Because the right is inherently more frightened that someone will need shooting, need killing with a gun than everyone else is. They see more occasions, more pretexts, where gun violence is appropriate, not less, and seek to institutionalize that rationale, despite Minnesota being one of the most peaceful, least violent states.
If this is true, that we are not a state prone to violence, then there is, by definition far less not more reason for expanding when it is acceptable to shoot someone else. But if you think like the people profiled in this video, then there is always some danger that justifies or requires shooting, isn't there? Including shooting people a majroity of your fellow citizens elected? Because the right seems to have a preponderance of those who believe incorrectly that our 2nd Amendment rights are for shooting the people in our government...
There are two problems (1) the US was founded upon insurrection, that set a bad precedent which crazies have taken up. This is despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence is a historic document, not a legal one (see USA Constitution, Article VI).
ReplyDeleteLikewise, one of the facts that brought about the Constitution was Shays' Rebellion. This is why the US COnstitution's preamble mentions "insure domestic Tranquility".
(2) The Constitution makes one act a crime, Treason (Article III, Section iii) which is defined as:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort
Story’s Commentaries regarding Article III, Section iii of Constitution states:
§ 1292. The propriety of investing the national government with authority to punish the crime of treason against the United States could never become a question with any persons, who deemed the national government worthy of creation, or preservation. If the power had not been expressly granted, it must have been implied, unless all the powers of the national government might be put at defiance, and prostrated with impunity.
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts paid to the insurrectionist theory:
The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
Armed insurrection is not an option where there are constitutional methods for bringing about a change in government.
There is another problem with the "soverign citizen belief". That is that it would create a state of anarchy.
ReplyDeleteLook to the Border of Scotland and England during the Tudor period for how this world plays out.
Thanks Laci for an apt analogy from history.
ReplyDeleteI would have said this reflects a very low-functioning and ignorant, unsophisticated notion of poli-sci and government, as an adult-expressed version of the still childish and childlike sentiment "I don't wanna, I'm not gonna..." and then the real functioning grown ups make them do what all other adults reasonably do.
Because we can and must.