee of freedom and a guarantee of democracy that the right to individually resist with violence cannot be also guaranteed. (So it wasn't)
If the right were there, it legalizes armed anarchy and ends the framewok of laws insituted by the constitution . Essentially it is antiethical to the idea of a government of laws, and a government where the majority consent is respected.
The 2nd Amendment right to arm is there to enable the country to form miliitas for the protection of the nation. Not to arm the populace to resist governance at the whim of an objectionable minority. (Which was how the Whiskey Rebellion and shays Rebellion were percieved at the time.)

Shay's Rebellion happened under the auspices of the Articles of Confederation...the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply.

The Whiskey Rebellion was an attempt to dodge unpopular policies of the new republic...not to overthrow it in its entirety.

I think your problem here is one of scale ricky. The right to rebel (violently if necessary) is perceived as a natural right, not a positive one (one derived from written law), if the goal is a complete tear-down of the existing authority structure. So a distiller who thinks his taxes are too high (or a gun-runner who gets suprised by ATF agents and decides he doesn't want to go to jail, or a teacher in WI who doesn't want his benefits cut) isn't striving for a new government, just fighting against a certain policy within that government he doesn't agree with. That being the case, his notional reason for insurrection doesn't meet the minimum requirements for his natural rights to kick in.

But rebellion can be a positive right too. From German law:
Article 20 [Basic institutional principles; defense of the constitutional order]
(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.

(2) All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive, and judicial bodies.

(3) The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice.

(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.
See there? Germans have given themselves the positive right to resist unconstitutional behavior. But there's that little "remedy" bit there too. I'll bet if any German breweries decided to stop paying taxes and set up armed camps to resist the government the argument would be they hadn't exhausted every remedy available to them.

In a nutshell: ricky, your posts seem to equate "rebellion" as being the same as "insurrection". They are not synonymous.

rickyp wrote:

Does your belief structure include the peopling having the right to use force to overthrow and authoritarian government

yes.

So you agree that people have the right to over throw a tyrannical government. It becomes much harder to do that when the government makes ownership of all weapons illegal. Now the problem you are having is your basis of what the Constitiution is. You appear to believe that it is a granting of rights by the government towards the people. I am coming to this opinion based on the following comment from you

rickyp wrote:The Consittution decided the way you would govern your country. And nothing in it specificies a right to violent opposition to it... .

The Constitution does not in a general sense specify rights of people. Rather it grants powers and specifies limitations on the Federal Government. Further, the right to revolution is an inherent right of the people. If the government becomes tyrannical and violating the Constitution and rule of law, the people have the right to remove that government by any means necessary. Just because it is not specified in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hence the wording of the 9th Amendment. This is the basis of the anti-tyranny argument for the 2nd Amendment

Now the next question when can the right to revolution be invoked. It can't be invoked because you disagree with the policies of the duly elected government. And that is the problem with all of your straw man arguments you threw out there in an effort to avoid having to answer the question. In my personal opinion, just losing an election is not a valid reason to revolt. You wait until the next election and vote in different people. Or you go to the Courts. This is why your straw man of Wisconsin is not an example of a valid reason to invoke the right of revolution.

However, what happens if you get a person who refuses to abide by the decision of the electorate or the courts? You can claim that would not happen in a mature democracy but I don't think you can say that? How do you define a mature democracy?

You do ask a valid question here

rickyp wrote: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 specifically enumerated in the Bill of right no?

The answer is this is part of what the 2nd Amendment is to protect. However, ultimately, legitimacy is based on winning. If you are going to invoke your right to revolution, you had better win. Otherwise, the winners will find that there was no valid reason for revolt and that you were in violation of the existing law.

Ricky
You continue to confuse moral or natural rights with those granted by the Constitution.
You also continue to espouse your opinion as fact, you jump to conclusions based upon your personal feelings, not those set in the Constitution and you ignore facts pointed out that simply do not sit well with you.

You continue to skirt the whole issue of when rebellion is required. Sometimes it most certainly is. The current mideast situation is a good example. Who decides? There is no answer and if a group decides to rebel and loses, yep, they get tossed into prison or worse. There is no firm and fast answer to when or who decides. But should despotic rule take over, you tell us the people will decide...how so? Voting is not allowed, we have no more voting and/or it is limited to the despots issues to vote on only, Did Libya have elections to remove Gadaffi? I remember Saddam Hussein ran for presidency over and over and always won his "elections" since no others were running against him and how were the votes counted? Your own definitions clearly point out rebellion is NEVER an option. And frankly, that answer is plain wrong, there are countless current nations that SHOULD rebel and I find it hard to believe you would disagree. (Iran and South Korea spring to mind)

Archduke

Hence the wording of the 9th Amendment. This is the basis of the anti-tyranny argument for the 2nd Amendment

I understand that this is the logic. I also understand that ownership of weapons is guaranteed in the 2nd for a specific reason and that reason is the only one provided. Militias, representing a goal of collective protection.There is no additional reason provided that describes the purpose for freedom of ownership. Anything else is at best "implied" . Including the "implied " right to revolution.

Archduke

Further, the right to revolution is an inherent right of the people. If the government becomes tyrannical and violating the Constitution and rule of law, the people have the right to remove that government by any means necessary. Just because it is not specified in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And

However, ultimately, legitimacy is based on winning. If you are going to invoke your right to revolution, you had better win. Otherwise, the winners will find that there was no valid reason for revolt and that you were in violation of the existing law.

[/quote]
What you are clearly saying is that the right exists only if you win the war. Thats simply history being written by the victors. Whether a right was being enforced or a crime committed depends on the outcome only.
In fact, in the beginning of the act, its not a right, inherent or otherwise. Its a choice to use violence to enforce a position. Only victory allows it to evolve into the condition of enforcing an inherent right.
Its a slippery, non-contiguous surface onto which you build this rationale for the 2nd. (We need to arm the people so that they always have the power to probably commit horrible crimes of treason - or perhaps they'll win and violently change things the way they want. well, some of them. The winners. )

Archduke I beleive this highly romanticized belief that the 2nd amendment is there to support the inherent right to rebellion has lead to the establishment of an attitude towards governance that is inherently dangerous. And also inherent anti-democratic.
When guns become not just the means for personal protection or for collective protection of the state but become viewed as the potential arsenal that will dissolve the democracy, and make it bend to the will of those who unilaterally decide that "tyranny" exists...... you create a poisonous situation.
When you have violent imagery and use of phrases like " 2nd amendment rights" by legitimate politicians (candidates for main stream parties) you set the stage for the failed use of this "inherent right" by mad individuals or small groups of disturbed people.
The Men of Shays and Whiskey rebellions also beleived in an inherent right of rebellion. They weren't tolerated, by the same men who wrote the Constitution. The Civil War?
Belief that ownership of weapons has as its purpose the empowering of vigilantes who somehow can guarantee freedom through their ad hoc violence guarantees that violence resides at the core of society.

ricky, this is implied only if you ignore the thinking o0f the time, if you ignore the many quotes of those framers as well as other influential people of the time, only if you ignore other documents of the time,only if you ignore history.
If you want to ignore the facts and focus only on this one thing, yes you have a possible point. But ignoring the facts and putting on blinders is not how to understand anything is it?

If you wish to play the ignorance game, you win, nobody is as ignorant as you when it comes to this issue.
oh, and we have requested some FACTS, you still list your opinions only, more proof of ignorance.
(and you still have not answered Archdukes question)

archduke

The answer is this is part of what the 2nd Amendment is to protect.

Lets examine how effective protections private ownership of guns have been in "revolutions".
The following countries have had largely non-violent changes in govenment in the last 100 years.
The Soviet Union
Poland
Czechoslovakia (and later Slovakia)
Romania
Hungary
The Ukraine
Albania
India
Pakistan
East Germany

I could go on. Privately owned guns were not essential to the advancement of democracy.
Indeed Egypt and the rest of the middle east today have been largely non-violent. (There are always exceptions i.e. Libya)

Indeed the use of guns has usually been a minority oppressing the majority.
Examples? The minority contras conducting a war on the democratically elected govenrment of El Salvador>?
Private ownership of guns was largely essential to the retention of slaves for instance. (Indeed it was a reason for the 2nd.) And privately guns have not, since the original revolution, contributed to any successful uprising in the US have they?
Retaining a belief in an implied right guaranteed by the 2nd, has meant that people with guns beleive that they have the right to arrogantly adjuge what tyraany is and when they should act. This leads to the use of guns as intimidation. And it can ultimately lead to the subversion of democracy if a minority of armed people deciodes that they know better than the majority about what "tyranny is, and what the correct response should be.... (Its a lot harder for a hard core minority to demonstrate popular support through assembly, or the ballot box then through force of arms).

Now Tom, I know you don't quite follow my arguement. I'm not telling you that the interpretation of the constitution is factually wrong. I'm telling you its a belief, and if there are other interpretations competing then they are beliefs. . (What could an implied right be but a belief? It isn't expressed, as the Archduke points out.)
When the demonmstrater showed up at the tea party rally with an assault rifle over his shoulder he was using his second amendment rights to intimidate. He wa saying, look, I'm the final judge of when i get to use this weapon.
And all that flows from belief in an implied right and an interpretation of the 2nd that is not expressed but that flows from the 9th.
The results of that belief are an inherently violent society. And thats why the belief that the 2nd amendment is there to guarantee a right to violent rebellion is wrong. Its subject to abuse. its antidemocratic. It glorifies the individual at the4 expense of collective rights. Its self defeating in that it can't be held to be a right unless successful in execution.

rickyp wrote:Indeed the use of guns has usually been a minority oppressing the majority.

Right. Like, I suppose, South Africa? Did the black majority have access to guns? Do you think Apartheid could have lasted if the black majority had a constitutionally-guaranteed right to arm themselves?

Examples? The minority contras conducting a war on the democratically elected govenrment of El Salvador>?

That's an insurgency NOT "a minority oppressing the majority."

Retaining a belief in an implied right guaranteed by the 2nd, has meant that people with guns beleive that they have the right to arrogantly adjuge what tyraany is and when they should act.

No one needs a gun to make a judgment about whether the government is tyrannical.

It's not a belief that we have an implied right to own guns. It's explicit that the federal government cannot abridge our right.

The results of that belief are an inherently violent society. And thats why the belief that the 2nd amendment is there to guarantee a right to violent rebellion is wrong. Its subject to abuse. its antidemocratic. It glorifies the individual at the4 expense of collective rights. Its self defeating in that it can't be held to be a right unless successful in execution.

Meh. Our society is "violent" for many reasons, but not because of the Second Amendment. It is because of gangs, armed by their ability to make amazing profits from the illicit drug trade. There are a variety of reasons, including the deterioration of the family unit, but to blame the Second Amendment by itself is sophistry. Guns themselves are not the problem.

Not only that, but none of your proposed solutions would do a thing to reduce violence. You never said a word about the shooting in Germany. Why is that? Isn't Germany a country that "controls" gun ownership? How did a man from Kosovo (whom you would claim is insane if we were focused on him) get a gun in Germany? In your world, gun control is the answer. In the real world, it doesn't stop criminals or people with bad intentions from getting them.

There is nothing anti-democratic about the right to gun ownership.

What is funny is that you would even write this: "It glorifies the individual at the4 expense of collective rights." The essence of democracy is the rights of individuals, not the rights of "the collective." That you don't grasp that is disconcerting and calls into question your ability to differentiate between a democracy and totalitarian forms of government wherein the "rights of the collective" are uppermost and the individual's rights are marginalized in favor of "the greater good."

...and you point out a handful of rebellions in the last 100 years. Excuse me, but the Constitution is twice as old, how many peaceful revolutions had occurred at the time of the constitution? THAT is the relevant statistic. This is like pointing out how many more motor vehicle deaths we now have compared to 200 years ago. (it's shocking how few we had back then)

rickyp wrote:In fact, in the beginning of the act, its not a right, inherent or otherwise. Its a choice to use violence to enforce a position. Only victory allows it to evolve into the condition of enforcing an inherent right.
Its a slippery, non-contiguous surface onto which you build this rationale for the 2nd. (We need to arm the people so that they always have the power to probably commit horrible crimes of treason - or perhaps they'll win and violently change things the way they want. well, some of them. The winners. )

The right is inherent. The problem with the requirement of needing to win to enforce it is because the only time to validly use it is when the government is actively suppressing all rights. Therefore, if a group invokes the right to rebellion and loses, the government that is already suppressing rights is going to suppress the right to rebellion if it is unsuccessfully invoked.

rickyp wrote: The Men of Shays and Whiskey rebellions also beleived in an inherent right of rebellion. They weren't tolerated, by the same men who wrote the Constitution. The Civil War?

That is because none of these were valid situations in which to invoke the right to rebellion. Shays was because Farmers who owed a large debt lost elections to city dwelling creditors. They did not refer the case to the courts Ditto with Whiskey Rebellion. The Civil War is the ultimate we lost an election so we are going to take our ball and go home.

rickyp wrote:Lets examine how effective protections private ownership of guns have been in "revolutions".
The following countries have had largely non-violent changes in government in the last 100 years...

Interesting list Ricky. How about we look at those that required violence.

Ireland
Palestine
Viet Nam
Libya
Bahrain
Bosnia Herzgovnia
Croatia
Kosovo
Ivory Coast
Cuba

Right. Like, I suppose, South Africa? Did the black majority have access to guns? Do you think Apartheid could have lasted if the black majority had a constitutionally-guaranteed right to arm themselves?

Apartheid didn't last in South Africa.
Ask yourself if apartheid could have lasted as long as it did if the whites in South Africa didn't arm themselves?
But why look at South Africa. Could slavery have lasted if the whites in the US didn't have the right to firearms? And thats actually one of the reasons the 2nd Amendment was written. To assure the southern planters that they would maintain their slaves through force. Was that a good thing?

archduke

The right is inherent. The problem with the requirement of needing to win to enforce it is because the only time to validly use it is when the government is actively suppressing all rights. Therefore, if a group invokes the right to rebellion and loses, the government that is already suppressing rights is going to suppress the right to rebellion if it is unsuccessfully invoked

.
A right is a protection. When someone invokes their "rights" a court protects them from harm based on their protected rights.
That can never happen with your "inherent right". Therefore it doesn't really exist. The day someone conducts an armed resistance against govenrment agents of the US, and successfully defends themselves in court by claiming the inherent right to rebellion - thats the day you actually have a right.
Until then you have a belief.

Steve

No one needs a gun to make a judgment about whether the government is tyrannical.

Agreed.

It's not a belief that we have an implied right to own guns. It's explicit that the federal government cannot abridge our right.

Agreed.
However, I take issue with the notion that the reason the right exists is that its a protection of the "inherent right" that Archduke has quoted.,
You'll note that this "inherent right" is never explicitly specified. Nor is the rationale explicitly specifiied. As a strict constructionist I think you'll agree that "implying" something exists in the Constituion" can lead to "jurists legislating from the bench."
And I think you'll also note that whenever there have been armed rebellions against government in the US, they have been subdued and any surviving rebels treated as criminals without recourse to the defence that they "had a right to rebel". So the implication seems to be false in practice.

What I take issue with in the rationale that many put forward (And Tom, most if not virtually all of your contemporary quotations were from anti-Federalists who did not generally support the new constitution) that a guarantee to armed rebellion is constitutional and that the resulting consequence that it contributes to a society that relies on violence too freely.
For instance, I think you and I share the same view of Sharon Angles reference to "2nd Amendment remedies".
Thats an attempt at intimidation that those who support the notion of an inherent right to armed rebellion understand as valid.Do you?

rickyp wrote:But why look at South Africa. Could slavery have lasted if the whites in the US didn't have the right to firearms? And thats actually one of the reasons the 2nd Amendment was written. To assure the southern planters that they would maintain their slaves through force. Was that a good thing?

I have never heard that. State your source. Considering the 2nd Amendment was written 74 years earlier than the Civil War, I would love to see that source.