WHO DECIDES WHEN VIOLENCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT BECOMES JUSTIFABLE?

Who decides when a government has become so tyrannical that it's okay to rise up with firearms to overthrow it? How do we distinguish between gun-toting wing-nuts and pistol-packing patriots?

I raise those questions because, as I type these words, there's an ex-cop, ex-Navy reservist (Christopher Dorner) running around southern California with an arsenal of weapons shooting at cops. He's already killed one, wounded others and killed two innocent bystanders. Dorner feels that the government of Los Angeles is tyrannical and has exercised its power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by firing him from the police force. So Dorner intends to fight back…by killing cops.

Make no mistake; what Dorner has done is despicable. I think it's indefensible too, but there's a sizable crowd of anti-government sympathizers in this country who are pumping their shotguns in a show of solidarity. They're praying that a military uprising is just around the corner. If you think I'm wrong, check out what the militia websites are saying about Dorner's rampage. The stuff ain't pretty, and it's definitely not pro-government.

The N.R.A. and gun control opponents justify their stance on firearms by stating that individuals need firearms in case it becomes necessary to overthrow our government. Okay, I understand that argument, but that doesn't answer the practical question I posed at the beginning of this post. Who decides when the individuals who run our government have become so tyrannical that the second Amendment justifies using firearms against them?

I've posed that question to several gun owners, and all of them essentially gave the same answer: it's up to the individual to decide.

That sounds like a great answer, until you recognize that Christopher Dorner believes that he's justified in bearing arms against a government he considers tyrannical. If you follow the prevailing government overthrow argument, you'd have to conclude that Dorner's actions were justified by his honest (albeit deranged) belief that the government is tyrannical. That's not a conclusion a gun-control advocate like me would reach, but it's the logical conclusion to the government overthrow argument advanced by the N.R.A. and its gun-toting followers.

I don't know about you, but the whole question makes me nervous, especially when the folks on the other side of the argument are armed to the teeth and feel entitled to decide for his or her self when government is being tyrannical and when it's not!