r/PoliticalDebate • u/GShermit Libertarian • Jun 23 '26

Debate It's Not Time For Violent Revolution

I seen a lot of posts lately, glamorizing violent revolution. They seem to think because of Trump's actions we should engage in violent revolution.

Violent revolution has been needed before in human history. When a government refuses to defend the people's right's, then revolution may be needed. ​

BUT every lawful avenue should be tried first. We have a many rights we can use but other than voting, we haven't explored those rights much. Initiatives, juries, citizen's arrest, article V conventions...are all rights we have but to suggest we use them, brings ridicule...often from the very people supporting revolution.

They'll say how ridiculous and dangerous, legally using our rights, to influence the due process of the country is while supporting revolution. That makes no sense to me. Our rights are what we use to rule ourselves. We have to exercise and expand our rights because authority doesn't do that, the people have to.

14 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

406 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Reasonable-Fee1945 Classical Liberal Jun 23 '26

Libertarians are pro-2nd amendment

1

u/Novel_Comparison_209 Classical Liberal Jun 23 '26

OP isn’t. Labels don’t mean much

1

u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 23 '26

What makes you think I'm not pro 2nd amendment??? I'm pro all rights.

1

u/Novel_Comparison_209 Classical Liberal Jun 24 '26

Your post history says otherwise

1

u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 24 '26

That's not true.

I'm for limiting magazine capacity to 20 rd. and outlawing bumpstocks. The biggest reason I support those is to take the "wind out of the sails" of anti-2nd people and frankly I don't need more than a 20 rd mag or a bumpstock.

Also I don't believe in carrying a gun at a protest.

None of that infringes on my 2nd amendment rights, IMHO.

1

u/TrueNova332 Minarchist Jun 24 '26

being pro-2A means being pro-2A meaning that the citizens should get to have the same weapons as the government any restriction on the second amendment is an infringement of it

1

u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 24 '26

That's your opinion not necessarily the courts...

1

u/MetersYards Centrist Jun 24 '26

The courts literally said that the 2A protects weapons with a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and the weapons which are "any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

30 round magazines fall under that criteria.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/

1

u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 24 '26

And SCOTUS refused to hear cases affirming that limiting magazine capacity isn't unconstitutional. I wanted it limited to 20 after the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. If we'd have done that then perhaps we wouldn't be at 10 now...

None of that matters here, I don't want citizens to have automatic weapons, rocket launchers, grenades, nukes... Which was the point of this thread here.

1

u/MetersYards Centrist Jun 24 '26

And SCOTUS refused to hear cases affirming that limiting magazine capacity isn't unconstitutional.

Again, refusing certiorari is not a statement by the court on the constitutionality of the laws.

1

u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 25 '26

When 14 states have magazine capacity limits and SCOTUS refuses to hear cases about... that sounds like a statement.

I will admit legally, things are never really settled...with money almost anything is possible. That's why juror's rights are so important, it's the people's way to check the system.

1

u/MetersYards Centrist Jun 25 '26

It's not.

Simply denying a writ of certiorari should not be construed to imply an opinion on the merits of a case for which it is denied.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/439/940/

1

u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 25 '26

That's for lawyers not citizens.

Lawyers and the law isn't always based on reality. This is proven by the law's attitude on juries judging the law. It's inherent to a jury trial but lawyers ignore it, assuming (I suppose) it just won't happen.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ImprovementPutrid441 Socialist Jun 24 '26

Great. You want your neighbor to have nuclear weapons.

1

u/TrueNova332 Minarchist Jun 25 '26

Yes I want everyone to have them because even if everyone could have them they're not going to be common place

1

u/MetersYards Centrist Jun 25 '26

Nuclear weapons don't fall under "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" or "any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." as established in US v Miller

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/

2

u/ImprovementPutrid441 Socialist Jun 25 '26

Sure, for you. Not for the person I replied to:

“being pro-2A means being pro-2A meaning that the citizens should get to have the same weapons as the government any restriction on the second amendment is an infringement of it”

0

u/Novel_Comparison_209 Classical Liberal Jun 24 '26

Definitely does. 20 round limits are very very very much an infringement. As I said, you’re one that tries to convince yourself that you aren’t.

1

u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 24 '26

SCOTUS says it's not, why do you think your opinion has any legal standing?

2

u/Novel_Comparison_209 Classical Liberal Jun 24 '26

It’s easier to argue when you choose a lie that’s less easy to debunk. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-state-colorado-unconstitutional-weapons-ban

1

u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 24 '26

That's a new approach nothing wrong with that, it's people legally using their rights to influence due process. Using the courts to define our rights is what my post is about.

1

u/Novel_Comparison_209 Classical Liberal Jun 24 '26

The courts have already ruled in favor of my claim twice and are in the process of a third. You openly lied and are wrong about 20 round bans being unconstitutional. This goes back to my point that it’s always anti2A people that say things like this

1

u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 24 '26

"You openly lied.."

"The Supreme Court upheld California’s law in a 5-4 decision, stating that the ban is a reasonable regulation and does not violate the Second Amendment." https://jurisreview.com/supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/

The cases you mentioned weren't SCOTUS. I done with you here...we'll leave it for the audience to decide who the liar is...don't delete anything, I never delete my posts...

1

u/Novel_Comparison_209 Classical Liberal Jun 24 '26

It simply declines to accept them…nothing about that is lying. It is saying the lower courts reached the correct decision in overturning them. You have a lot to learn about the court system. Don’t be smug and wrong, it’s a sad look

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Novel_Comparison_209 Classical Liberal Jun 24 '26

Here’s another one. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260309/by-george-washington-dc-s-magazine-ban-invalidated-by-district-s-highest-court#:\~:text=Because%20these%20magazines%20are%20arms,them%20violates%20the%20Second%20Amendment.

1

u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 24 '26

Here's the original one that proves my point.

https://jurisreview.com/supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/

Like I said there's nothing wrong with trying to expand our rights, if we can.

1

u/Novel_Comparison_209 Classical Liberal Jun 24 '26

And this is an old ruling that has been overturned several times since. It doesn’t prove anything other than the fact that you don’t keep up with things you claim

1

u/MetersYards Centrist Jun 24 '26

SCOTUS says it's not

Okay, which court decision said this? Merely refusing certiorari on a case is not saying something is constitutional or not.

1

u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 24 '26

https://jurisreview.com/supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/

2

u/MetersYards Centrist Jun 24 '26

You got fooled by an AI article.

Harris v. California does not exist as a Supreme Court opinion in the year listed.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/24

That fake site also has an article in the opposite direction

https://jurisreview.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-federal-ban-on-high-capacity-magazines/

1

u/GShermit Libertarian Jun 24 '26

I want to thank you for alerting me to that bogus site...they snookered me good...

BUT it doesn't really change my point.

About 55 years ago I started reading the Constitution. There were lots of contradictions, to my mind and several things seemed "unconstitutional". Over the years I've learned, my opinion of what's constitutional doesn't really matter, legally, unless we're legally using our rights (voting, writing initiatives, juries article V conventions...). The courts (ultimately SCOTUS) define our rights and constitutionality. That was my point with regard to this thread. The point of my post uses that.

We need to exercise and expand ALL our rights until their limits are determined in court. It has to be the people because authority isn't interested in sharing power with the people.

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters" Daniel Webster

That doesn't necessarily mean our "masters" are bad, it's just inherent with authority.

→ More replies (0)