As a last resort when all other options have failed? Yeah, if you value democracy and don't want to bend the knee and live under an authoritarian state. Ammo box is listed last for a reason, of course, all other avenues should be pursued first.
But that doesn't change the fact that the government isn't going to stop itself from overstepping the constitution, that duty falls with the people via protest, voting, lawsuits, and as a last resort, use of force.
This sounds great... in theory. And just sort of assumes that large casualties are acceptable. Or, even worse, that a lone individual can impart change via a well aimed shot, or something.
Both of which are wild and not something the average person should want or expect to happen. Which makes it even stranger that so many people say it all the time.
Have you stopped renegade cops in your community? Or are you only suggesting that other people do, knowing that anyone who attempts it will die?
It just seems insane to seriously suggest fighting a force that has tanks, drones, etc and has full info on where you are at any moment should they decide to take you out with a sniper, and the willingness to use all of those against you while calling you a terrorist.
I'm not suggesting it, but taking a look at history, a couple notables are the Battle of Athens and Cliven Bundy standoff. Bundy is still grazing his cattle on that land to this day.
Ammon Bundy has held relatively libertarian opinions on immigration for a long long time. Since at least the days of the standoffs. His political ideals are closer to the old time westy classical liberalism (something like founding era anti-federalists with a view of the law that essentially mirrors Bastiat) than they are to neo-conservatism.
We've had a significant breakdown in process here. Congress is deadlocked. The Supreme Court is corrupt. The only thing left are The People (protest / vote < civil disobedience < escalation beyond).
You’ve got the first two backwards. The real accountability mechanism in the constitution for a rogue president/administration is impeachment by congress (which is a proxy for the people in theory). Unfortunately neither enough of congress nor enough of the electorate cares if the administration breaks the law.
In theory, yes. Any supreme court interpretation can be overruled by a congress that is truly in lockstep.
Reality, is disappointing. Where we have a dealocked congress we try to switch around every 2 years while 9 people in the courts can re-interpret how they wish with basically zero reprecussions, for life.
Maybe the SCOTUS also needs terms limits thanks to modern medical advances. I don't think the founding fathers intended for courts to remain the same people for decades on end. It can be a very long term like the Federal Reserve, but we definitely need something.
The issue lies in who enforces it. In theory, that's congress with the ability to impeach and convict members of SCOTUS.
I've also thrown around ideas in my head of state SC's chief justices having a channel to court marshal a SCOTUS and eject them with a supermajority ruling. Or a band of federal judges. But there's so much more involved there I haven't begun to consider.
The people, using the 4 boxes of liberty: Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, and lastly, the Ammo box.
Are you suggesting people take up arms against police? Has that ever gone well for anyone, except as a quick way to die?
As a last resort when all other options have failed? Yeah, if you value democracy and don't want to bend the knee and live under an authoritarian state. Ammo box is listed last for a reason, of course, all other avenues should be pursued first.
But that doesn't change the fact that the government isn't going to stop itself from overstepping the constitution, that duty falls with the people via protest, voting, lawsuits, and as a last resort, use of force.
This sounds great... in theory. And just sort of assumes that large casualties are acceptable. Or, even worse, that a lone individual can impart change via a well aimed shot, or something.
Both of which are wild and not something the average person should want or expect to happen. Which makes it even stranger that so many people say it all the time.
Have you stopped renegade cops in your community? Or are you only suggesting that other people do, knowing that anyone who attempts it will die?
It just seems insane to seriously suggest fighting a force that has tanks, drones, etc and has full info on where you are at any moment should they decide to take you out with a sniper, and the willingness to use all of those against you while calling you a terrorist.
How is this not the exact reasoning MAGA uses for Jan. 6
The problem with the difference between good and bad things is, of course, that one's perspective has an impact.
Americans generally think vandalism is wrong, but also that the Boston Tea Party was a good thing - yadda yadda yadda...
I'm not suggesting it, but taking a look at history, a couple notables are the Battle of Athens and Cliven Bundy standoff. Bundy is still grazing his cattle on that land to this day.
Recent article on the younger Bundy, "Ammon Bundy Is All Alone. The anti-government militia leader can’t make sense of his allies’ support for ICE violence." https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/02/ammon-bundy-trump-...
Ammon Bundy has held relatively libertarian opinions on immigration for a long long time. Since at least the days of the standoffs. His political ideals are closer to the old time westy classical liberalism (something like founding era anti-federalists with a view of the law that essentially mirrors Bastiat) than they are to neo-conservatism.
Well, the other option is to live while bending the knee. Who needs rights anyway??
Congress < Supreme Court < The People
We've had a significant breakdown in process here. Congress is deadlocked. The Supreme Court is corrupt. The only thing left are The People (protest / vote < civil disobedience < escalation beyond).
You’ve got the first two backwards. The real accountability mechanism in the constitution for a rogue president/administration is impeachment by congress (which is a proxy for the people in theory). Unfortunately neither enough of congress nor enough of the electorate cares if the administration breaks the law.
In theory, yes. Any supreme court interpretation can be overruled by a congress that is truly in lockstep.
Reality, is disappointing. Where we have a dealocked congress we try to switch around every 2 years while 9 people in the courts can re-interpret how they wish with basically zero reprecussions, for life.
Maybe the SCOTUS also needs terms limits thanks to modern medical advances. I don't think the founding fathers intended for courts to remain the same people for decades on end. It can be a very long term like the Federal Reserve, but we definitely need something.
How about we just start with SCOTUS having transparent (and enforced) ethics and corruption policies?
The issue lies in who enforces it. In theory, that's congress with the ability to impeach and convict members of SCOTUS.
I've also thrown around ideas in my head of state SC's chief justices having a channel to court marshal a SCOTUS and eject them with a supermajority ruling. Or a band of federal judges. But there's so much more involved there I haven't begun to consider.