Clayton Cramer has an article that examines the question, in relation to some snark from the Politico about Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio’s remark that the Iranians could stand to be armed:
If Rubio had said â€œthe Iranians would benefit from having a right to own pianos right now,â€ that would be odd or illogical. But whatâ€™s so odd or â€œquestionableâ€ in suggesting that a population confronting a corrupt, dishonest, thuggish government would benefit from being armed?
Read the whole thing.Â While I don’t think armed revolt is a feasible or desirable means to redress grievances against a legitimate, elected government, against a government like Iran, it would have utility.Â The Second Amendment is an insurance policy against petty despots, and motivated minorities who might gain enough support to take over a government.Â But along with that has to come people’s willingness to resist, in large enough numbers to make a difference.
5 thoughts on “Feasibility of Armed Revolt”
These people are so far gone they actually think they can just mention that someone mentioned that people could use guns when armed men are shooting them to death in the streets.
I mean, what kind of crazy talk is that, responding with armed violence just because someone shot a few bullets through your daughter’s head? Can’t just fly off the handle like that.
A “legitimate, elected goverment” that breaks it’s own rules ceases to have any legitimacy, Sebastian.
There have been numerous cases in recent history where legitimately elected governments began to engage in Genocide/Democide, thus rendering themselves illegitimate. The only American system of government that is or can be considered legitimate is one that obeys and upholds the law as set forth by the Federal constitution and various state constitutions. Certain constitutional amendments, namely the 16th and 17th, are as illegitimate as any action that could be taken by the state without any constitutional authority whatsoever. The notion that an armed rebellion is not worthwhile because it may not have popular support seems ill informed at best. I’ll remind you that the percentage of the population who actively supported the American Revolution was only 3%.
If the revolution doesn’t have popular support, what do you do when they vote back in the same government that continues to pass laws you don’t agree with?
Plus, 3% is the number that were under arms. About 1/3rd of the population supported the revolution. 1/3rd didn’t care, and 1/3rd were Tories.
I outlined my arguments here, here and here
Comments are closed.