Thank you for responding. Before I respond to your reply directly, are you saying the second amendment is the right to violently revolt against our government?
That would depend on the definition of "our government", methinks. Currently? No. In a future, perhaps not too distant, given the practices of the current and former regimes we've been having of late? Maybe.
My opinion would be that it isn't a tyranny until the constitutional voting process is null and void.
Do GOP efforts to purge voter rolls and inhibit voter turnout count? Do the poor and non-white people have the go-ahead to murder police and GOP officials who pass these laws?
Nope, not yet.
Or are you saying it only counts once voting is canceled or overridden or otherwise made impotent?
If so, How about when the SCOTUS declared GW Bush the winner? Would democrats have been within their constitutional rights to purge the SCOTUS, hang the entire Bush campaign and kill anyone who got in the way of that justice? They were in the majority, afterall.
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.
What if we still have free elections but the choices were all rigged? Like the Simpsons episode when both candidates were aliens? Or like in reality when both candidates represent the interests of the rich? May I shoot a
congressman tyrant who votes against closing corporate tax loopholes? (Please say yes)
You may. There will likely be consequences.
Tough question, but remember; the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic. The rights of the minority are supposed to have equal weight.
I agree with all those statements as stand alone statements, but I don't think they answer my question. Your reply does not fit the context I presented. The minority do have equal weight when voting, in that each person's vote counts the same. But not in the sense that their lower vote total carries the same weight as a higher vote total. Their guy got fewer votes. They lost.
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. Or move to Texas.
And it does not address who gets to decide. If 44% of republicans decide they cannot tolerate an Obama administration any longer, do they get to usurp the majority, kill a whole bunch of people and call it constitutional? Is that what Thomas Jefferson intended?
Again, I think I know your argument here. You (and most sane people) would much rather them organize and get their vindication through the voting process. I don't disagree.
My point was not about bigotry, though I can see how it would appear to be. In my haste I was not thorough enough. My point was about perspective. I think the non-whites in this country have some legitimate grievances. And since the majority of gun fanatics are white, the idea of a minority revolt would not likely sit well, not because of prejudice necessarily, but because they do not have the same problems and so do not see the problems.
Hence the comment about motivations.
I cannot see how it would be seen as a righteous and constitutional rebellion. It would be seen as a riot. Historic precedence is on my side.
Case in point: Rodney King. The black community in LA has long had grievances against the LAPD. But the officials have ignored them. In a real sense, that is a tyranny. Government was not working for them.
Supposing they had acted in a more focused way than just burning cars and breaking windows, would they have been within their rights killing a bunch of LAPD officers, a couple of precinct captains, the chief, a few members the city board and possibly the mayor?
How would that have worked out for them? Secondary question, how would new officials be selected and would they have a different policy? If the white majority elected more of the same, then what?
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. Or move to Texas.
As long as they're elected, it doesn't fit the definition of tyrannical.
I think you can still have elections under a tyranny. Iran has elections, but I think their government is a tyranny.
George Bush was elected (once). He is the precipitator of the Patriot Act. I consider that to be a tyrannical piece of legislation. He did a lot of other tyrannical shit to.
I think Obama's prosecution of whistleblowers (I do not count the Benghaziacs among them) is tyrannical. So is his continuation of other Bush era policies. Yet he was elected twice.
Many states have been gerrymandered to the point where even though the majority of people voted democratic, more republicans hold office. I see that as a form of tyranny.
44% of republicans (probably more) think Obama is a tyrant who may need to be deposed for doing what the majority of voters want.
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.
How does the Second American Civil War shake out?
I don't know, nor do I pretend to know. I do know, however, that if the 44% of your Repubs organized, right now, they could inflict considerable damage, and probably take over Texas.
And if they thought violent rebellion was the solution, why did they bother with a very sophisticated egalitarian system? They insisted on a nation of laws, not men. And insurgency is the exact opposite of that.
Only if the laws are just, and don’t limit the life, liberty, and pursuit of my happiness. Or contradict the entirety or spirit of the Constitution. Yeah, it's probably a tad more complicated than that, but I hope you see my general point. We're not going to have a vote to overthrow the gov't, because if we could, it wouldn't be a tyranny.
I'm well aware that this country is moving dangerously toward a tyrannical form of government, with the Patriot Act, Guantanemo, drone strikes, SuperPACs, et al….and there are plenty of injustices in it. And no, I don't think our current status requires armed revolt, because, alledgedly, we still have the power with the people, in the form of votes and elections. But, that's not to say that it would never be required.
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.