History books are cheap. Every democracy that changed to a tyranny was modern in its time. It’s also a ridiculous stance to ignore that the Constitution depends on the concept of natural rights which self defense is one. Of course it comes down to practicality, so an aggrieved party of one isn’t going to overthrow the established order. But an aggrieved party of a few million with members in local police, sheriff departments, and throughout the military might have a stronger case. Regional loyalties also matter. You think a military made up of almost a majority of Southeners is going to massacre a popular uprising in let’s say Texas?
So, in other words, the answer is “it’s legitimate if it works”?
What a disturbing notion.
Which part? The unjustified part? We can’t. If the goal is to prevent an uprising we, as a collective, don’t take actions that unnecessarily restrict liberty. That means, unfortunately, tolerating a certain level of chaos. Random nut may kill 50. States have killed a million times that.
The U.S. Revolution worked. I find that non disturbing. We don’t live in a perfect world. Governments are composed of people. People that usurp the tools of the state for their own purposes are common. You think it’s unjustified to fight back? In general, being an agent of the state is no more righteous than being an ordinary citizen . However there is a vast power differential and that power differential has been responsible for the largest genocides in history. The second amendment is a misunderstood codification of the natural right of an organism to fight to exist. It’s not a right granted to people by the benevolent Man. It’s a right reserved by the people to defend against the Man.
No, I find it disturbing that apparently, as the law is written, the difference between Robert Dear and George Washington is that Washington was successful.
And? You can’t have success without the means to try. That’s why a wise people study history and maintain natural rights. That’s why a wise government shapes the narrative in such a way to promote its own legitimacy at the expense of the governed. Look at the Black Lives Matter movement. I think some of their demands and tactics are just wack and frankly counterproductive. However, the system has legitimately failed them and has actively and immorally jailed, beat, shot, oppressed many in their community and others as well. It’s not surprising when the system is oppressive that there is push back. I’d be a more vocal BLM supporter if they themselves did not take an illiberal stance on speech and economics. With regards to the aspect that is against excesses of the state I’m in complete support.
i don’t want to sound incredulous, but i still can’t seem to see how this 2nd amendment militia resistance kicks off in practice, and what the difference between terrorists and militia is.
by definition, if tyranny exists to be fought then there are already enough soldiers willing to do do damage to a rebellion, no matter their childhood postcodes. so the point about soldiers not being robots is moot; you wouldn’t have tyranny without enough loyal gummint soldiers (robots). otherwise, where’s the tyranny? if you start shooting at unarmed ‘tyrants’ (doing whatever unarmed tyrants do) then i’m pretty sure you’ve just made yourself into a terrorist or traitor. now most people in the country will love to see you and your terrorist rebels get cut to shreds, literally.
really, what’s the objective standard by which one is judged a terrorist or 2nd amendment warrior. i’m guessing we’ll only know when we find out who won.
That’s right. And what’s wrong with that?
Why do you think the American Revolution is considered “legitimate”? What would the history books tell us if it had not been successful? As an American myself, if I look at the grievances objectively, they seem rather… weak. Many of our so-called Founding Fathers would be considered crazy, radical extremists today.
Remind me what ISIS is doing in Iraq, again? Ah yes. They overthrew the interim government and propped up their own horrific regime.
Freedom fighters?
First of all, it’s not an “interim” government. And secondly, they didn’t overthrow any government.
It is legitimate to use force against the government only in self defense, exactly like any other situation. Mcveigh did not act in self defense.
A large attack is always illegitimate for practical reasons. It is theoretically possible that a large attack kills only those who imminently intend to use deadly force against you, but in practice it has never been so. This includes acts of war which in modern times are nearly always illegitimate. “Government” is not a magic word as statists have been duped into believing. Neither is “secular democracy”.
Not sure what you mean by “magic word”. The Oklahoma Federal building housed regional offices of three different law enforcement organizations (Secret Service, DEA and ATF) as well as Army and Marine recruiting offices. While most of the casualties were civilian, what’s “magical” about saying attacking those offices equals attacking the goverment?
" This includes acts of war which in modern times are nearly always illegitimate. “Government” is not a magic word as statists have been duped into believing."
Statists ascribe legitimacy to government actions because they are entranced by the magical word “government”.
For example the southerners were evil slavers because they were private citizen slaveholders, while the U.S. government was a righteous force for good even though they conscripted slaves.
Freedom fighters? They aren’t fighting for the Western ideals of natural rights that’s for sure. So I would t be labeling them freedom fighters in any case. However, under different circumstances they might very well have established a government considered legitimate by other governments. Remember a government is just a collection of powerful people.
The fact that there are civil wars currently in the Middle East ought to be proof that uprisings can happen and in some cases work. There is nothing incredulous about it. The only incredulous concept is the notion that many have that the “government” is a concrete set that acts in complete lockstep.
The tribal warfare in the Middle East where units of the military defect and fight against the regime could easily happen in other parts of the world. Factional warfare is not unique to Syria today.
That is one damn bizarre example to illustrate your point. Firstly, there was a Confederate government, as well as all the State governments that chose to secede. It wasnt by anyones description just a bunch of private slaveholders. Secondly, there’s plenty of legitimate reasons people the Union side was more righteous besides being statists. But I guess the very specific line “the South were rebels therefore wrong” makes sense for your argument.
He was inspired by the events at Waco and Ruby Ridge.
And no reasonable person would call America tyrannical. Otherwise every criminal behind bars would be able to say that the government is tyrannical.
McVeigh was executed as rapidly as possible, and nobody begged to keep him alive. Ergo, even Second Amendment boosters were happy to see him dead.