Year: 2008

On Caleb and Bonnie’s Blog Talk Show, Martin, from The Liberty Sphere asked a question of me, about whether I thought there was ever a time when it was justifiable to violently resist an out of control government.  The answer to that is yes, but as to what the line should be, I would defer to Judge Alex Kozinski, in his eloquent Silveria dissent:

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

I also agree with Joe Huffman, who said on this topic:

Anyone considering “shooting the bastards” needs to realize that even if taking that step is fully justified (justification basis deliberately omitted as being beyond the scope of this post but this could be a starting point) one needs to look at the long term direct and unintended consequences of such an act. They need to have a reasonably good idea what the position of society will be a day, a week, a year, and a decade after they “pulled the trigger”. And after evaluation they conclude the world will be a better place by most measures. They need to be a grand master chess player with only a small fraction of the pieces visible on the board and see ten moves ahead against opponents who are known and unknown. Or they need to know, with near certainty, things can’t get any worse if they do take the shot.

I contend no such grand master “chess player” exists. Hence before “taking the shot” the existing or reasonably projected conditions need to be so bad as to replicate something like a Nazi concentration camp or Soviet Gulag. We aren’t there yet.

It’s not that I have no line in the sand, it’s just that as long as we can change our government without using violence, and if the people really wanted to change it, they could, we’re obligated to work within the system.  That’s not to say we need to stand by while two wolves and a sheep decide what’s for lunch, but things aren’t that bad yet.

I thought the show was interesting.  Too short, really.  I was also having a hell of a time hearing Kurt.  There wasn’t enough time for callers.  Caleb says he’d revisit the topic at some point.  I’d be happy to participate, but someone else should probably get a chance.

Kevin Baker has an uberpost he’s been working on for a few days on the great kerfuffle.  Go have a read.

UPDATE: Kevin closes with

Our job, then, is not to “Frighten the White People,” it’s to make them MAD. It’s to make them “pro-freedom, pro-individual, pro-principles.” It’s to educate them.

Which explains why I had such a harsh objection to the Letter ot the Editor.  Anything that makes it easier for the population to dismiss our message is not helpful, from my point of view.  The great thing about our system is, if you get enough people angry, you don’t need a revolution, because we can throw the bastards out in the voting booth.  We did it in 1994, but we didn’t follow through.  People need to get mad, and stay mad, until things really change.  That’s a tall order, and I share Kevin’s hope that it’s not too late.

I will be on Caleb and Squeaky’s live podcast show tonight at 11PM, where I will be engaging in epic battle with Kurt of Armed and Safe to the death!!! We will discover once and for all which side of the second amendment debate can survive in The Cage.

Either that, or we’re going to have a calm discussion centered around the great kerfuffle of last week, and I just said that to get you all to listen.  In fact, it’s going to be more a Q&A type deal rather than a debate, but it should be a pretty good discussion about the benefits and advantages or drawbacks and disadvantages of each type of advocacy. Tune in!