The constitution is fine. The main issue is about definition of oppression that is shifted by Left. And can I point the dissonance here as you seem to not get it - you want to overthrow "oppression"... and AT THE SAME TIME complain that "opressive" government has unfair laws against you? If you do not succeed at overthrowing "oppression", expect to be punished like losers, as state has monopoly on violence and is free to punish harshly those that challenge that monopoly.
Comments
Then what's the right to it doing in the constitution?
The constitution is fine. The main issue is about definition of oppression that is shifted by Left. And can I point the dissonance here as you seem to not get it - you want to overthrow "oppression"... and AT THE SAME TIME complain that "opressive" government has unfair laws against you? If you do not succeed at overthrowing "oppression", expect to be punished like losers, as state has monopoly on violence and is free to punish harshly those that challenge that monopoly.
There's no dissonance in saying that the oppression is oppressive and the oppressors violate their own laws.
I think the dissonance is in thinking the actions of these protestors is ethical and legal.
There’s a right to bear arms, not to brandish and shoot them.
Nowhere does the Constitution say you can fire on police if you think they are doing something wrong. Especially when you’re incorrect.
I think the rule for insurrections is that you better be right. Or at least more powerful than the government (see American Revolution).