"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

If enough people decide they dislike the decision on the top of the
steps they may decide to take the case into the streets. It would
not
be the first time that gunfire changed a decision.

Or they may decide to amend the Constitution, which is what the
founders
arranged so people wouldn't have to resort to gunfire. This isn't a
regional
issue like the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion. This is a
national
issue. That's what amendments are for.

Amendments didn't work in 1776 where the same issue was at stake...

There was no Constitution in 1776. That's why we got one in 1789. So now
we
have a Constitution that can be amended.

In 1776 we had a bill of rights, it was called the Magna Carta.

Nick, I think the point is being missed here. And the point is that now we
have an amendment process that makes it unnecessary for you to go shoot
everybody if you don't like a Supreme Court decision. If enough people
agree, we just amend the Constitution. We've done it dozens of times.


and are unlikely to work today when most voters are sheep on the govt
dole.
It will become a civil war between those with guns and those without.

I assume you know the outcomes of the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's
Rebellion, right? And then there was that little rebellion in the South.

Your rebellion fantasies run up against the inconvenient fact that, in a
democratic republic, the institution you're rebelling against is a
government of the people. The people's government tends to win. In the
case
of the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington assembled a militia force larger
than
the entire Continental army to put down a bunch of whiskey distillers who
thought they could lead a successful rebellion against the new federal
government. But the peoples' militia proved them wrong.

Rebellion fantasizers tend to have the mistaken impression that the rest
of
the people really are on their side and will join the rebellion, like
Timothy McVeigh believed a few years ago.

I agree rebellions are usually a bad idea, but if you push people far
enough someone is going to try it. Any rebellion today would have to be
secret to have any chance of success; political assasinations, smart
roadside bombs, cell structure or even dispersed leadership. It would
be like nothing ever seen before. I do know there are secret groups
making plans and accumulating supplies but do not expect to see any
action until inflation becomes ruinous (or some other national crisis).
The 'people' will not join a revolution until it is seen as a done deal,
most of them will be unaware there is even a rebellion going on until
very late in the game. A developed country, as you realize, has
sufficient military might to crush anything it can find so the type of
insurrection as seen in 3rd world countries would not work here.

That's nice. Enjoy your rebellion fantasies, Nick. When we hang you for
treason, there will be plenty of people begging to pull the lever. As Tim
McVeigh learned, the large majority of people don't believe that rebellions
are justified under an amendable Constitution.

--
Ed Huntress