It's not a numbers issue. Nor does it hinge on one's nationality being French or not French. It's not even about dying.
It is, however, about comprehending the problem.
And no one is advocating giving-in, or giving up.
But I am arguing that calls for an armed revolt at this stage are at best misguided, and at worst infantile.
It IS about comprehending the problem, we agree on that. Perhaps the reason you are hesitant to agree with what I believe is the majority opinion on this thread is that you see the problem differently. It seems that the specific point of disagreement you have with the general or most repeated opinion of the commenters in this thread is one of methodology.
I assume that you believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and that your concern is that using violence to resolve a conflict between people and their government in a modern, well established Constitutional republic that uses the democratic process is wrong and damaging to our system of ordered liberty rather than supportive of it. That is what I perceive from your rebuttals to some of the positions here and is also similar in view to what another poster complained of. In short, the argument is we should stick to democratic solutions to solve problems in a "democracy." I apologize if that is not exactly your argument but since it is a common one, except on this thread, it deserves an answer.
First, your argument At least as I described above implies a few things about the values of the one who holds that point of view. It is argument based in a belief in peace, in the value of life, and maybe most of all a belief in the justice inherent in our system of government. I personally think all those things are good, and even essential in a patriot and moral human being. I do think that our democratic processes are the best way, in an imperfect world, to delegate authority from the people to the government, at least I can think of none better. I do understand that it is impossible for a single individual to agree with every aspect of our government, and that when we disagree with our leadership we should follow the legal remedies in the law to resolve those matters civilly. Otherwise, the law would mean nothing and anarchy would result, which is nothing more than another form of tyranny. However, I believe an exception exists which I describe below.
Consider this: whenever two parties argue, they may do so in good faith or with ulterior motive. You have seen this as a lawyer. The degree to which a party in a disagreement negotiates in good faith is often dependent on the consequences for not doing so. When the parties to a disagreement consist of a people and their government, the people have much reason to negotiate in good faith because there is, by law, a lot of power in government; government has special authorities not available to the citizen. What then is the incentive for government to negotiate in good faith? Without the Second Amendment and it's obvious recourse, the only government incentive is the conscience of the individual agent or agency in respecting the limits the Constitution places on them. That is a thin, and if I may be blunt, naive way to preserve liberty. I believe history proves that when the liberty of the people is dependent on the character of the leadership, instead of external controls, then their liberty will not long remain.
There is another critical point of the argument to consider. When US citizens disagree with government, the question should never be about who is more correct in solving a societal problem because there is a contract involved, the Constitution. It is a one-sided contract, wholly focused on restricting what government may do, not the people. The government is not supposed to break this contract even if doing so would be an effective solution to whatever problem faces the people, and (this is important) they cannot break it even if a majority of the people ask them too. This is the essence of what creates the condition of liberty in a Constitutional republic instead of the inevitable tyranny of a democracy.
If government breaks the contract, then the people may seek recourse through the established legal processes...but an important special case applies here. If the government breaks the contract in a way that also removes any incentive for them to negotiate in good faith in the democratic process, then by definition the people have no recourse in that process and ordered liberty no longer exists. The Constitutional republic has been replaced by the banana republic in that case. The Second Amendment is an emergency clause, a "break glass in case of tyranny" provision that functions exactly like the MAD (mutually assured destruction) philosophy of the Cold War. It functions to keep a relationship honest if not friendly.
In a perfect world, the US and Russia would not be enemies and such a control would be unnecessary. Likewise if men were angels we would need no government and thus no Second Amendment. In the meantime, weakening that amendment by allowing the confiscation of exactly the kind of weapon useful in repelling tyranny would be, to continue the Cold War analogy, tantamount to showing weakness in the face of the Soviet nuclear shadow in an effort to be "peaceful." If we value life, and peace, then we demonstrate our resolve and our true willingness to destroy our enemies so that he will never force us to do so.
One of our founding fathers agreed, a son of New Haven Connecticut:
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster
He also wrote a good dictionary.
A sincere thanks to LL for allowing us to have on his site what I hope will always remain a philosophical discussion about our understanding of the American way, and how best to preserve what so many of us have taken an oath to.
