It sounds like the National Assembly just needs to meet & vote to counter this?
[1] https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241203013900315 [2] https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241203013200315
The entire reason he declared martial law was to eliminate the opposition.
-- Sepultura (1993)
About the one thing this situation does not need is armed randos taking matters into their own hands. Currently, Seoul is in a constitutional crisis. The President is required to lift martial law. He has not yet done so. If people on the streets started shooting at each other, he'd have legitimate reason to send in the military. Korea's lack of a 2nd Amendment is one of the things keeping this constitutional crisis from what would have been the stupidest civil war of the millenium.
A tyrannical state will not care that you are "legally" allowed to own firearms, and rebels do not get rights.
Also, I'll believe the claim that 2A is to prevent tyranny when I see it, because most of the time when you ask someone who supports the 2nd amendment about slave revolts, you tend to find out how little they care about "tyranny"
I'll point to a more recent example: the Los Angeles riots in 1992. Koreatown was protected by gun toting citizens, literally fending off the mob. (Whether we categorize the mobs as tyrannical is more pedantic than anything else, the men with weapons maintained their agency because of the threat of lethal force. Guns against a government yield the same end, maintaining agency when others may try to take it from you.)
The history with actual cases of private arms being used to support or to resist government tyranny in the US can be generously described as "mixed".
It's also telling that so many instances like that, in the US and elsewhere, start with "... and then the good guys (or sometimes bad guys) seized a barely-guarded state armory". It's debatable how relevant private arms are to the resistance of tyranny anyway.
Foreign occupations are a whole other matter. When the call's coming from inside the house, plenty of your fellow "freedom-lovers" are helpfully using their liberty to liberate you from your liberty.
If the US military is united behind one group then that's that. If the US military is divided, then god help us caught in the middle.
For some reason, folks like to cite US foreign intervention failures as proof motivated locals with rifles can beat the US military, but that's not really the right thing to look at, as a bunch of things about those situations are materially different from a civil war (plus there is in every case a ton more to the resistance's armament and materiel than some guys taking their old AKs out of the closet, dusting them off, and digging into their prepper-crates of MREs)
Also, private gun ownership was the norm at the time.
Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy
Just ignore all the privateer ships that were loaded with cannons.
The founders, in 1808, appropriated funding for arms to state militias. [1]. Previously the arming of militias was up to the individual states. Some would have chosen to just have private citizens bring their own arms. Others would have actually set aside a fund to bring those arms.
And that's blatantly apparent when you think about the wars fought after the revolution. Cannons had to come from somewhere and you'd not expect a private citizen to have procured one.
That was, in fact, one of the reasons George Washington disliked the idea of militias, because you'd be arming untrained and undisciplined citizens with weapons they'd never used before and expect them to somehow know how to operate them.
> To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows ... if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter. -- George Washington
The author is absolutely hated the idea of a standing army, and I think the Bill of Rights reflects this ideal over more practical concerns.
You should look up letters of marque and reprisal, where private citizens effectively owned entire warships.
Private gun ownership != the right to a private gun.
Having read Heller, the various drafts of the Bill of Rights, and some of the correspondence, I don't think anyone that has done the same can make an honest originalist argument against the private right.
In particular, I think the linguistic argument about militias relies on a neologistic definition that is particularly misleading.
People can make valid living constitution arguments against the second amendment all day and all night, but these seem particularly out of favor. I think this, more than anything else explains the Heller decision in 2008
The "reality" in this sentence here is pretty solidly not accurate. The majority opinion in Heller asserted truths about the past that aren't born out by the historical record. Probably lifted straight from interest-group amicus briefs that agreed with what the majority was inclined to decide to begin with.
[EDIT] Whoops. I mean, that the above is often true in cases that cite history, even legal history, means it might still be true, but I was actually thinking of Bruen, where this happened to a degree that'd be comical if it weren't, you know, the Supreme Court.
If the President is accusing "the country’s opposition of controlling the parliament, sympathizing with North Korea and paralyzing the government with anti-state activities," that vote will take place without the opposition.
(It's mindblowing they left this in their Constitution after the 80s.)
The classic move is to block the legislature from assembling while one gets around to dissolving it.
It's just harder to create a veneer of the constitutional necessity of such a move when your own highest profile political allies apparently condemn it and pledge to "stop it with the people" instead of queuing up to rubber stamp it and do "this is a small problem with criminal elements in one party which is all resolved now" briefings to confused foreigners wondering who the real government of South Korea is.
Edit: reportedly the National Assembly has actually managed to hold a vote against it. Not sure how or what the constitutional quirks are, but that's probably going to make it considerably less likely the military unites behind the President...
As a Brazilian, well, Bolsonaro is all over the news right now. Peru has had one recently too (it lasted for 6 hours or so). Going North, the US famously had one just some 4 years ago.
This is in practice useless. The time for action is while the usurper is conslidating power. After a few days, they've either won or lost.
Or can they meet anywhere they choose?
You're confusing prime ministers in parliamentary democracies, e.g. the UK with presidents [1].
[1] https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-betwee...
True, there's a minority and majority.
> journalists tend to impose the term on non-US presidential systems
Didn't President Yoon call them the opposition? Or is that a liberal translation?
In a parliamentary democracy, the governing coalition and opposition are clearly delineated. In a presidential system, a legislature controlled by a party different from the president tends to be referred to as an opposition legislature, e.g. the House is currently in opposition to Biden.
> The entrance to the National Assembly has been sealed, and MPs have been barred from entering the building, according to Yonhap.
> Following Yoon’s announcement, South Korea’s military proclaimed that parliament and other political gatherings that could cause “social confusion” would be suspended
Edit: vote complete, declaration of martial law is voted down. Now what?
If the tanks politely go back where they came from, maybe parliament could consider tweaking the constitution to prevent blockading the assembly building next time.
Edit: "The South Korean military says it will maintain martial law until it is lifted by President Yoon Suk Yeol, despite the nation's parliament voting to block its enforcement". That's a bug. "the government must lift martial law" as a result of the vote, but the government is apparently the president?