Refusing Peaceful Transition Creates a Strong Presumption of Tyranny
Despite the persistent (wrongheaded) belief that the 2nd Amendment is Americans' best safeguard against tyranny, the bar of public opinion is set extremely high for what constitutes actionable 2nd Amendment tyranny. Apparently, for example, plutocrats' iron stranglehold on U.S. policy doesn't remotely qualify. If "2A" is to retain any value at all as a credible deterrent against tyranny, perhaps we need to distinguish between normal instances of "tolerated tyranny" and truly egregious cases of intolerable, beyond-the-pale tyranny. I'd say, if the Second Amendment offers any deterrent value against tyranny of any sort, Trump's threatened refusal to leave office peacefully upon losing the election qualifies as the egregious kind. As such, it makes the perfect test case for whether the theory that having a heavily armed citizenry deters tyranny is just "bear crap".
Precisely what makes Trump the Second Amendment's "covert, hell-spawned enemy" is that Trump's refusal of peaceful transition--the best test case for testing whether "2A" can deter tyranny we've ever witnessed--puts his heavily armed supporters in a terrible bind. If they truly believe it's a deterrent, they must support the theory that discussing conditional assassination of Trump is protected free speech; "2A" can't possibly deter Trump from a proposed egregiously tyrannical act if we can't freely warn Trump he's putting himself at risk of being shot. Failing to permit public speech about conditional assassination renders the 2nd Amendment completely toothless as a deterrent to proposed tyrannical acts.
On the other hand, if Trump supporters "stand by their man" and refuse to protest such speech, they risk flushing their beloved "2A" down the constitutional toilet. Among other things, they create the legally indefensible impression that the Second Amendment is just for right-wingers and can never be invoked by the left. If 2A is good law, leftists should be just as free as right-wingers to invoke it as an anti-tyranny deterrent. Neither side, of course, should invoke it over trifles, but risking civil war by refusing peaceful surrender of power carries a pretty strong legal presumption of being an act of tyranny. It's hard to imagine the right not screaming tyranny at deafening decibel levels if a Democrat president attempted a similar coup.
Whichever party's president attempted such a coup, it ultimately comes down to a question of facts. Unless there's powerful evidence that, as Trump claims, voter fraud is massive and the election is really being stolen from him, it's almost impossible not to view his refusal of peaceful transition as a dangerous act of tyranny. My proposal is that we have our election carefully scrutinized by the most objective available outside observers--for example, those from the UN or international civil society organizations.
Of course, I find it highly probable that Trump supporters would accept as objective observers only loyalists from their own side. Which leads us to the most powerful way in which Trump is a veiled, hell-spawned enemy of the 2nd Amendment: he's living proof it can enable fascism.
More on the close connection between fondness for guns and support for fascism in my next "tract".
(Article changed on September 30, 2020 at 12:03)
(Article changed on September 30, 2020 at 12:14)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
