So back to the Second Amendment remedies that I started with on this post. Second Amendment remedies to me, mean that people who believe in such are ready to shoot to kill if necessary, an "enemy"- real or perceived. So here are some of the responses to my question. Oh, I also asked if the responders believed that if they didn't agree with what someone was doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied. Comments, below:
- " The question isn't what the remedy is, but rather what is it a solution for? I don't know the exact line, but it is when democratic processes have been substantially perverted. Not minor things like butterfly ballots, or electing someone I don't like, but suspending elections, or widespread vote tampering."
- " The basic theory works like this. There are 4 boxes upon which your liberties rest. The first, and most commonly used, is the Soap Box. This represents your God given right to speak against things you don’t like. The second box is the Ballot Box. It is difficult to repress people who make their own laws and elect their own representatives. The third box is the Jury Box. This is when you, as a jury member, refuse to convict a person for violating laws you believe are unjust. The fourth and final box is the Cartridge Box. This is the “Second Amendment Remedies” you are asking about. The proper time to use this box is carefully laid out in the Declaration of Independence. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”"
- " Shooting someone over mere speech is disgraceful behavior and should be punished. As for what they are doing, it really depends on what they are doing. Typically the only reasonable justification for deadly force is in self defense to prevent serious bodily injury or death. It is perfectly reasonable to tell the government that you will not comply with their unjust laws. If someone shows up prepared to use force to require you to comply, they you have a reasonable case for fighting back. The beauty of this is that those who might be tempted to oppress you will think twice about oppressing you enough to cause a violent backlash. No matter how many cops and troops, there are many more armed citizens. "
- " First, 2nd Amendment remedies are only to be used when the government has lost legitimacy. Do you feel the current system of governance is no longer legitimate? I don't think that.
Only if that action violates the Constitution and no other remedy has worked."
- " In specific I would disagree with any violence but in general I think the the right to revolution is justly held by all people.
I don't think violence is an acceptable remedy for any kind of speech other than speech as a part of a crime. But some actions such as restricting freedom of speech are acceptable causes for violent opposition."
- " I'm disturbed that so many people seem to think we've transcended history into permanent stability and freedom for all time, and that the American Revolution was a one-time deal that can never be legitimately repeated. It tends to be tied up in the equally disturbing attitude that voting is all the remedy we could ever need for any government abuse. I don't believe now is the time for revolution, and I hope that time doesn't come in my life. Revolutions are terrible, terrible affairs in which there's no guarantee of success, no guarantee that the new system will be better than the old, and however it turns out, lots of good people die. They're to be avoided whenever possible.
But when you have a government that routinely and casually ignores the legal restrictions on its power, and is constantly entrenching more and more of its excesses in ways that are difficult to dislodge through elections... Well, again, I think a person would be a fool not to look ahead to what might be necessary in the future if we keep going down that road. There are simply things worth fighting for."
- " Shoot somebody in a disagreement over a parking space? Obviously not. Shoot somebody in a disagreement over whether I should get on the train to be relocated to a government farm? Obviously yes. As with so many things in life, principle is a matter of drawing lines in the gray space between the extremes. I can't come up with an example of a justified shooting over protected speech, but most reasonable states allow deadly force in response to credible threats of murder or serious assault. "
- " The Declaration of Independence defines the conditions our founding fathers considered acceptable to rationalize an armed rebellion, and the standard is very, very high. There is nothing a legitimately elected leadership can do to make such acts acceptable, because the way to fix an elected government is in an election, not a violent rebellion. That's why we are a democracy in the first place, to settle political differences non-violently. Duh."
- " Sharron Angle is, apparently, part of the small, but growing portion of Americans who are preparing for what they see as an inevitable circumstance where violent, unprovoked (they would claim it was provoked), armed action is warranted. This is not unheard of in American history, as I am sure you're aware. We are taught from a very young age that the appropriate response to 'tyranny' in the American definition is armed resistance. It is not surprising that, when circumstances become unusually 'tyrannical' (again, by the American definition, i.e., unusual taxation, waste, and general dissatisfaction with the government), some people start thinking more and more about initiating violent action, and more people start realizing that the relative civility and calm we enjoy today might not exist in the future"
These are a good sampling of the comments left on my blog. Some people chose to blog their comments on their own blogs. I looked at some of these and not others. A few comments were not published by me because they were more extreme and inappropriate than those I have quoted here. My readers can judge for themselves if they think these commenters believe that second amendment remedies are legitimate and defensible. There were only a few who responded that they didn't know what the "remedies" were or thought that they were a bad idea.
If you read the entire linked Time Magazine article, you will be frightened, as well you should be. The article suggests that it is not unbelievable that a lone sniper or crazed militia member would take matters into his/her own hands and shoot elected leaders or create a bomb or some other way of terrorizing the country. Perhaps a few cogent questions of your elected leaders and/or their opponents would help to define the concern and how the country can talk about home grown terrorists and what we can do about them. You might want to ask what they believe "second amendment remedies" are and perhaps if they think this is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind in the writing of the Second Amendment.