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

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

How would that right be taken away? They have to vote in a corrupt Senate, President, and House in order to pass legislation that removes... democracy... and then they need to bribe all the courts because that goes against the Constitution, then they need to bribe SCOTUS. The idea that this could happen instantly, or ever, is a paranoid delusion and it illustrates exactly the sort of tinfoil hattery that I keep seeing with these 'last line of defense' people.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

How would that right be taken away? They have to vote in a corrupt Senate, President, and House in order to pass legislation that removes... democracy... and then they need to bribe all the courts because that goes against the Constitution, then they need to bribe SCOTUS.

I don't know, maybe people started thinking that the Constitution is "clearly an outdated piece of shit that this country clings to for selfish reasons" (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1643533.html?thread=131439885#t131439885) and it is no more? Speaking more realistically, perhaps it starts with some horrific attack that makes 9/11 look like a speech interrupted by code pink activist. It convinces the legislative branch that perhaps there is a need for the President to stay in power longer than eight years and removes term limits. During said President's 4th term, they decides hey, this Supreme Court is pissing me off, I'm going to add 9 new seats to the Supreme Court and add in Justices that will do what I tell them to. 'No way a President might try such a thing,' one may say, but wait FDR tried it. See the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. Maybe they will go the Lincoln route and just straight up ignore the Federal courts. Perhaps the President then decides that elections are becoming bothersome, so they decide to get ride of them. Why not!? The Supreme Court is in his pocket or doesn't matter. And it goes on and on.

The idea that this could happen instantly, or ever, is a paranoid delusion and it illustrates exactly the sort of tinfoil hattery that I keep seeing with these 'last line of defense' people.

I don't know, but you just argued that the Constitution doesn't protect our rights a few days ago, but now you are arguing that is exactly what it does, and people who believe that someone might have the balls to completely ignore the Constitution and claim ultimate power as a paranoid delusion holder.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

so it's your contention that had FDR not died in office, he would still... be in office?

Yeah, FDR tried it. It didn't work.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

so it's your contention that had FDR not died in office, he would still... be in office?
No. I guarantee that he would have at least served 3 terms though.

Yeah, FDR tried it. It didn't work.
Not claiming it did.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Of course he would have, he was elected to them. He didn't seize power with an iron fist and refuse to step down. FDR's terms in office and what he did and how he did them and what he was prevented from doing are TRIUMPHS of democracy, not faults.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Of course he would have, he was elected to them.
That is why I guaranteed it.
TRIUMPHS of democracy, not faults
Triumphs? What about the interment of the Japanese? Just because he failed at some power grabs doesn't mean that democracy is infallible, which is my point.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

The internment was a tragedy. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about how you think democracy dies, by using FDR as an example, when he's nothing of the sort.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

We are talking about how democracy isn't infallible, how it is possible that it could die. I merely used an example of a President trying to stack the Supreme Court to do what he wanted to show it was plausible that a President would try such a thing. That is the only thing that relates to FDR. Don't try to make it about FDR, it isn't. Why not make it about Lincoln? I mention him also.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Once the South committed Treason, all bets were off with Lincoln. He did what he needed to do to save the country, and he was utterly right to do so. Traitors receive no quarter.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

He did what he needed to do to save the country, and he was utterly right to do so.
A statement I imagine will be uttered often when democracy finally dies, if it does one day die.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Democracy didn't die when the south committed treason; it's not going to die when Obama gets universal background checks implemented.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I'm not arguing it did, or will.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I don't know, maybe people started thinking that the Constitution is "clearly an outdated piece of shit that this country clings to for selfish reasons" and it is no more?

I love how everyone is taking that to mean there is zero value in the document and that I am clearly against every written thing in there. I simply believe that the errors it holds are irreconcilable, it's like a hard drive that's too heavily fragmented. We should transfer what we need, leave the rest, and stick in the newest open source updates.

Speaking more realistically, perhaps it starts with some horrific attack that makes 9/11 look like a speech interrupted by code pink activist. It convinces the legislative branch that perhaps there is a need for the President to stay in power longer than eight years and removes term limits.

I can't think of a single situation that somehow requires term limits to be abolished. That ship sailed a long time ago.

During said President's 4th term, they decides hey, this Supreme Court is pissing me off, I'm going to add 9 new seats to the Supreme Court and add in Justices that will do what I tell them to. 'No way a President might try such a thing,' one may say, but wait FDR tried it. See the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937.

And he failed. Once again, if it didn't happen at the best historical time for it, there's no way it's happening now.

I don't know, but you just argued that the Constitution doesn't protect our rights a few days ago, but now you are arguing that is exactly what it does, and people who believe that someone might have the balls to completely ignore the Constitution and claim ultimate power as a paranoid delusion holder.

I didn't say 'the Constitution doesn't protect our rights', I said that there is no such thing as rights inherent to being a human. People were saying that the Constitution merely puts in writing our 'fundamental human rights', as if it was deigned directly from the Christian God.

Because of our system of checks and balances, you would need collusion on a MASSIVE scale, to the point where both parties start colluding, then all the current politicians get into mysterious accidents because none of them at this point believe in the lunacy you propose, then a bunch of other shit that won't happen.

So yes, someone completely ignoring the Constitution and claiming ultimate power (after of course manipulating/bribing/mind controlling everyone in every court and every representative) is a paranoid delusion holder. There are more plausible Heinlein stories than this.