After Hours

General discussion


There's no right of revolution in a democracy

By NickNielsen ·
Tags: Off Topic

As it happens, I agree with him. I've been trying to articulate this for years, but never quite succeeded.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

It's always dificult to deal with contracts one is born into...

by AnsuGisalas In reply to There's no right of revol ...

things get complicated.
Interesting article.

Collapse -

I agree but in that case

by john.a.wills In reply to There's no right of revol ...

what IS the 2nd Amendment about? Most democracies seem to get on well enough without such a provision.

Collapse -

I can take a guess....

by JamesRL In reply to I agree but in that case

Way back when, democracies were rare. There must have been some concern that a democraticly elected leader might just turn into a dictator, and need overthrowing. Hitler won power first by competing in democratic elections.

Collapse -


by AnsuGisalas In reply to I can take a guess....

They wanted to have an army that didn't need conscripting and upkeeping.
Like the swiss have now.
The idea is good. Should've codified it though.

Collapse -

Considering that "well-regulated"

by NickNielsen In reply to I agree but in that case

means almost exactly today what it meant then (it can also mean "well-trained"), it appears to make a legal fiction of the "unorganized militia" called out in 10USC311. At the time the amendment was written, the expectation was that those in the militia would provide their own arms. That has, of course, changed over the years.

I could make (and have made) the argument that the Second Amendment applies only to those in the National Guard or Naval Militia. I wouldn't want to see it applied in such a manner, but the argument is there, and has been used by others as well.

Collapse -


by AnsuGisalas In reply to Considering that "we ...

in all interpretations, includes very steep indoctrination on not using force.
After all, an army is defined by it using force when so ordered, and ONLY when so ordered.
And the second doesn't say a whisper about a right to use force of arms.
And the right to bear arms is certainly infringed when looking at localities. I don't think the supreme court will rule that a citizen can bear arms into a supreme court session, for example.

Collapse -

The biggest problem with his piece is the last sentence

by maxwell edison In reply to There's no right of revol ...

In America, we change our government -- our government -- by changing minds.

This falls right up there with other silly platitudes, like work together towards common goals, the common good, etc.

Some minds simply cannot be changed. People have different visions on how things are and how things should be. Their minds can't be changed because their visions can't be changed. And the differences are simply irreconcilable.

One has to look no further than the years of political and social discussions in these threads. In all that time, I can't recall a single instance when someone admitted to having a change of mind as it relates to his/her vision of how the world works and/or should work.

The best solution, at least in my opinion, to overcome such irreconcilable differences is to structure society, policy, and government to accommodate the differences, not try to force all others - or even convince all others - to one's own point of view. The former is possible; the latter is impossible.

P.S. Obviously, I disagree with both his assertion and his conclusion. And he can talk (or write) until he's blue in the face, and he'll not change this mind - only proving how silly both his assertion and his conclusion really are.

Collapse -

Or, more accurately

by NickNielsen In reply to The biggest problem with ...

How silly you think his assertion and his conclusion are.

Neither of us is going to change the other's worldview; we're both old enough that it's pretty much carved in stone. But we both understand that civil dialog is important to civil society, and that he who disagrees with me is not necessarily my enemy.

The problem is, and always has been, convincing the party faithful and political hacks of this truth.

Collapse -

On civil dialogue

by maxwell edison In reply to Or, more accurately

I don't think that anyone would argue that civil dialogue isn't better than uncivil dialogue. But too many people are starting to define what's uncivil dialogue.

Moreover, just like a bully nation is best dealt with through strength, so is a bully majority.

The article had two aims: to attempt to argue for weaker Second Amendment rights; and to try and stifle speech that he, and his ilk, deem uncivil.

Collapse -

I didn't read it that way

by NickNielsen In reply to On civil dialogue

But then, I tend to take things at face value because I'm not smart enough to read motives into everything.

My take on uncivil speech is that it is the first resort of the ideologue . As was once said about pornography, "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it."

Related Discussions

Related Forums