Hi Hangtime,
We live in a nation ruled by laws. Our supreme law is undeniably the constitution, but even that supreme corpus of law is subject to ammendment and is, for better of for worse, also subject to the final interpretation of the Supreme Court.
The law of our land currently guarantees my ability to own firearms, subject to a myriad of other restrictions (for instance, I may not own fully automatic weapons without a special license, I may not carry a handgun on my person without another license, I may not enter a school with a firearm, etc., etc., etc.) However, should the law be changed to further restrict my rights to the point where my ability to own a gun is effectively nullified, and that ruling be upheld by the Supreme Court, then within the framework established by the founders I have no recourse but to comply, become an outlaw, or rebel.
The above is also true regarding my first amendment rights to free speech. These are also restricted by various laws. Let me give you an example of one such infringement, current federal law makes the following actions illegal: "shouting and/or gesturing, and communicating (either orally and/or with signs and/or by my demeanor and/or expression) demonstrating, praying, distributing materials, carrying signs, sidewalk counseling" when they are conducted on public or private property within a certain distance of an abortion clinic. These restrictions, brought about in the 90s, have effectively ended demonstrations, counseling, and embargoes aound abortion clinics. This law was created to eliminate a form of free speech that many found objectionable.
Now regardless of what you think of abortion, here we have a case in which the first ammendment is restricted that is clearly not the same as the sensible restrictions on shouting "fire"or inciting others to illegally injure or kill another citizen.
Now did I betray the constitution and your forefathers by not actively rebelling against this act? I found it to be a gross and grievous violation of my first ammendment rights which shamefully manipulated the commerce clause to end public political and religious dissent on a controversial subject, and roughly the equivalent of barring protests, prayer, or attempts to distribute literature outside of slave markets in the 19th century. Most people in this forum probably would not see it as a betrayal and certainly not something to start a revolution over. In fact, they'd probably condemn me as a looney if I tried.
But you see that is the problem - determining when to revolt is a matter of private interpretation. You see the point at which we must rebel as the legal nullification of the second ammendment of the bill of rights, I, on the other hand would never go so far as to begin a revolution over the issue of firearms ownership.
I set the bar for disobeying the law at the point where the magistrate tells me to do something that God forbids, or tells me not to do something that God mandates. So in Saudi Arabia I would be meeting with other Christians to worship on Sunday regardless of the fact that it is illegal to do so, and I would bear the consequences. As far as revolution is concerned, i.e. actively taking up arms against the magistrate and pursuing the violent overthrow of the government, I would probably not do that unless the situation became unbearable and where continued inaction would result in the deaths of others. For instance, were I a Kurd living in Iraq under Sadaam's regime, I would have undoubtedly decided that not pursuing a revolution would have been a violation of the 6th commandment calling to do all I can to preserve the lives of others from being unjustly taken.
So here you can call me a betrayer of the "Sons of Liberty", and that may well be true, but in these matters we have a very different interpretation of what can be endured and what can't. I simply don't find that my right to my Lee-Enfield is God given and thus absolutely inalienable.
- SEAGOON
