Guns vs. Tyranny

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

There's a lot of talk lately about guns being necessary as a defense against tyranny, complete with comparisons to Stalin and Hitler and such. The "Right to revolution" is also mentioned sometimes. But in a democracy, how is this actually supposed to work?

We see situations (such as the Middle East) where fledgling democracies aren't working because the response to your candidate losing an election is violence. Clearly some people on the right-wing fringe in the US are convinced that Obama is destroying the nation, etc. etc. So what does the "right to revolution" mean for them?

There's also mention of resisting authority. Someone on my FB wall just posted something that showed the WW2 internment of Japanese-Americans as an example of why the populace needs guns, but didn't really elaborate on that. Does any citizen who disagrees with a law have the right to use guns against authority figures trying to enforce the law?

Even the founders, who had lived through and participated (and led) a revolution, were still fairly decisive in putting down rebellions and civil unrest early in the US' existence. When the Whiskey Rebellion happened, the founders didn't think "Well hey, they've got a right to revolution."

(Not to mention that we clearly don't recognize a right for the Taliban to revolt in Afghanistan.)

So what does it all mean? An actual codified, lawful right to revolution makes no sense in a democracy, but I'm unclear about what else it can mean.

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And you are presupposing that losing an election, the only historical reason for secession/revolution rhetoric that leads to practical action, is the same as losing the right to vote a leader out of office.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Losing an election is the only way revolution "rhetoric" leads to practical action? Are we discussing the American Civil War here?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It is in the United States. The Hartford Convention didn't lead to practical action and Vietnam didn't lead to any attempts at secession.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

So your position is the only way such a revolution or session can occur is if the situation is similar to that of the only singular time it happened in US history? I'm not even going to argue against such an argument, as the reasons for it being false are rather self-evident.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm arguing that this is the only thing that gets people to actually do something, which calls into question whether their issue has ever been the right or lack thereof for secession. Adding in that every single attempt is asserted by appeal to the battlefield........

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

So it is your position that the only way a meaningful number of people can be moved to arm resistance is their candidate losing an election?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

My position is that this is the only thing that gtes people in the USA motivated to secede. You're the one who's trying to read into it something that's never there.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Based on what then?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Based on assuming some kind of judgmental connotation to my statement that only the only successful secession attempts come after one side is butthurt after losing an election it deliberately ensured it lost, presumably.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

So, ya, like I said. 'If it hasn't happened yet, it isn't possible.'

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Unlike you I'm arguing from what has been the case, not what might have been. That's a good means to make money by publishing sci-fi novels, but a poor argument in a political sense.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Unlike you I'm arguing from what has been the case, not what might have been.

Correction: "Unlike you I'm arguing from what has been the case, not what could come to pass." Which is cool and all, but in a "political sense" we argue what could come to pass all the time.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No, we only show mirrors of ourselves as only a lucky few predict what could come to pass with even a superficial accuracy.