im supposed to write a paper on this and im stumped
2007-10-24 11:17:46 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
oh ya, i do live in the us.
2007-10-24 11:28:45 · update #1
heck.....so many good answers........
2007-10-24 11:29:34 · update #2
thanks alot! i got a great grade! i cant choose who was best (they were all great answers) ill put it to vote.
p.s. my spelling is better when im writing a paper
2007-10-26 12:07:56 · update #3
Legally -- there are no such times -- the law doesn't allow armed resistance to government action.
Morally and philosophically -- there comes a point where the govt has become so corrupted and has so broken the basic covenant of fair dealing with the people -- that revolution is required -- and that is when armed revolt can and must occur.
No govt is going to provide rules that allow power to be take away from it -- and therefore the turning point comes when the govt is no longer worthy of such power and when the govt has betrayed its basic foundations -- in the US, that's when it has betrayed the Constitution and denied people their rights under law
2007-10-24 12:24:52 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
why guns in particular? Why don't you say with "force" or "weapons"?
Fortunatly (perhaps) we live in an apparantly advanced western civilizations where we have a vote and a voice and many more freedoms. If you feel you have a freedom that needs to be defended you have many, many other avenues of action.
When though, is it right to defend your freedoms with force? When your life, or the lives of others are in direct and iminent danger and no other avenue of action could be effective or would have been effective had it been initiated in time. Also when that direct and iminent danger comes from a source that is in opposition to your basic human rights... Then, it may be acceptable to defend your self and others with potentially leathal force.
Why guns though? i dont get it? make a point of sayign guns is an unhelpful term that carries its own baggage that gets in the way of the point... "potentially leathal force" is a much better term
2007-10-24 19:03:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
when you country's sovereignty is under attack. it is the terms of sovereignty, in a social compact, that allots you rights and freedoms in the first place.
So, if it is your rights and freedoms at risk, then it is only sovereignty that can be under attack.
Not sure if you are in the US, but if you are, then that is precisely why the mysterious clause in the 2nd amendment is there about a "for the purposes of a well regulated militia".
2007-10-24 18:25:03 · answer #3 · answered by Barry C 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Google "Declaration of Independence".
2007-10-24 20:12:36 · answer #4 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Self defense for one.
2007-10-24 18:22:04 · answer #5 · answered by vladoviking 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When all other attempts to do so without resorting to violence has failed, or the government attempts to disarm you.
2007-10-24 18:25:40 · answer #6 · answered by theseeker4 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
when someone is threatening your rights with a gun.
2007-10-24 18:26:02 · answer #7 · answered by lisalisatheoneiadore 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋