Question of the Week: Reset Button

I know, I haven't exactly been keeping up with the "of the week" part, but this one ought to make up for it. This question will require some explanation! First I will type the primary question. Then I will explain what the hell I am talking about, and ask any subsidiary questions that come up in the process. Enjoy!

Do you expect the "reset button" to need to be used in our lifetimes? For the sake of a common number, let's define "our lifetimes" as the next fifty years. Hey, I could live that long, given my genes and medical technology.

I was recently discussing with someone the concept of the Second Amendment as the government's reset button. Ultimately a major reason it exists is so the populace cannot be prevented from being armed, or easily disarmed through registration or excess regulation for that matter, in case we must ever take back the government and start again if it gets out of hand or something akin to a coup happens and the imposters must be reckoned with.

It says that the government provides for the national defense, but we retain the right to self-defense, and to keep and bear the tools needed for that, including defense against the government if it ever turns its might inward or ceases to represent us at all. It's not a separate entity, after all. It's us. If it ceases to be us, it ceases to be in our control, it needs to be taken back into the fold.

Do you think this will ever be needed? In the next fifty years? Do you think it will still be possible after another fifty years of those who want as much power, and helplessness of the populace against it as much as possible, chipping away at or disregarding our ability to reset things back to sanity? How about contrarians; do you think the reset interpretation is erroneous or, even if not, will never be needed?

This topic was inspired by someone's assertion that we would likely have to use the reset button in our lifetimes, and that the current state of the opposition seemed particularly dangerous as something that could ultimately precipitate it. I am not sure I agree, but I have always viewed the Second Amendment as a reset option; an expression of the right to protect ourselves against all threats, including our own government if it becomes despotic and not what it was originated to be. That made me wonder how others might regard the chances of needing to take it back.

Fire away! That is what the comments are for. No real URL or e-mail address is required, if you prefer some anonymity here.

Update:

Dean has a great discussion going on regarding this post and his optimistic take on things. Excellent stuff!

MORE...

Do I expect it to be used? Yes. Will it be effective? I doubt it.

I think we've passed the point at which "using the reset button" would be useful.

Why do I think it will be used? Two recent posts come to mind. This one in which the Geek with a .45 posted from New Jersey: "The fact that things have gone so far south in some places that people actually feel compelled to move the fuck out should frighten the almighty piss out of you.

"Ten or fifteen years ago, I would’ve dismissed that notion, that people were relocating themselves for freedom within America as the wild rantings of a fringe lunatic, but today, I’m looking for a real estate agent."

And then this one from Publicola yesterday, detailing government insult upon outrage from which the majority shrugs and turns away.

Jefferson suggested a small armed rebellion every 20 years or so. We didn't take his advice. Our last one ended in 1865, and it was so devastating, I think it put us off rebellion entirely too long.

Government isn't "us" and hasn't been for a long, long time. It represents the people who run the Democrat and Republican Parties, and those who pay them the most. Government-run education has ensured that the end product coming out of our schools is uniformly ignorant of how the system is supposed to work, and it's done a damned good job of indoctrinating our children in the "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" philosophy, and the "if it feels good, do it" philosophy. Fifty-plus years of this has produced a very large, very ignorant, very apathetic population.

I think that "pressing the reset button" is going to happen, but all it's going to get some of us is a tighter collar and a heavier chain.

Still, Churchill said it best:

"You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory,
because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

I sent you my reply via return e-mail, but I'll repeat it here:

I've been expecting a Second American Revolution for about a decade now, and I expect it within the next 25 years. The judicial activism is rowing more and more intrusive, and when a single parent (such as Michael Newdow) can subvert the entire fabric of American culture because he is offended over something his daughter is doing.

Never mind that the girl's mother (who has primary custody) doesn't mind, and never mind that the girl herself doesn't mind saying "one nation under God", if that one person is offended, we have to automatically re-write every patriotic song, and re-design the currency to keep from offending that one individual.

When a State Constitution, written by John Adams more than 220 years ago (and described as the longest-lived Constitution in the world), has suddenly been discovered to allow something that didn't even exist back then, and all of the laws written under that constitution have to be re-written, then there is something wrong with judicial activism.

When the Justices of the Supreme Court are using extranational precedents to make decisions for American citizens, then it's time to start stocking up the food and ammo...

Drumwaster

I don't believe there will ever be another armed revolution in America. There are just too many people, and too few who are particularly upset about any of the issues that would likely lead to such a conflict. Try getting one-in-a-hundred Americans excited about judicial activism. Good luck. Most of them like judicial activism. In order for there to be a revolution here, you'd need millions of armed Americans who think that things are so bad here that they'd be willing to die to change things. That's never gonna happen.

What's more, I suspect that as bad as things are in some respects, the government we'd get after the revolution would be worse. We'd probably end up with no Second Amendment, a radically curtailed First, not much of a Fourth, and who knows what else. We'd also end up with all sorts of new touchy feely crap and we'd end up with something rather like the new European constitution. Hell, we'd probably make the U.N. a fourth (and supreme) branch of government.

I think that we are on a cusp, in that it will hinge on the next election. The short answer is that if the right wins the election, we can forstall it for 25-50 years. If the left wins, expect it in 10-15.

No, I don't think that we are anywhere near an armed revolution. There are several reason why.

First, I see that the "gun culture" is either dead or dying in most of our urban centers (which carry most of the votes in this country). Most of the Northeastern cities are pretty hostile to gun owners. When most of the voters already see no need for the right to bear arms, it's alot easier to get rid of it.

Secondly, most new immigrants to this country come from places that already ban or severly curtail gun ownership. To them, owning a gun isn't a right they're used to having. So whats the big deal anyway? If current immigration numbers continue, thirty years from now 40% of the electorate will be foreign born, many of them with the attitude that the 2nd amendment is not a neccessary right.

And lastly, most people just don't care anymore. As long as they can still go shopping / get drunk / go golfing every weekend, they are content to give up the power of governing to those who promise to continue the status quo. If their standard of living stays the same or improves, they're happy. If that means that they have to give up some rights, so be it. At least that's my observation.

I dont think its possible. Two Hundered years ago, the discrepincy of weaponry between the army and the civialian population was not so large. A population armed with muskets could take out an army with slightly better firepower, training, etc. Today, I dont think we could overthrow the gov't (assuming gov't controls armed forces) even if 100% of the civilian popluation was armed and ready to fight. What do civilians have? Assult rifles? Against airpower, navy, armored vehicles, intel? No, I think civilians having suprerior numbers doesnt translate into success anymore.

On the other hand, in such a situation, the military contains citizens too. So it might depend to what extent they would follow orders and fight the civilians - or not, or even be *part* of the civilian forces, bringing military level hardware to the other side.

This is just insane. We are nowhere near the sorry state of affairs that would be required to mobilize the populace. The economy is starting to hum along quite nicely. While unemployment is a little high compared to a few years ago, it is still low historically and Europe would not dare to dream of unemployment as low as ours. Some people are pissed off about the PATRIOT Act, but some members of Congress have already noticed and are willing to take action. If more people get pissed about it, I don't doubt we could convince Congress to let is sunset despite Ashcroft's tantrums.

Things just aren't that bad and they are going to have to get really really bad before a significant group of people will be willing to risk their lives to overthrow the government. We may see another great war in our lifetimes, but it won't be another civil war.