Is the name of freedom, you can kill other people

Post Reply New Topic

I am a Catholic, I sometime do sin especially against sixth commandment, if you know what i mean but I despise violence, especially gun violence , in my opinion never solves any problems, only make them worse.

I once read an article in a magazine about the right to bear arms in the United States, spoke there, one anonymous American, for that had abolished the right to bear arms, it will be a civil war that, in the name of God should kill a tyrant, etc.

I wonder when God sanctioned the killing of other people, I think the people of this approach in general should not have access to weapons.

In my country, have very restrictive laws regarding the access to firearms, I am probably with my Asperger's syndrome would have a serious problems, with getting license, but I could always give a bribe, of course
What I would not do because I'm not legalistic towers besides the weapons which can solve any problem, except that in a computer game

Returning to the topic, what do you think about such clichés as ime killing God or freedom, or sometimes it is not the negation of those values

I once met a quotation written by Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
I would like to know the opinions especially the Americans, what you think abou that

I think what Thomas Jefferson meant by that was, sometimes when the balance of power gets so far out of hand, that the people (Patriots) have no other choice but to use violence against the Tyrants.

I'll be more convinced of the Catholics' relatively newfound belief in pacifism when they abolish the office of the inquisitor. If God does not condone killing for any reason, then the Pope has a lot of explaining to do, and he should apologize to Turkey in Arabic or Turkish for stopping their invasion of central Europe, and the Mongols for aiding the Byzantine empire and defending the holy land!

Violence can solve many things- especially repelling violent people. This can apply to nations as well. Look at even WWI- it may have been primarily about which European monarch could prove he had the biggest dick, but even then, it still had the benefit of the fall of the Ottoman empire.

If the government wants to avoid a civil war, it's a no-brainer: leave certain hot button issues alone! The second amendment is not dust about national security and home defense, it was also intended to keep the government honest and accountable to the voters. Our constitutional convention understood that democracies eventually face a crisis and so far have all so far inevitably failed at some point. They also understood that corrupt and tyrannical people have a tendency to rise to power. Man were they ever right about that! Our founders wanted to make sure there was one final line of defense against this- the ability to remove them by violent force.

Many liberals, especially in urban and suburban areas tend to find this scary. However, you probably wouldn't notice a violent uprising much. It can probably be arranged that iphone service will not be affected so you can play angry birds and follow Snooki and the Kardashian sisters on Twitter, I'm sure it will be the government's doing if the internet was affected since cutting people's access to facebook, porn, and ebay would create a second rebellion, the malls are a great haven to keep hipsters occupied, and I don't see any reason why dancing with the stars or American idol would need to be interrupted because it's best to keep the clueless and braindead...well...clueless and braindead. A conservative-libertarian society would offer basically the same trappings to the sheep as a socialist government, but with more to offer for those that take up their civic responsibility. If someone wants a government to baby them, protect them from their own stupid decisions, give you everything as long as the government can keep up deficit spending, and protect you from feeling offended, there already is no shortage of countries that do all that. They can move to one of those places.

This sound uncomfortably like one political group threatening murder and mayhem to get its way by inspiring terror and fear of death in whoever disagrees or wants to do things differently. Like how in a family where someone is abusive and violent, they let everyone know that if they don't get their way, they'll become dramatic and violent. This, of course, would be the antithesis of civil democracy.

I think violent resistance should only be a response to genuine threats, such as what people faced under fascist regimes, where the government creates conditions where survival becomes impossible for many people, or even actively carries out extermination programs. Not simply policies that are disagreed with or which one thinks may not be prudent.

Good luck. The government's got tanks, jet fighters, bombers, artillery, missiles, mines, armoured personnel carriers, automatic weapons, bombers with laser-guided ordnance and more common sense than the people who would try an insurrection with legal weapons.

If you don't believe in killing for or dying to defend freedom then you don't value it that much or just don't know what it is.

enrico_dandolo wrote:

Obviously you don't stand in front of a tank and try to stop it with a pistol or shoot down an A-10 with a shotgun. What determined groups of guerrilla fighters can, though, do is set booby traps (IED's come to mind), blow up bridges, carry out hit and run raids against vulnerable assets or installations, ambushes, long range precision rifle work against key targets, various harassment and interdiction operations within the limits of resources.
Also consider the strong possibly of large chunks of the military telling Washington to get screwed and bringing resources with them. We could potentially have entire divisions and bases defecting and joining the resistance.
Then factor in public opinion once they get tired of being told by the media that the resistance is nothing but traitors and terrorists that must be crushed.
I’m just touching on the surface of this to provide an idea of the possibilities.
History is full of examples….

Freedom? A word that has been rendered meaningless, just used for propaganda effect. The Nazis used it in their wars, too, believe it or not. So did the Soviets. Freedom typically just means "my way, for everyone" - precisely the opposite of what it actually means. When I hear people use this word I know what they mean - you do it my way, under my gun. They're happy and in control so they call that "freedom". Then they take from you by force, again in the name of "freedom"

If you want to talk about words that actually have meanings that are consistent with reality, then let's talk about democratic governance. What place do guns have in elections and policy debates in a democratic society? None - they are the tools of fascists in that context.



Maybe Old Major himself will lead the way ...

In the name of your freedom you can kill someone who is trying to deprive you of your freedom by force. It is simple self defense.

ruveyn

Yeah, I think I see where you're coming from.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength
For you, maybe..........

If you want to use guns to overturn elections and strike down the laws of elected representatives, then you actually are embracing the "freedom is slavery" concept wholeheartedly.

Worse yet, you're proposing a military coup of just the sort that has brought every generalissimo in every banana republic that has ever existed into power.

Edgewaters wrote:

Hmmm……trying to remember where I advocated overturning elections with force of arms.
Well, gee, it sure sounds like loads o’fun so thanks for the suggestion.




Really, you’re giving me too much credit.
I’m blushing.

Are you denying you proposed a military coup against elected representatives in the capitol (Washington)? It's right there in black and white, I'm afraid. Cheap rhetorical tricks notwithstanding. I am sure you weren't saying the military should go to Washington to do something about, say, the lack of anchovies in local pizzerias ...

There ARE times when revolution is. necessary. THIS country was born of revolution, after all.
Americans (real ones that is) don't expect the government to pass laws regulating pizza toppings. Anchovies suck, anyway.

They weren't revolting against anyone their fellow citizens had elected to office - a difference that seems to elude you. Also it was a revolution, not a military coup.

Then you don't need the guns right now.

A coup sounds like more fun, though.