Quote:
|
I think some would choose to meet violence with violence.
|
Firstly, I would ask which violence is it that they are meeting? There is a law they don't like, but no violence has been committed against the Cn public as far as I know.
In any case, I don't believe this would never happen in the modern day, regardless of whether it happened before.
Times have changed and, I would wager, so has the national psyche of the US.
If there were armed resistance you would have martial law in the affected area before you could say "Perhaps this was a bad idea" and any resistance would meet the full force of both LE, judiciary and possibly even the military.
In addition all the anti-terrorist legislation that exists and the powers it accords those in office would be brought to bear. Hello Gitmo...
Any such resistance would be crushed, whether thought to be in the right or wrong and a lot of the rest of the population would doubtless support that action. With or without media input.
In this respect, I think the 2nd A is more effective in the principles it enshrines rather than the actual actions it would seem to allow. It's the courts that really govern which freedoms will be retained and which will be forfeit. I think the days of armed rebellion are long gone. And if the rule of law still stands, so they should be.