They want to rise up and subvert democracy via violence, then I hope that the national guard puts them down one by one.
I’m all for airing greviances, protesting, and using every means needed within the democratic system to get your point across. But if they bring violance to my state, then they should be put down like dogs.
So long as the nonviolent and democratic options are functional, no revolutionary tactics that involve the suffering of other should ever be employed.
I wondered what would be a good line to draw for when violence is acceptable, the closest answer I have come to is it is completely personal, but what matters is if you actually can win.
The second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence addresses this very question. I broke up the paragraph for easier reading, know it’s all formatted as one paragraph, though;
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Full text
It then goes on to list the things King George did to cause The Revolution.
The points I think are worth emphasizing to be more direct are:
Revolution is warranted when Governments become:
- Destructive to their purpose of securing Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,
- “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
So what is “tyranny”? The way I see it, The Constitution gave us a list of rights that if truly respected, make a State ineligable to be called a tyrannical one.
The issue is, that Bill of Rights has not been respected.
Red Flag laws violate the First (getting SWAT’d for something you said), Second (confiscating your arms), Fourth (unreasonable search and seizure) and Fifth (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process) amendments.
Civil Forfeiture violates the Fourth and Fifth. (Fifth: “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”)
But to me personally, the biggest “red flag” against a State whereby it “evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism” is when it attempts to disarm its citizens. To quote The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
[emphasis added to both quotes]
Sometimes I wonder if foreigners think we’re crazy for how Americans so strongly don’t believe such a thing could happen here. Meanwhile every election we don’t vote for people we like but people we hate the least. People on the right generally don’t need to be told how important keeping their arms is, but for some reason people on the left - at least the gun-grabbers - don’t seem to believe tyranny is possible, at the same time they call Trump a tyrant and say we have concentration camps because of ICE border facilities (which Obama built, btw).
It’s certainly unusual for me to agree with
Karl Marx, but on one point, I very strongly do:
And another version of the quote reads; “The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammuniation, and the revival of old-style citizens militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed.”
On that note, I’d add that the 2nd Amendment reads “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.”
Firstly, in 18th century English “well-regulated” meant something more in the vicinity of “well-equipped/armed/trained/disciplined/skilled”. Given this was well within living memory of, and the writers were part or supporters of The Revolutionary war - context makes it extremely clear what “being necessary to the security of a free State” meant, and the Supreme Court’s even recently recognized that it extends to individuals. Given the key role Minutemen played in the Revolution, that should be clear.
So, it said The People should be well-armed, privately owned cannons and minutemen played important roles in The Revolution, I think it’s extremely clear with any minute of thought that it means we have a right to automatic, military-grade weapons and ammunition, meaning laws like the NFA, dating all the way back to 1934, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 are both clearly unconstitutional.
Now they’ve tried to ban “Assault-style” weapons, some states have, and other accessories vital to the upholding of the Second Amendment.
It only takes two points to make a line, but three defines an exponential curve. A clear design to make the people easy to reduce to a state of absolute despotism is being evinced, and as such, it is not only our right, but our duty to oppose, and even resist it.
Now, don’t take me the wrong way - I don’t take violence lightly, and lone actors accomplish nothing. I also think Virginia’s “we will not comply” response is… roughly sufficient, probably, assuming the system will fix this infringement through peaceful means. This leaves the ball in the government’s court if they want to escalate their infringement through enforcement.
But my main point here is in response to this sentiment:
@Zincy
But if they bring violance to my state, then they should be put down like dogs.
These people aren’t dogs. You actually agree with them, based on your quotes (like “So long as the nonviolent and democratic options are functional”). The only difference is at what point do you declare a system non-functional?
Imagine if a wife and husband had saved up, and the man wanted an airplane and the woman wanted a boat, so they decided to wait until they could agree on it - then the woman adopts a 17-year old who really wanted to go boating, and declared her vote won.
Because there’s no voter ID requirements, immigrants and minorities vote overwhelmingly Democrat, so they’re - not even just the illegal, but even the legal ones, too - importing millions of votes.
To say nothing of the fact that as y’all are discussing, the Dems aren’t even fielding candidates you like. Very few people actually like the candidates.
And Unconstitutional laws are being passed at a huge rate, and many lives are destroyed, people arrested or even shot and killed, before the Supreme Court, after 10 years and a million dollars of legal battles, may or may not decide to uphold our Constitutional right that was infringed.
So at what point do you decide it’s not “functional”?
Well, those militias you say you’d want put down like dogs said the line is when you’ve crossed the line of no return into tyranny - when The People are no longer able to defend themselves if democracy is non-functional.
Perhaps you can see the paradox here - should people wait until the only measure they have to stop tyranny is a non-functional democratic system?
Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s words echo in my mind, “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if…”
Never forget you can only talk about the 9th Amendment with your 1st Amendment because our Founders were willing to write them with powder and blood. “Blood makes the green grass grow.” It’s horrible, but it’s better than tyranny, unless you like how Hong Kong looks, because that’s what happens when you don’t have an honored 2nd Amendment.
As an aside on COVID-19, I’m 100% in support of the National Guard setting up field hospitals. I even think some degree of quarantine, assuming food, water, and medical logistics are taken care of, is acceptable. But they’d better not think they can chill the 2nd Amendment, because I don’t trust them to ever give it back.
All this being said, I’m not a fan of violence or lone actors. There’s a very wide range of action between “just talk” and crime. Fortunately our system is still functional to some degree, and I’d much prefer to see it pleasantly surprise me by honoring our rights our forefathers earned with blood and powder.
But do bear in mind the warnings from Nazi Germany - and don’t forget that Nazi Germany was immediately preceded by the Wiemar Republic, and literally happened while Antifa was around fighting them, and if you’ll forgive me for being a bit too on-the-nose with liberally rewording it,
At first they came for the immigrants, and I did nothing, because I am not an immigrant. Then they came for the antifascists, and I was silent, because I was not an antifascist. Then they came for the militias, and I did nothing, because I was not a militiaman. Then they went for the guns, and I did nothing, because I thought “civilians shouldn’t own assault-style weapons”. Then they came for [“the lgbts”/“minorities”/“me”, take your pick], and nothing could be done, because we were unarmed
And how we burned in the [detention centers] later, thinking: What would things have been like if…
I’m being generous, too. I actually think it’s fair for illegals to be deported, and I’m no fan of Antifa. But the 2nd Amendment is something I believe in nearly religiously.
@Typhoon2000
And even beyond, if the son of a bitch manages to “persuade” the constitutional court to do away with the term limit completely.
Say what you want about the current state of the US political system, at least it’s not Russia (yet).
And that’s the sad thing. I still really do think, even after all this, that it’s the best country on Earth for respecting man’s natural rights.
But that’s no excuse to violate The Constitution. Just because the rest of the world doesn’t recognize inalienable rights to the degree we do doesn’t mean we can honor them less, as long as it’s more than they do. And we’ve got a long way to go to fix the hypocrisy of calling them “inalienable” then revoking them so willingly with the prison and judicial systems.
The Constitution makes it clear what constitutes legitimate United States government. For peace, we tolerate infringements as differences in interpretation, even when the meaning is so clear. But they really shouldn’t keep pushing their luck. I don’t know who honestly believes that the Founders would’ve been okay with Civil Forfeiture or the NSA. I’ve seen many, many people saying our Founders would’ve been shooting by now.
Apologies on the sheer length of this. I’ll try to be more brief, but I feel there’s a lot of important things to mention and go over. But writing these does take quite some time. Fortunately reading them is much quicker.
