Do the same people who support gun ownership to protect against a tyrannical government also support...?

Question

the government spying on its citizens without oversight?

Maybe these are two different groups of people but I don't think so.

What's up with that? How can you trust the govt in one case and not in the other?

Dear mayor; Listening in on phone calls and reading emails without a warrant from the FISA court is exactly eavesdropping without oversight.

To Dan K; no need to insult me. How do you know the government is only listening to terrorists? You have to TRUST that that's what they're doing. Do you trust the govt or not? That's how the two are connected.

Answer 1

Gun ownership is an actual right that actually exists in the Constitution. Privacy was 'discovered' in the 'prenumbras' of the Constitution less than 60 years ago. Property is specifically protected but privacy is not. The right to keep and bear arms is essential to maintaining a free country. The right to privacy is not. Just ask any reporter if you have a right to privacy when they shout 'how do you feel now that your whole family burned to death?' en masse.

That doesn't mean that I think the government, either federal or local, should be spying on us with or without oversight. And oversight, of course, is just another branch of government. I don't see what difference it makes if Congress or a Federal Judge or a local judge oversees the Executive branch. They're all on the same team these days, and the judiciary is the most tyrannical of branches, having abandoned their original role as the timocratic portion of our government by declaring themselves an aristocracy in the oldest sense of the word.

I'm not afraid of the Patriot Act because it really is more important for the federal government to protect our lives than our privacy. They have a Constitutional mandate to protect our lives; it's their primary function. Protecting individual privacy is nowhere in the Consitution and Bill of Rights, hence it rates a little lower on the scale. The federal government is supposed to protect life, liberty and property in that order, and while I'm not one of those aching to trade liberty for security I understand that there has to be a trade-off in some cases.

What's really funny though is how all these terrified johnny-come-lately civil libertarians are terrified of the Patriot Act but said nary a word when the news of Echelon and Carnivore came out in the mid-90s. So the NSA's software that picks up and records all telephone and cell-phone conversations with a few key words is no problem because Clinton is President, but now that Bush is Pres we're all scared scared SCARED!

Of course Echelon didn't scare me either. I purposely used as many of the key words as I could in a joking way. For all I know there's a file on me at the NSA because I said 'bomb' 'terror' and 'plot' lots of times in the 90s. So what? If someday a big fat balding unshaven Mormon guy is implicated the bombing of a train station in New York they might come and look me up and I might have to demonstrate that I had nothing to do with it, which is no easy thing at any time. I accept that as one of the possible costs of liberty.

Political liberty is not the same thing as individual license. Simply because mores change over time and things that once were crimes become socially normalized before they're legalized doesn't mean that personal prejudices should always trump the law. If you want to look at pictures of naked children on the internet go ahead. But when they throw you in jail (and hopefully throw away the key) the fact that lots of people are trying desperately to normalize kiddie porn is no excuse, and your right to privacy in that sense leaves me totally unmoved.

Those of use who are firm believers in the Constitution, including the right to bear arms, believe in a Constitutional Federal Republic, not a democracy. Democracy is shorthand for Constitutional Federal Republic nowadays, but it is really not the same thing, and conflating the two has caused all kinds of confusion. Just because something is supported by a majority doesn't make it right, prudent, or justified. I'm sure a majority of Americans think that privacy is spelled out in the Constitution as a right. They're wrong. A survey a few years ago had a majority of Americans believing that 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' was in the Constitution. Wrong again.

The whole point of a republic is to avoid the pitfalls of mob rule, which is what democracy is, and to avoid the pitfalls of despotism, and to avoid the pitfalls of oligarchy, by combining them together and diffusing power amongst the states/provinces and cities. Concentrating power at the federal level, which has been the Democratic Party goal since Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme Court and marched the Five Tribes off to Oklahoma, is the standard route democracy takes. Mob rule historically speaking ALWAYS leads to despotism, so it's no surprise.

So now the same people that spent decades concentrating power into federal hands, and especially the presidency, are suddenly absolutely terrified of it. What did you expect? And now you can be grateful for the 2nd Amendment, which along with the honor culture in our military is all that stands between America and despotism.

Answer 2

First of all, no one ever said that having 'your guns' would/could fight off a tyrannical U.S government. Armed citizens would only protect themselves from individuals such as those locked up in our prisons and/or those wanting to bring harm to them or their property. I'd be the first to shoot my colt .45 at anyone trying to rob my house, steal my property or bring bodily injury to me or my family. Secondly I can tell you, that if Obama even tried to order the Armed Forces to turn against civilians, who have done nothing wrong, that would be against the Constitution (provided he doesn't destroy it) that they would not al just follow orders. (Which could be why he wants his own armed and well equipped National Civilian Security Force) I believe that the Armed Forces would turn on a tyrannical government before turning on it's own people who they are sworn to protect & a dictator would fall into the category of an enemy of the United States. And to answer your last question, no one would be able to 'beat' them...well with the exception of a few people I know that have a literal arsenal - but they could only hold them off, not defeat them. It wouldn't be possible - however as stated I don't think the USAF would ever take orders from a crazy delusional dictator if one were to arise.

Answer 3

I support gun ownership for protection against burglars and yes, maybe an invading nation, but not for protection against my own government. My friend, not everyone in Washington can be a traitor to our nation.

I don't support spying on citizens, but I trust our government to know our enemies. Because of 911, I expect our government to know our enemies better than they once knew them.

There is a criticism in this country that is bringing our nation down and this must stop. Call it racism, call it stereotyping, but 19 muslim arabs flew 4 airplanes and killed Americans.

If you are muslim arab and live in America, you are being watched by me and my government. It is not racism; it is not stereotyping, it is not hate mongering, but what it is - is knowing what my enemy looks like. Forty years ago muslim arabs were few and far between. In the 1973 oil crisis, I started noticing my first group of arab muslims. I see them on TV all the time fussing with Israel. Why wouldn't I worry about arab muslims?

Answer 4

You are completely unrealistic.
The population of the USA is what? 300million? How many phone calls do 300million people make? How many people does it take to "listen" to a phone call? If it took one to listen, then only 1/2 of the phone calls could be monitored at a given time and that would require EVERYONE in the USA to be on the phone at the same time.
The phone calls which the government monitors are between people or places of interest and someone in the US. Or between suspects in the US. That is a tiny number of phone calls. And, the result of this listening cannot be used in court because of the way the information was received. Terrorists outside the US do not have civil rights under the constitution and won't as long as Democrats don't give it to them!

Answer 5

You were born with a right to keep and bear arms. This is merely an extension of your right to protect yourself. You were also born with the right to privacy. These rights were endowed to you by your creator and are unalienable. They are listed in the Constitution that is the law of our land.

2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Answer 6

I support gun ownership and it is in our Constitution with the right to bare arms.

I do not support spying on citizens or torture.

I do not understand why people would not want a gun in case of an emergency. You might even have to hunt for food or protect whats yours in a disaster.
It sounds to me like Russia used to be with the spying and no way to protect yourself.

Answer 7

No. I am a liberal with guns. There is no way I would support unconstitutional spying. There is no way to trust this government.
I've just read some of the comments. Much of what you have to say about gun owners isn't true. I grew up in a liberal family. My father owned a gun business. Most of my liberal family and friends own guns. None of us have a miltia attitude. When we hunt it is for food and it is done sober. The children are put thru gun safety classes and then taught more at home. The guns are under lock and key. Your assumptions are way off.

Answer 8

The government can listen to all the terrorists that it wants to without infringing on my rights. If the government does try to take away my rights, I'll have my gun in my hand to protect myself and my possessions. I'm not sure how this is confusing.

Answer 9

Take a minute and try to understand a basic concept. The two issues you mention are totally unrelated. How does an individual's right to owning a weapon to defend himself and family have anything to do with the government trying to weed out those who would harm/kill us? It sounds like just more lefty liberal gibberish to me. No one is concerned about your personal conversations! Unless you are aiding and arming terrorists you have nothing to fear.
TO "THE PRESIDENT": I'm afraid to ask what country you represent. A refresher course for you and your fellow group-thinkers is needed. Now read this very s-l-o-w-l-y so you will comprehend.There are people (I use the term loosely) who would revel in the death of those who do not support their own religious philosophy. In case you haven't heard, they are known as radical extremists or terrorists. Your government is responsible for providing security against them and, at times, may have to listen in on conversations/communications that might be construed as terrorist related in nature. Now sit down, have a banana and finish reading your New York Times!
TO DIZZ: Then ask questions that are direct and concise. Don't mix apples with oranges!

Answer 10

To be honest, most of the gun owners that I know are unabashedly against the military having it's hands in their business. I can't say that I know any that support both of those at the same time.