Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Lemme lay it out for you- if your revolution doesn't hurt or kill anyone, then you haven't committed any crimes.  If your revolution is bloody, then obeying the law is the last thing on your mind.  Either way, there's no need for a "Right to Revolution", and little chance that The Founders had one in mind when crafting the 2nd amendment.

Not that it matters what The Founders had in mind.  Great recent opinion by Justice Stevens on why "strict constructivism" is a sham, y'all have probably read it.  Nonetheless, I think we can infer that what they were talking about was maintaining the legality of a way of life (huntin', collectin'), and maintaining readiness for national defense (vs. Redcoats).  Preserving a right to delegitimize The State probably wasn't on the table, especially since they had just gone to so much trouble to create It...and since they had already included so many paths for legitimate dissent.

So why do we need this brand-new right, regardless of its provenance?  I mean, revolution is something that people do, without referent to the Constitution or code or anything else...when The People have had enough, they tend to rise up and overthrow, and they usually don't stop to consult the local law library.  The only thing that comes to mind is, its a way for the desperate contrarians among us to justify their paranoia about the gummint takin' away their guns.  Don't let this happen to you!  If you're a proud American gun-nut, console yourself with the fact that a lot of legislation has been passed regarding guns, and our glorious 2nd is still here.  If you're a shrinking American violet when it comes to guns, take comfort in the fact that despite our glorious 2nd amendment, we still have the legal ability to make some places gun-free.  In either case, don't be fooled- those who yammer about a "right of revolution" are making stuff up.  These yammerers (!) are of a type- they fashion themselves "shit-disturbers", and will attach themselves to a number of causes that are diametrically opposed.  All arguments made in bad faith; a hallmark of your typical Randian/Objectivist.

And it's no accident that Objectivism rears its ugly head here.  Only those who subscribe to something as shockingly immoral as Ayn Rand's "philosophy" would feel the need to gin up a "right of revolution".

my first, and last, dailykos diary

So, I've been banned- I admit it, I broke the rules.



Blog Archive