48 caliber consensus?

[madmon]

45 caliber consensus?

I'm increasingly becoming very cynical of "democracy." People absolutely do not have the right to vote my God given rights away. I'm sure many people here would agree with me on that issue.

I'm wondering, however, how to build true consensual governments. Al Qaeda and the Taliban claim they are fighting for self-determination. In a sense they are because they have more right to determine the political situation in their region than Americans do.

I'm bothered by the use of force, though. Is it possible to protect individual and local community rights without armed conflict? What are some of the strategies of doing that?

Bearing arms have two purposes IMO:

1. Protecting yourself, your family, and your community against aggression.
2. Protecting against political oppression.

I would say for all intents and purposes #2 has been extracted from our society. Ironically, the individual right to bear arms interpretation of the 2nd amendment suppresses a more important militia interpretation in that militias are more qualified to protect political rights of people than individuals.

Political protection via arms is all but dead in this country. We need other alternatives, though. Any ideas? Is it possible to build a consensual government system without the threat of force by minorities who see their rights being taken away?

 

[Gideon]

48 calibre?

...

Bearing arms have two purposes IMO:

1. Protecting yourself, your family, and your community against aggression.
2. Protecting against political oppression.

I would say for all intents and purposes #2 has been extracted from our society. Ironically, the individual right to bear arms interpretation of the 2nd amendment suppresses a more important militia interpretation in that militias are more qualified to protect political rights of people than individuals.

Political protection via arms is all but dead in this country. We need other alternatives, though. Any ideas? Is it possible to build a consensual government system without the threat of force by minorities who see their rights being taken away?

In answer to your last question:

No!

Bill of Rights Article 9 specifically states that all ten articles in the Bill of Rights are equal, but to quote George Orwell's Collectivist Pig, "Some are more equal than others."

BoR Article 2 is The Great Equalizer which empowers and enables you and me to deal with usurpers, tyrants, and thugs functioning under color of authority.


To paraphrase Stratiotes:

"The militia are the enforcers of the Constitution."


P.S.

You really had me going with .48 calibre...

 

[Pericles]

The reason for #2 is the result of the war between the states.

The whole militia system was designed around the concept that any systematic destruction of rights would be met by an armed population. The states could call forth the militia to counter the federal government, and the county could call forth the local militia to meet local needs, and have a smaller sized force at its call.

The design was to use the companies formed at the county / city level into regiments at the state level, and create a national army at the federal level. This is why traditionally, the companies at the local level chose their captain, lieutenants, and NCOs, the the state chose the colonel, lt. colonel, and major for the regiments, and generals were selected by the US President with confirmation by the US Senate.

As long as a substantial minority could mount effective armed resistance, the system worked. When the Confederacy was defeated, the effective militia system died with it.