Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: a Well Regulated Militia (164 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas

    It would not matter how many murders a president was responsible for?  How many violations of the constitution, just staying in power beyond his/her term?

    A dynasty would be ok?

    Can you give me some detail on what is ok and what is not and how you deal with the different opinions of others?

    Please do not take this as hostile, it is not intended that way.  Looking for clarity here.

    Best Wishes, Demena Left/Right: -8.38; Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

    by Demena on Tue May 25, 2010 at 04:54:21 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not trying to put out a hard and fast rule. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      It would really depend on just exactly what a President -- or any other potential despot -- did.

      An attempt at creating a dynasty or dictatorship would be one instance that I would, personally, see an armed rebellion being acceptable.

      I think, for instance, Bush should have been impeached.  There was, unfortunately, not enough political support for that -- not everyone agreed that the things he did were crimes.  I would still like to see him prosecuted for what he did.  Clearly, there were and are many people who do not believe he committed any crime, so we would not be talking about armed resistance to a despot, but simply fighting each other.

      As I said in another comment, had he been impeached and convicted, and refused to abide by that ruling, and had the support to illegally hold the office, then we're getting to the point of armed resistance.

      I do not think that, as bad as many of the things he did were, they rose to the level of deserving armed rebellion.

      I know that still doesn't necessarily answer your question, but I'm not completely sure I can give it a concrete answer in an abstract discussion.  I hope it at least makes my stance a bit more clear -- armed resistance to the government should be the absolute, very last resort.

      •  I guess I am being an ass, sorry. (0+ / 0-)

        But I think we have too many heads of state in too many countries (including my own) that are willingly complicit in murder.

        I am beginning to think that any politician should realise they are a public figure and they have a choice between being a public figure and having any shred of privacy.

        We don't know what goes on behind closed doors and that is a problem.

        Best Wishes, Demena Left/Right: -8.38; Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

        by Demena on Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:53:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And there's another line, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, theatre goon

        one that Bush did not even try to cross:

        He did not attempt to remain in power after the two terms the Constitution allowed him, even though his party's candidate lost the election and a man he personally and politically despised won it.

        If he had not acquiesced to the transfer of power, then we would have indeed been justified in removing him by force.

        And I have no doubts that the existence of an armed citizenry played some role in that decision... the best one the man ever made.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Wed May 26, 2010 at 12:55:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site