I know of nobody who wants one, and if there are, they are in the absolute bare fringe minority. Any sane person, particularly who has been touched by war, does not want one.
But not wanting one, and being willing to do as much as can be done to prevent one, is not the same as indicting that under not circumstances whatsowever will one participate in one.
Such an absolute statment is as dangerous to liberty, IMHO, as anyone who seeks and desires such a course.
If the other side overthrew the constitution, began rounding up dissidents because they used free speech to oppose them, and instituted tyranny in this nation, then by God I would particpate in one, not because I want to...but precisely because, if I value liberty, if I value the future for my kids and grandkids, I would be left with no choice at that point...and that is precisely what the 2nd amendment is about and the pols need to understand this...as much as we all want to avoid it at almost any cost...they have to know that those costs will not include the cost of life or liberty.
Sam Adams had words in this regard in his time for those who under no circumstance would lift up their hands to assist those involved in the fight...and God forbid that it wver comes to a fight...and may we all work our hearts out to aavoid any such evenuality. Nevertheless, he understood well the consequence of letting a tyrant know that under no circumstance would a group of people resist that tyrant and was unwilling (along with the other founders) of countenancing such a course...
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom...go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor arms. May your chains set lightly upon you."- Samuel Adams
Well, “in short” — it pans out this way, from the way I see it.
If conservatives are representing the majority of the voting public, then they can work through the political mechanisms and get elected representatives who will support these issues (in the political sphere).
On the other hand, if conservatives represent so few of the voting public that they are “overrun” by others who oppose the conservative’s views and political persuasions, then *this* would be — also — done by the political mechanisms which the founding fathers set up — thereby “overriding” the conservatives and their opinions.
Now, it seems to me, that there are certain ones saying that if they are “out-voted” in the political sphere — and things change politically (because of this) — then — *this* justify the armed revolution, because it’s not the way the founding fathers would have wanted or what they set up.
I’m saying that — if — in the political system, conservatives are out-voted and are (as seems...) “overrun” in what they want government to do — then the problem is not the political system and how it has gone against the conservatives — but rather — with the mass of people who don’t go along with the conservatives. And if that is the case — then there are people who are advocating armed revolution for being in the *minority* — and because they can’t persuade the mass of the voting public to go along with them and their political aims.
That’s the problem. And that’s why I won’t be participating in an armed revolution, but rather, working in the political sphere...
ST is an agent provacateur right now. It/they have been other things as well. You probably know this but just for the record.