Right to Revolution

A poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University shows that almost one third (29%) of registered voters believe that an armed revolution may be necessary within a few years.  Is 29% anything less than mainstream, and if armed revolution is a mainstream thought, how reasonable is it to attribute revolutionary ideals only  to crackpot extremists?

Is it worthy to consider that perhaps the government, as it exists today, not in form, but in fashion and representation, does not serve the public well?  We learn in school that our government is of the people, by the people, for the people, but is that still the case?  John Locke wrote that once government ceases to serve the interest of the governed, the government outlives its purpose, and the people have a right, a responsibility, to revolt.

John Locke

According to the article, many Americans, fearing restrictive laws and future unrest at the hands of the government, are stockpiling weapons and ammunition.  A good point to be made is that fringe elements perhaps would only account for less than 10%.  Does it not stand to reason that if a movement is truly fringe, then one should not expect to encounter anyone taking part in that movement except by slight chance?  When one out of three people begin to believe in that movement though, does it not change the dynamic or at the very least present a paradigm shift?

The Founding Fathers knew that no government would last forever, and they also knew that there would always be a chance for a government, no matter how great it was in the beginning, to overstep its governing authority.  In such a case, as
the Founding Fathers were in the process of revolting from an oppressive regime as well, they included the Second Amendment in order to provide the tools necessary to future generations to do that which they were presently engaged, fighting for freedom.

To read the article, click here.