Interesting stuff for readers interested in the nuances of the 2nd ad.
Volokh is a UCLA law professor. He is a Russian immigrant who graduated from UCLA at 15 years of age.
Quote -
BEARING ARMS, REVOLUTIONS, AND THE LIKE: A reader quotes my blogging that "One can believe that a strong government, including a strong federal government, is necessary, but also recognize that such a government's power should be checked by, among other things, the citizenry being armed," and responds:
“OK, so in your opinion there are situations where it is ethical and/or legal for citizens to take up arms against a duly-elected, democratic government?”
Of course as to "ethical"; I think few people would think otherwise. Imagine a duly-elected, democratic government that decides to exterminate some racial minority group (not, unfortunately, a ridiculous proposition) -- is it ethical for citizens to take up arms against this government to defend themselves? Of course. Now one might say that this government isn't "democratic," even if it's elected through democratic procedures -- but that just makes the definition circular ("democratic" = "the sort of government that doesn't do the things which would justify people taking up arms against it").
Of course those who do fight back (should such a fight be necessary) would be punished if they lose, just as the American Revolutionaries would have been punished if they had lost. As I said, the Constitution doesn't and can't secure a "right to revolution" in the sense of a legal immunity against being prosecuted for revolution. But it does secure the right to own the tools of revolution.
Much more here at the [url=http://volokh.blogspot.com/] Volokh Conspiracy[/url]