My apologies. My original post was much longer than what I actually submitted; my concern re: wordiness led me to leave out stuff I shouldn’t have. I also went by a number I recalled–20%–when I shouldn’t have trusted my memory. It’s impossible to get anything but estimates as to how many American colonists supported independence, but we can agree on a reasonable approximation. The best estimate for Continental Army troops is about 100,000. That does not, however, count the militias, which were, according to historian John Tures, probably 5 times that number, nor the fledgeling US navy, state navies, or privateers. The population of the colonies in 1780 was 2,780,000. Do the math, and you get 20-25% of the colonists who served directly. (For comparison, about 12% of the population fought in WWII.) And for every person who fought, there would be those who fed, clothed, and supplied the troops, took the place of men who’d gone to war, etc., etc. And finally, you have those who were in favor of independence but didn’t contribute directly to the war effort. It seems likely that a clear majority of the American colonists favored the war.
I agree, though, that saying you’d need a sizable chunk of the population behind you is far better than saying a lone wolf with a motive he considers lofty would suffice. Far better, however, would be to say you’d need the legislatures of 38 states to call a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution to allow for assassinations. And if we get to that point, I hope I’m not around to see it.
That is an interesting alternative that I hadn’t really considered, when I have previously thought about the 2nd Amendment. Given how California behaved during the last year, under Trump, viewing the State governments as a bulwark against tyranny may be reasonable. But, of course, it would depend on the specifics of the situation.
I would agree (taking your point into account) that the US Federal government, in particular, should in some way be viewed less as a place for the people to compromise, and instead as a place for the states to compromise. The Constitution can be viewed as a contract that they have all signed onto for how they expect their views be respected.
So in the explicit case of Presidential or Federal tyranny, you don’t even really need to vote to assassinate the President or even get violent at all. Basically you (where “you” is a State) simply declare that the Federal government is in breach of contract, and you exit the Union.
It also happened in Taiwan. When the Republic of China lost the civil war and relocated to Taiwan, Chiang declared martial law and the government was essentially locked in place. This was supposedly only a short-term temporary situation until the government could return to the mainland, but obviously that never happened. So the people who had been elected in 1947 and 1948 remained in office until 1991.
Has anyone thought about what the people around donald are going to do if he becomes an immediate danger to the world.
I don’t know about assasination but you need to have a go to plan for this. He needs to be confronted, “interventioned”, and rendered harmless. By mattis, or mcmaster or someone. We may be coming closer than before this weekend.
Same as every weekend; Trump leaves Washington to go play golf. It’d be easy to sidetrack him, when he finishes the 17th hole, change all the cup flags to “17”. He’ll gladly keep playing and since he doesn’t do any walking between shots, he could be out there indefinitely.
My understanding is that he will be percolating all weekend over a felony plea by his otherwise inexplicable bro-buddy, as of the day before yesterday.
OK, enough tiresome BS. In Europe, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was a European crime, rapidly involving multinational military conflict, and eventually intercontinental “contributions” to the carnage.
America was directly involved from the beginning - Canada was massively enlisted from the beginning - and there were huge contributions made by Asian, African and Austral nations as well, all while the United States was gathering profit and credits from the active countries.
The concept that “in AMERICA” and “It is UN-AMERICAN”, with the blatant assumption that everybody in the whole world knows that nothing in north, south, middle, latin, east. west or continental America counts except for the United States, is so very much a clear explanation of why your country has elected, and deserves, the narcissistic, senile thug that you have right now.
[COLOR=“black”]"**When the American Revolution was begun, about 1/3rd of the total population were satisfied that the British government had no justifiable basis for governing them. Another 1/3rd couldn’t be bothered, and the last 1/3rd thought that the British government was the legal and justifiable governing body.
Given that I would have to be* a traitor to argue against the American Revolution,* I basically have to accept that 1/3rd support is sufficient to get the ball rolling.**"
[/COLOR]
Realistically, fewer than 1% of the total population were actively opposed to the British government, fewer than 20% felt “compelled” ( by social and economic force) to follow this seditious movement ,
another 2% were opportunistic and ambitious, and 85% simply had no voice.
Your second point is most important: the revolution in the British colonies was entirely treason, particularly by civil and military officials who had sworn allegiance and loyalty to the parliament and the crown of their sponsoring country.
I’ve said about all that I have to say. Now I’m just enjoying the various other points being raised. Especially appreciated the zombie Hitler / nonagenarian steel-cage death match.
If a president attempted to overthrow the government and set himself up as dictator for life, I’d say he/she was fair game for a bullet. Or many bullets. Specifically, cancelling elections on spurious grounds in order to keep power for himself or for his party. But first it should be apparent that his party does not intend to check his power grab.
Looking back, I can almost say that from a Confederate perspective only, that John Wilkes Booth’s shooting of Lincoln was a legitimate act of war rather than an assassination. The war was all but lost at that point so the military objective aspect really doesn’t pass the smell test, but had he shot him a year earlier, I’d consider calling it an attack on a military asset and not a murder. That being said, I have always considered the Confederacy to be an unlawful rebellion, so I wouldn’t go so far as to consider either the actual assassination or a hypothetical earlier one to be justified.
