Over due reply to Dante:
That would depend on the definition of "our government", methinks.
I don’t think so. It is a general principle. The specifics come into play only after that general principle is established.
Nope, not yet.
Why not? Legal, deserving citizens were kept from their right to vote. And as you pointed out, even minority groups are supposed to have equal rights. They did not receive their equal rights to vote. Why do you make an exception for them when you explicitly describe their situation as one where you would condone the execution of governmental agents?
Or are you saying it only counts once voting is canceled or overridden or otherwise made impotent?
Yup.
See above. In 2012 we had villains in the governors’ mansions in Texas, Florida, and Wisconsin (to name just three) who purged voter rolls before the election. They moved voting machines from precincts that were unlikely to vote for their preferred candidate to make voting more onerous and time consuming.
This all seems to fit your criteria. It seems to me that by your interpretation of the 2ndA, citizens of those states had a constitutional right to storm the capitals and remove the tyrants. If you disagree with my conclusion, please explain why.
If so, How about when the SCOTUS declared GW Bush the winner? …
I think I know where you're going with this, as I've seen your argument before. And, it's not without validity. Luckily, cooler heads did prevail, violence was adverted, and the republic continued to function in the way it was designed. For awhile anyway.
That does not answer my question. This appears to be a situation that exactly fits the criterion you laid out above. The SCOTUS made void the will of the majority of voters. How does that not justify assaulting DC, purging the SCOTUS, imprisoning the Bush campaign and installing the dully elected administration? It seems to completely fit your constitutional interpretation.
I am not trying to be hyperbolic. I honestly do not understand your position. You say the requirement is X, and then when I provide examples of X, you disagree but do not really explain why.
What if we still have free elections but the choices were all rigged
You may. There will likely be consequences.
Of course there will be consequence. That is a trivial and does not answer the question. I have proposed what I feel is a realistic view of tyranny and how it would operate. And you have not really given a response. If you are not going to participate, then please say so. I’ve spent a lot of time with these posts and if you are not going to give them serious consideration, I’d rather just drop it.
I didn't say anything about the weight of their votes, only their rights. And, possibly, if their rights are being tyrannically trampled, they should revolt.
But that is not the context of what we were talking about. It is answering a question I’ve not asked. I wanted to know who gets to decide when to revolt. I pointed out that a minority of a minority
right now sorta-kinda want to revolt because they think we are living under a tyranny. I think they are just sore losers. You seem to disagree with them. Yet you seem to think that
in principle they should be guaranteed the ability to form an insurrection. I don’t understand. Your views do not seem coherent. Please help me out. Fill in the blanks.
Case in point: Rodney King…
How did it work out anyway? More of the same? If so, perhaps they (the oppressed) need to learn how to educate and motivate the majority.
I don’t think that really addresses the question. You seem to be arguing against your own point. The obvious answer, from a pro-gun perspective I think, is to say they got more of the same because they
didn’t murder their elected officials. Had they done what the constitution guarantees – violently rebel – they would have unshackled their chains. Instead, they continue under tyranny to this day.
I say, in a democracy revolt is unacceptable. Sure, there are more than a few politicians and media personalities I would like to set on fire. I fantasized for 6 years about an uprising that ended in the Bush administration hanging from the Capital Building. But that cannot happen. It is a rejection of the rules. It is a return to barbarism. And so are all these 2ndA fantasies that the pro-gun crowd has about “watering the Tree of Liberty”.
You seem to hold two opposing positions simultaneously. It seems obvious that you don’t want a revolt. At least, you don’t want
them to revolt.
Them, being anyone who isn’t
you. So you want that right for yourself, for when
you think it is necessary. But that’s the problem with saying that the constitution ensures the right to revolt
in principle. You don’t get to pick who will or won’t revolt.
So the questions remain. What are the circumstances that demand a revolt and who gets to decide? I thought you were clear on that, but you have rejected every scenario that I think meets your criteria. So I’m confused.
And perhaps they're correct. But until Obama, or Jeb Bush, or whoever proclaims the Constitution invalid, we can still use the power of the vote, as defined in our laws and constitution, to affect change.
Ah. So, it’s not
just about voting. The constitution must be
declared invalid.
The despot must come on the TeeVee, stand on the desk in the Oval Office, tear the Bill of Rights into pieces, while cackling maniacally, and then look into the camera and say “The constitution is OVER!”
After
that, all the god-loving, gun-toting patriots will take that as their go-ahead. They will assemble and march on Washington DC, while singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic. They will have to shoot a small cadre of private guard loyal to the Tyrant, but most of the police and military will be on their side. Ted Nugent himself will personally use an M-60 that has been made into an electric guitar to bayonet the Tyrant. He will then play the national anthem on his gun/axe, with the despot's viscera dangling from the tuning keys.
Michael Bay should direct that.
Of course, that’s not going to happen. None of it. Because it’s all fantasy. All the savvy tyrants know that you don’t need to declare the BoR dead to destroy it. They just need to carve out enough exceptions to make it completely useless.
Rights can be whittled away to nothing but still be technically on the books. They’re doing it to abortion. They’ve done it to our communications. They’ve done it to due process and habeas corpus. No tyrant had to declare anything invalid. They just had to tell us it was for security, and we begged for more. Tyranny can thrive by making people
think they have rights. It is so much simpler to conquer that way than to rub their faces in it.
The pro-gun folks I have heard from have not thought about this in anything approaching a realistic way. They’ve not considered what tyranny really is. And I don’t think they really want to. It’s a convenient and rather self-aggrandizing justification for them keeping their guns, which is all they really want. They have no intention of actually revolting. Pussies.
Nor have they considered the ramifications of a guaranteed right of revolution. It means
anyone can do it.
I don't know, nor do I pretend to know.
Then you’ve not really thought about this. It is a principle you believe and cling to, but you have not critically examined that belief. You should.
they could inflict considerable damage, and probably take over Texas.
? They already
have Texas. I assume when the revolution starts it will be the USA vs Texas and it's buffer states.
but I hope you see my general point.
I don’t. I really don’t.
We're not going to have a vote to overthrow the gov't, because if we could, it wouldn't be a tyranny.
But we can’t do it
now. The repubs
right now think Obama is a secret muslim communist fascist trying to destroy America
and they cannot vote him out. Of course, they cannot do that because they lost the election. But they don’t care about that detail. I’ve heard and read people say they lost the election because Obama rigged it. This is like a religious belief to them. There is no evidence that would change their minds.
I’m trying to get you to see that your perspective is a dangerous one. You want a principle that is dangerous specifically because it is so subjective and open to interpretation and you cannot control it.
As far as who gets to decide? Hell, I don't exactly know, but my guess it will be whomever gets enough of an organization together, whether tightly knit or fractured, right or wrong, and actually overthrows the gov't.
Well, that’s a recipe for total mayhem, isn’t it? That is a total disregard for the rule of law. It is anarchy. That’s where the Second Amendment, as interpreted by many, lands you.
