If so, considering the original spirit of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is an American revolution even possible?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
- an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
- Sociology– a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution.
- a sudden, complete or marked change in something: the present revolution in church architecture.
- a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting point.
- a single turn of this kind.
- a person who advocates or takes part in a revolution.
- of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a revolution; revolutionary: revolutionist ideals.
- the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
- the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
- a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
- a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
- a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
- (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
- an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
- of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
Of course, a physically aggressive revolutionist would be, ipso facto, an enemy of the state. Were not the participants in the American Revolutionary War considered enemies of the state by King George? Is the only difference between a terrorist and a revolutionist that the former will attack civilians, while the latter limits its warfare to an established army?
Is a revolution even possible in the first world civilization of the 21st century?