There's no right of revolution in a democracy

things get complicated.
Interesting article.

[i]In America, we change our government -- our government -- by changing minds.[/i]

This falls right up there with other silly platitudes, like [i]work together towards common goals, the common good,[/i] 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.

That I had with his piece was how benevolently abstract, historical, and highly reasonable he was until he got to the sole, lonely, specific mention of, "ammunition holders".

Did he reason down to these "holders" from the heights, or did he start with them and creep the back way up to the heights?

I think the creep started with them.

They're properly called, "magazines", a term he could not allow to pass his lips, true to hoplophobic form.

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."

[i]There's no right of revolution in a democracy[/i]

It assumes democracies come in only one flavor, which, of course, they don't. In a pure democracy, for example, a 51 percent majority could vote to enslave the 49 percent minority. An absurd example, to be sure, but appropriate to challenge an absurd assertion. Nonetheless, is he suggesting that the enslaved 49 percent have no right to revolt?

Moreover, he is probably assuming that a revolution is synonymous to an armed insurrection. It doesn't have to be.

And, of course, it ignores the fact that the USA is not a Democracy; it???s a Constitutional Republic.

It's just a silly article that, as I've said earlier, is no more than a set-up to argue for weaker Second Amendment rights and to stifle speech that he disagrees with. A real wolf in sheep's clothing.

..... when a democratic state (of some form) tilts, or falls, into something else?

Has any democratic state lasted more than 200 years? If a democratic state on is on the very cusp of falling into something else, must its citizens wait for the fall to revolt? Do people not have a right to revolution just before it falls? Or must they wait for it to fall?

Not only do a democratic people have an inherent right to revolution, under some conditions, they have an obligation to it. Therefore, the question is not whether or not a democratic people have a right to revolution, but under what conditions are they obligated to do just that?

Regardless of the answer, I don't think professor Carl T. Bogus, the writer of the article, is the one who gets to decide. (An appropriate name, I might add.)

..... that so many people, both citizens of the U.S. or otherwise, presume to define exactly what may or may not fall under the umbrella of [i]one's rights[/i].

Truth be known, in a nutshell, at least in the USA, regardless of [i]said right[/i], unless the people have specifically granted to government the power to prevent it - by way of Constitutional Article or Amendment - then anything and everything falls under said umbrella.

It should simply not be debatable, since it's a matter of record. But people want to debate it anyway, probably for the same reason they want to debate everything else regarding one's [i]rights[/i] - they personally disagree with something that someone else does or has, and they want to stop it or take it.

is not what I'd have expected from you... asking for less brevity, that is.
That said, I don't think anybody is saying that the unfortunate inhabitants of pockets of wild west should all tread the path of Gandhi, making armor of their unprotected flesh.
If you live in a place where man-eating predators prowl, being armed is justifiable.
It may stave off the tyranny of the common beasts, but it won't stop the tyranny of armies. Just look at the insurrectionists around Afghanistan.

Andreas, I find, is more than a capable correspondent; far more so than mainstream.

He just needs to reflect, more. When he is brief, he needs to draw himself up to his full height. So do you, Joe.

..... I disagree with you.

The history, the purpose, and the intent of the US Constitution - and how it makes the USA unique among the free nations of the world - is seldom understood by United States' citizens, much less ones from Finland (or Denmark, or wherever).

I can't help but think (but know) that I understand those things much better than he does, but he tries to come across as the expert on the US Constitution.

Do I want to discuss it with him under those conditions? No thanks.

Lock, stock, and barrel.

You gots to be circumspect, though, about who "understands" what. You rope [i]me[/i] in with the phrase, "United States' citizens", where, to the point of that lock, stock, and barrel, only [i]I[/i] get to speak of my understanding.

You don't, in my understanding of things.

It is precision that I expect when you speak of high matters.

still only want to discuss with people who either agree with you already, or are no match for you?
About the constitution: You know it only from the inside, served - as it is - stewed in tradition and the compounded beliefs of your forefathers.
I know it only from the outside, true, sans stew.
Is yours an inherently, objectively better perspective?
Is mine?
You gave your answer, here's mine; neither is better.
One is thesis, the other, antithesis.
You're like a man in grief, shouting "You can't possibly know how I feel!"
And it's true - I don't know your specifics and your idiosyncratics.
But I know other things and see things from other angles.
If you trusted in your own knowledge, you would not need fear my perspective.
Trusting in your authoritative method, you're really saying "I am one of the Chosen - I am guardian of our holy Gospel of Constituence - and no unbeliever may speak of it and live"...

Now, pull my finger.

Re: [i]You still only want to discuss with people who either agree with you already, or are no match for you?[/i]

That was your opening salvo, upon which the rest of your message was based. Let's go no further, and address only that.

You couldn't be more wrong. Where in these threads do I discuss anything with people who agree with me? I don't go on and on with them, reinforcing each other's beliefs, so to speak. If you disagree, give me one instance where I did.

As it relates to the original article linked to by Nick, this is my way of trying to change people's minds. Why would I want to preach to the choir? I actually want to engage those who disagree with me - so I can try to change their minds. I may not always be effective, but those are the ones with whom I seek to engage. I invite people to challenge me - sometimes, I suppose, even bait people to challenge me.

I get frustrated, to be sure, when challenged with only disingenuous arguments or illinformed rhetoric. I try to use facts instead of fiction and reason over emotion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, to be sure. But no one is entitled to his own facts. There's a difference between a fact and a belief, and it's a distinction that should be made clear. And arguments that are based on emotion can usually be dissected and discredited under the slightest bit of scrutiny; but people don't like to have their arguments discredited. I, on the other hand, invite people to try and discredit mine - using facts and reason, not fiction and emotion.

My favorite person to engage around this water cooler is one who is neither an American nor one who philosophically agrees with me on very many issues. We disagree on almost everything. He challenges me with facts and reason, and he really makes me think about my positions. I believe I reply in kind; at least I hope I do. We've never had harsh words or hard feelings between us. And I'd like to think that we've come to respect each other's opinions, and respect the thought and reason behind them. Do you know to whom I'm referring?

I suppose what I really seek might be called a philosophical and political Chess match. And just like a real game of Chess, I like to engage those who are either my equal or, better yet, those who are better than me. (As a side note, one of my favorite Chess opponents is a fifteen year old young man who has a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome. I've played dozens of matches with him, both in person on a real board and on-line. I've never defeated him. The closest I've ever come to victory was a draw; and that's happened only once.) But I don't want to play with people I beat all the time. Where's the fun in that? Unless, of course, it can be done productively. As a teaching moment, so to speak. To get someone to consider other strategies and ways of looking at the game.

When I was teaching my son to play chess (and golf, for that matter), I was never one of those parents who let him win just so he felt good. He must have lost over a hundred games to me before he finally caught me off-guard (that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!) and defeated me. We're now pretty evenly matched, in both chess and golf - and also in matters political and philosophical. I'm not an authoritarian parent. I invite him to challenge me; I embrace it; it makes both him and me think about our beliefs.

So Ansu, your opening statement was wrong - plain and simple. And if your premise is wrong, why should I even bother with the rest of your comments?

We could have constructive dialogue and discussion, but up to now, Ansu, it's you who's been unwilling. You invite me to [i]pull your finger[/i]. But I, on the other hand, invite you to choose one of my close fisted hands (Chess lingo). That's the difference I see between you and me, Ansu - and what a huge difference it is.

I'll pass on pulling your finger.

Did you not say that I am unfit to discuss constitutions with you, on account of not being a US citizen? Sounded like that...

Another: I never claimed to be discussing your constitution, rather constitutions in general, rights in general, limits in general.

I do make the claim that the US constitution is a constitution, and so subject to comparison with other constitutions and to the concept of constitutions in general.

You don't have to pull my finger if you're not being a pompous ass...

..... and they ain't pretty.

Some points:

I discussed your FIRST sentence. You didn't rebut anything I said, but rather continued your business as usual.

I took a fair amount of time to best explain a little about me and where I was coming from - an extension of an olive branch, in a way.

I tried to be thoughtful. I tried to be civil. And you responded by being evasive to everything I said and by calling me a pompous ass. It's no different than every reply you've ever left.

The only reason I gave it a try this time is because Santee suggested there might be something about you that I'm overlooking. Well, Santee might see it, but I sure don't. At least not as evidenced by your most recent message.

Fine by me. I tried. But I'll now go back to neither reading nor replying to your messages. Not everyone can play Chess, I suppose.

but since Maxwell turns the deaf ear after an average of one sentence, I gotta be brief...
I see your point though.

I'm unhappy with the concept of tyranny as the ultimate stimulus to action. Tyranny comes, the polity endures, tyranny goes, we congratulate ourselves on our government's ability to endure and evolve. I'm a bit of a Burkean conservative on that score. Burke's not so popular with conservatives these days.

When I was a baby boy, too young to be bothered by public affairs, there were tyrannies in many places. We had just defeated a monstrous tyranny in Germany, and his equal had risen to the peak of his powers in Russia, while political maniacs in America complained of sneaking communism in every corner of life, and created informal structures of repression that tyrannized American arts, politics, and speech. Of course, informal tyrannical structures were nothing compared to the institutionalized racism of life in the Southern states, and that was as nothing compared to the tyranny over black men of a hundred years before, when they could be sold, worked, and bred, and the products of their breeding were likewise transferrable merchandise.

All that tyranny, and so little revolution. Were we really a nation of proud and free men, to endure so much? Actually there was one big rebellion, when white men feared that tyrants would restrict their rights of tyranny over black men, but the union put an emphatic end to that. The crisis over slavery and national expansion, and the Civil War, are probably not what today's Second Amendment Christian Soldiers take as examples of what they'd fight for. Not most, at least.

Americans like their guns. When I owned guns, I liked them. (I sold them to pay off obstetricians along my life's journey.) We love them so much, there's no possibility of outlawing them. Owning a gun makes you contemplate combat, and to mentally work out some of the problems of armed survival against a hostile world. It's a pleasant sort of diversion, a hobby. If one buys guns because he wants protection against hostiles who would break into his house and rob him, then fine. If one develops a political creed based on gun daydreams, one has gone too far. It isn't what guns are for. It's not mature thinking.

I'm happy there was an American revolution. I'm happy that every armed revolution against the American state since then has failed. I'm happy that all the people who could have revolted, for just cause, didn't. I believe we will fare best to nurse this country along, changing and adapting over time, to meet needs. Armed revolution against the tyranny of the moment is not a reasoned approach; it will lead to inferior outcomes, to poorer people, to emergent island states of tyrannical purpose that would never have been possible in a larger American republic.

There's no right to revolution. The men who made our revolution knew that if the lawful authorities caught up with them, they'd be hanged. Congratulate us for the revolution we had, and as equally, congratulate us for all the revolutions we didn't have.

I'm afraid you read me like you'd read yourself. I am not you, I am as different a person as you are.
Did it occur to you that my first was not the foundation of the latter?
And that saying so turned your piece into hitting me across my face with that olive branch? And still I offered that you may not be the pompous ass your initial dismissal had suggested (and to which I protested, not wishing to simply make that suggestion my truth). [EDIT: I realize that the offer was ambiguous, I intended it like a carte blanche to ignore that request. I do find that audible flatulence is the best response to pompousness... I tried to extend to you the benefit of the doubt. The way it was supposed to go was: First I had commanded you unconditionally to pull my finger, then I made it conditional - to apply only if the case was that you were being a pompous ass - and letting you be the unopposed authority on the matter. I thought the latter was a fitting reciprocation to your olive branch, but I guess I should have made it clearer]

I work in different ways than you.
It's true that I don't come at you with facts.
I don't need them : I'm not trying to prove you wrong.
I'm only trying to show you flaws in your stances, not fatal ones, but the tiny ones that make a person eventually settle for what they want to believe.
The facts are for when a common protocol has been established, and we've a way to go before that point.
I don't play golf. I learned to play chess from my grandma, but my style of play never went beyond alternating between brainwaves and brainfarts... and ever so rarely a brainwave disguised as a brainfart.
So, no, I'm never going to show you an Aristotelian argument that will collapse your view of the world.
Why would I do a mean thing like that?

But I can show you where your footwork may betray you.

I misunderstood; I took "the revolution we had" to mean the revolution against the crown... wondering if maybe a something like a secession could have been achieved instead with slightly different means...
But that was a very interesting piece.
The dangers of rationalizing the indefensible are very real.