This explains why Progressives hate Article 10 and 2A / Second Amendment - Granite Grok

This explains why Progressives hate Article 10 and 2A / Second Amendment

Gadsden FlagCatching up on some reading and came across this in Imprimus (Jan 2014).  While the article has to do with the idea that the TEA Party needs to go to the next level of political theory and practice to truly accomplish their goals (limited government, fiscal frugality, and Constitutional bounds), it gives an idea of why Democrats / Progressives / Socialists hate the idea of a revolution (emphasis mine):

In a way, you can see how dangerous Obamacare is by noticing how it has brought out the worst in liberals—which is evident in how they have responded to the Tea Party. Liberal impatience with partisanship—that is, with people who oppose their plans—arises from the fact that in contemporary liberalism, there is no publicly acknowledged right of revolution. That may seem like a strange thing to say, but if one looks at some of the political theorists who were most important to modern or statist liberalism—Kant and Hegel in Germany, say, or Woodrow Wilson here in the United States—they are usually quite explicit in rejecting a right of revolution. In their view, a people always has in the long run the government it deserves. So there’s no right of the people to “abolish,” as the Declaration of Independence proclaims, the prevailing form of government and substitute a better one. In particular, there is no conceivable right to overturn contemporary liberalism itself; as liberals today are so fond of saying, there is no turning back the clock. To liberals the Tea Party appears, well, bonkers, precisely because it recalls the American Revolution, and in doing so implies that it might not be such a bad thing to have another revolution—or at least a second installment of the original—in order to roll back the bad government that is damaging both the safety and happiness of the American people.

Which is why every time, it seems, that we on the Right here in NH talk about the NH Constitution’s Article 10

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

…they have a cow.  They are just in absolute disbelief that anyone would even think of such a thing – that government has and is going in the wrong direction and that people would even consider it is time to start over. They see themselves as pragmatists – fix a problem and legislate behavior to adapt to that “fix” – as typical, Liberals brook little dissent.  For over 120 years, they have been able to move that Overton Window ever Leftward – WHY would they even contemplate a thought of blowing it all up? They must think:

“Who ARE these rubes that won’t take our governance as we have “progressed” Society towards our end game?  That they are so unsatisfied with what we have given them that they believe it to be so wrong so as to start over?”

That also explains their outright anger towards those that “cling to their guns” and swear by NH Constitution’s Article 2a

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

…because they don’t believe that individuals need to protect The State.  And certainly don’t believe that individuals need to protect themselves against The State- why should they, as they are trying to subvert the original purpose of The State (protect Liberties) and replace it with their purpose: to give you safety and security of their making.  With that latter purpose, WHY would anyone wish to fight or overthrow The State if its purpose is to provide for you?  The problem, overall, is that Progressives prove the saying that their history starts just the day before their birthday.  Their purpose is to “progress” the rest of us to a more enlightened state – and a large part of that enlightenment is pacification – we no longer have to fight or wage war.

Well, that explains why the Democrats here in NH are trying so hard to disarm everyone else – firearms are not needed in this view and if they don’t think it’s needed, then no one should need it (yeah, there’s yer Freedom and Choice for you).  So they will not stop until the deed is done.  You see, to them, The State is all and everything – and nothing should be able to attack it, much less overthrow it.  They don’t trust us to use such arms legally and lawfully (projection, I guess – they don’t trust others because they don’t trust themselves).

That the Right to Bear Arms is written into our Constitution is of little meaning to them – they don’t care.  That the Right to Revolution is written in our Constitution is not of little meaning to them – it is anathema.  Given a chance to eliminate either or both, well, I bet there’d be a whole bunch of First & Second born lined up in a hurry.

Our work will never end, for while their end goal is to end fighting, they are all about fighting us to get to that end point (yeah, cognitive dissonance).  They just will never accept that human nature doesn’t change.  Never will.  And they can’t even change themselves and don’t see that human nature in themselves – that there are always those that want to be in charge of others.

>