Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Social > Politics and News

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

View Poll Results: Does the 2nd Amendment protect the people from tyranny?
yes 26 66.67%
no 13 33.33%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-12-2010, 08:28 AM   #1
Anarchist420
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,604
Default does the 2nd Amendment protect against tyranny?

I think it does, because the Bill of Rights was the contract between the Antifederalists and the Federalists.

If Obama wanted to disarm a certain group of people, like the Nazis did to the Jews, then don't they have a God-given right to resist the Federal Government through violent self-defense? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Madison put the word "keep" in there for a reason.

Further, they put the 2nd Amendment in when there was the 9th and 10th Amendments, so the hunting argument made by self-proclaimed "originalist" semi-tyrant Antonin Scalia doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Finally, a militia is different from the military. I think the well-regulated (meaning "kept regular" by 1791 definition) militia clause referred to a citizens militia, since the state militias were already referred to in the Constitution prior to the 2nd Amendment. Mentioning a police force to protect the citizens a second time would be redundant.
Anarchist420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 08:36 AM   #2
soccerballtux
Lifer
 
soccerballtux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarchist420 View Post
I think it does, because the Bill of Rights was the contract between the Antifederalists and the Federalists.

If Obama wanted to disarm a certain group of people, like the Nazis did to the Jews, then don't they have a God-given right to resist the Federal Government through violent self-defense? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Madison put the word "keep" in there for a reason.

Further, they put the 2nd Amendment in when there was the 9th and 10th Amendments, so the hunting argument made by self-proclaimed "originalist" semi-tyrant Antonin Scalia doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Finally, a militia is different from the military. I think the well-regulated (meaning "kept regular" by 1791 definition) militia clause referred to a citizens militia, since the state militias were already referred to in the Constitution prior to the 2nd Amendment. Mentioning a police force to protect the citizens a second time would be redundant.
Good thing we're supposed to apply the law, not guess at its intentions. (IE, "we think the 2nd was about hunting")

This means anyone that wants to own guns for the purpose of protecting against tyranny is allowed and encouraged to do so.
__________________
FX-8310 || Asus M5A97-R2.0 + 16GB DDR3-1600 || AMD Radeon HD 7849.5 || Soyo 24" PMVA Heatware
soccerballtux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 09:11 AM   #3
CallMeJoe
Diamond Member
 
CallMeJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Palmetto State
Posts: 6,936
Default

Sharron Angle certainly seems to agree with you. She's mentioned the Tea Party applying "Second Amendment Solutions" if elections do not produce the desired results.



I've always pondered the significance of the order of Amendments in the Bill of Rights; the First Amendment protects our right to protest our government and the Second Amendment gives the Citizens the means to protect the First.
Was this an intentional statement by the Founders?
__________________
No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.
Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.

H. L. Mencken
CallMeJoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 09:23 AM   #4
Carmen813
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Tampa, FL (formerly NY)
Posts: 3,176
Default

Maybe it did when government's didn't have....






As is, I think you can buy all the guns you want. If the government decides to stomp all over you, there isn't really a hell of a lot anyone can do to stop them.
Carmen813 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 09:40 AM   #5
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
 
Schadenfroh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 38,418
Default

Quote:
Maybe it did when government's didn't have
Which are all so effective at fighting urban battles against insurgents / partisans armed with simple rifles / pistols and homemade explosives that hide amongst civilians and engage in guerrilla tactics like in Iraq.
__________________
"how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather bring about his own ruin than his preservation"
- Niccolò Machiavelli
Schadenfroh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 09:42 AM   #6
Fear No Evil
Banned
 
Fear No Evil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,922
Default

Of course you guys are assuming some of the military wouldn't side with the citizens.. Obviously if they didn't, it would be a blood bath..
Fear No Evil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 10:01 AM   #7
Kirby
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 12,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear No Evil View Post
Of course you guys are assuming some of the military wouldn't side with the citizens.. Obviously if they didn't, it would be a blood bath..
No worse than Iraq/Afghanistan. More people, more land. Not to mention with the government being located here, there are more chances for assassinations, bombing gov't buildings, etc.
Kirby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 10:02 AM   #8
Genx87
Lifer
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,402
Default

I dont consider it an automatic protection. Only that it affords the citizens the ability to protect themselves from tyranny should they decide to act. The weapon is only part of the equation. Need people willing to use it.
__________________
"Communism can be defined as the longest route from capitalism to capitalism."
"Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty"
"Because you can trust freedom when it is not in your hand. When everybody is fighting for their promised land"
Genx87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 10:03 AM   #9
nonlnear
Platinum Member
 
nonlnear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,497
Default

Slightly easier access to a recourse against tyranny != protection from tyranny.

Does an ejection seat protect a fighter pilot from enemy fire?

If anything the first amendment is a more effective [preemptive] protection against tyranny.
nonlnear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 10:14 AM   #10
irishScott
Lifer
 
irishScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 20,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmen813 View Post
Maybe it did when government's didn't have....






As is, I think you can buy all the guns you want. If the government decides to stomp all over you, there isn't really a hell of a lot anyone can do to stop them.
Depends on the scale of the rebellion. If half of the American populace decided to arm themselves and run a guerrilla war, the military would be having a bitch of a time at best.
irishScott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 10:38 AM   #11
Sheik Yerbouti
Diamond Member
 
Sheik Yerbouti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,829
Default

the 2nd amendment is archaic and needs to be re-worded for the modern world. Who in their right mind thinks they could take on any branch of the armed services if they felt that a tyrannical overlord needed ousting?
You think a couple of hundred organized (and that's being incredibly optimistic) militia members could take on the US Army or Marines, hell, even the National Guard could wipe them out.
The use for the 2nd amendment today is to ensure that every american can legally own a gun for protection, hunting or sport shooting. I pretty much loathe handguns, but respect the rights, and removing that right would do little to nothing to stop the massive amounts of handgun related murders/injuries.
Oh, and 420 is the epitome of idiocy. Giving credence to his discussion is like arguing religion with a walnut.
__________________
Quote:
Paint it black! Paint it black! Paint it black, you devil!
-Unknown fan,
The Rolling Stones promptly start "Sympathy For The Devil"
Madison Square Garden 28-Nov-1969
Sheik Yerbouti is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 10:57 AM   #12
CaptainGoodnight
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmen813 View Post
Maybe it did when government's didn't have....

As is, I think you can buy all the guns you want. If the government decides to stomp all over you, there isn't really a hell of a lot anyone can do to stop them.
And yes because of that, Iraq and Afghanistan has been a breeze.

Doesn't matter anyway. They will take all our guns away long before we become a tyranny.
__________________
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.

Adolf Hitler
CaptainGoodnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 11:22 AM   #13
CallMeJoe
Diamond Member
 
CallMeJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Palmetto State
Posts: 6,936
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbouti View Post
...Oh, and 420 is the epitome of idiocy. Giving credence to his discussion is like arguing religion with a walnut.
I'm willing to post reasonable responses on the rare occasions that Anarchist420 starts rational threads.
Such behavior might encourage him start more such threads and post fewer incomprehensible rants.
__________________
No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.
Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.

H. L. Mencken
CallMeJoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 11:41 AM   #14
spidey07
No Lifer
 
spidey07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 65,476
Default

Absolutely. That's why it's in the bill of rights and why it's listed right after freedom of speech, religion, etc. The whole reason the founders thought it was so important was to protect against tyranny and unrepresentative governance.

And stop talking about the military going against citizens, all soldiers take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. Our military would be the first to defend and rise up against tyranny right along side The People. Most service men I've talked to take their oath very seriously.
__________________
___
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Last edited by spidey07; 10-12-2010 at 11:43 AM.
spidey07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 11:52 AM   #15
werepossum
Lifer
 
werepossum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 20,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbouti View Post
the 2nd amendment is archaic and needs to be re-worded for the modern world. Who in their right mind thinks they could take on any branch of the armed services if they felt that a tyrannical overlord needed ousting?
You think a couple of hundred organized (and that's being incredibly optimistic) militia members could take on the US Army or Marines, hell, even the National Guard could wipe them out.
The use for the 2nd amendment today is to ensure that every american can legally own a gun for protection, hunting or sport shooting. I pretty much loathe handguns, but respect the rights, and removing that right would do little to nothing to stop the massive amounts of handgun related murders/injuries.
Oh, and 420 is the epitome of idiocy. Giving credence to his discussion is like arguing religion with a walnut.
Completely wrong. Certainly a couple hundred militiamen could not take over the government - nor should they be able to. The type of protection the Second Amendment affords requires majority (or at least plurality) support and active participation of a significant minority. To do otherwise would require a disarmed populace, so that a small minority could have a disproportional affect.

Should a majority of Americans feel the need to take on their government, no military could stop them. Consider the much more poorly armed Afghanistan militia taking on the Soviets, which they did for years before the USA began shipping them Stingers and providing training. Consider how many Americans own scoped rifles capable of reliably hitting a man-sized target at three to five hundred yards - with bullets not stoppable by body armor. Consider also that our military is not some minority-oriented group, but very much a product of, and representative of, the American populace. The protection against tyranny afforded by the Second Amendment is as effective today as it ever was.
__________________
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know,
72 degrees at all times and -- whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the
tundra, and then just expect that every other country is going to say, okay, you know you
guys go ahead and keep on using 25% of the world's energy - Barack Hussein Obama
werepossum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 11:52 AM   #16
woolfe9999
Diamond Member
 
woolfe9999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishScott View Post
Depends on the scale of the rebellion. If half of the American populace decided to arm themselves and run a guerrilla war, the military would be having a bitch of a time at best.
Yes, there are IF scenarios that would counter Carmen's point. Half the population in a guerrilla war. Half the military siding with the rebels. However, none of said IF scenarios are especially plausible in these United States. Hence, his point stands as a reasonable one.

- wolf
woolfe9999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 12:24 PM   #17
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
 
QuantumPion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,673
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbouti View Post
the 2nd amendment is archaic and needs to be re-worded for the modern world. Who in their right mind thinks they could take on any branch of the armed services if they felt that a tyrannical overlord needed ousting?
You think a couple of hundred organized (and that's being incredibly optimistic) militia members could take on the US Army or Marines, hell, even the National Guard could wipe them out.
You think it is plausible that the US military would enact total war against its own citizenry, with tanks and jet bombers? Even the Russians didn't go to such extremes in Chechnya.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nonlnear View Post
Slightly easier access to a recourse against tyranny != protection from tyranny.

Does an ejection seat protect a fighter pilot from enemy fire?

If anything the first amendment is a more effective [preemptive] protection against tyranny.
Good point.
QuantumPion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 01:24 PM   #18
piasabird
Lifer
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,378
Default

Freedom of speech helps to fight against tyranny, but it does not stop it. As an organized media can limit free speech simply by slanting to the right or left, and shut down any speech they dont agree with. There is more then one way to control the media.
__________________
Asus Memo Pad 7 HD. Quad Core Tablet.
piasabird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 01:39 PM   #19
Craig234
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 33,049
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishScott View Post
Depends on the scale of the rebellion. If half of the American populace decided to arm themselves and run a guerrilla war, the military would be having a bitch of a time at best.
As I've said, there will never be another 'revolution'. Many people don't appreciate the ability of a power to control the American people from such an event today.

It includes everything from propaganda and media efforts, to communication, to IMO the American people's not being willing to take a lot of personal risk, and much more.

People don't even hardly carry a sign in the street or write their Congressman about things like the 30 year class war against them and the financial crisis.

It's really not that hard to control a population like we have here.

It's inspiring to look at the history's of some of the movements in Latin America against tyrants (armed with the help of the US too frequently).

These people would face things like being 'disappeared' and tortured and murdered, and they still pushed for more freedom and democracy. It's really something.

But read about things like a factory - sometimes a US corporation's factory - that was patrolled by armed guards, where sometimes a worker who had rebelled was hauled into the parking lot and tortured where the rest could hear it, and you get an idea how well that could keep people controlled.

We're nowhere near that, the US is still governed as a 'by consent' country. But the trends towards extreme concentrations of wealth, to disposable poor and such, towards the rich looking at how to weaken the ability of an elected government to do anything about their abuse of power, and we're on a collision course between democracy and a powerful rich.

Having politicians who serve the rich but tell pretty lies to the public only works so long. We're slowly dismantling real democracy, as the right's ideology is spread to pacify people.

'We the people DEMAND you gut the big evil government, ESPECIALLY any programs that are aimed at the benefit of the general public.'

The rich must laugh when they see the people manipulated so well to their agenda.
Craig234 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 01:47 PM   #20
sandorski
No Lifer
 
sandorski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: coquitlam, bc
Posts: 57,858
Default

When Citizens and Militaries had the same Weapons it was a deterrent. Not so anymore. Hell, there was a time that Citizen's Weapons were the only Military might within Society. Once that might was Institutionalized and modern free standing Militaries were established, the Citizen slowly lost it's ability to insure against tyranny through means of Civilian Might. Which is why the role of Civilian control of the Military through Government is more important than ever. It's also why the democratic processes used to establish Governments should be held as the most sacred within modern society.
__________________

FX 8320@4ghz||Zalman LQ310||AsusM5A99X EVO R2
||XFX 5870 1gb||16gb Corsair Vengeance DDR3||Seasonic M12 II 500watts||Zalman Z9 Plus||Asus MS238H

Science inspires us towards a better tomorrow, Fundamentalism wants us to die.
sandorski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 01:53 PM   #21
Sheik Yerbouti
Diamond Member
 
Sheik Yerbouti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumPion View Post
You think it is plausible that the US military would enact total war against its own citizenry, with tanks and jet bombers? Even the Russians didn't go to such extremes in Chechnya.



Good point.
NO, I am saying that they would stand for and behind the current regime, subsequently making them an army the militia would have to fight. Isn't that the 2nd amendment? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Specifically to reign in any chance of a tyrannical leader. FFS this place gets worse every day.
__________________
Quote:
Paint it black! Paint it black! Paint it black, you devil!
-Unknown fan,
The Rolling Stones promptly start "Sympathy For The Devil"
Madison Square Garden 28-Nov-1969
Sheik Yerbouti is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 01:56 PM   #22
irishScott
Lifer
 
irishScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 20,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woolfe9999 View Post
Yes, there are IF scenarios that would counter Carmen's point. Half the population in a guerrilla war. Half the military siding with the rebels. However, none of said IF scenarios are especially plausible in these United States. Hence, his point stands as a reasonable one.

- wolf
True, but IIRC the original revolutionary war only directly involved about 1/3 of the populace as active revolutionaries. Another third were loyalist, and the remainder were pretty much neutral.

And I agree that a full scale rebellion isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future, but if we lose our democracy anything's possible. If the government did get so tyrannical as to prompt a 2nd violent American revolution, you'd find the weak wannabe nanny-state children would get cut out of it pretty quick. There's still a hard core to America.
irishScott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 02:03 PM   #23
qliveur
Diamond Member
 
qliveur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 3,525
Default

If it were to happen, the military would split along with the rest of the country just like it did in 1861.
__________________
"Mind your wants, 'cause there's someone that wants your mind." -George Clinton
qliveur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 02:38 PM   #24
PrinceofWands
Lifer
 
PrinceofWands's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Longview WA
Posts: 13,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by werepossum View Post
Completely wrong. Certainly a couple hundred militiamen could not take over the government - nor should they be able to. The type of protection the Second Amendment affords requires majority (or at least plurality) support and active participation of a significant minority. To do otherwise would require a disarmed populace, so that a small minority could have a disproportional affect.

Should a majority of Americans feel the need to take on their government, no military could stop them. Consider the much more poorly armed Afghanistan militia taking on the Soviets, which they did for years before the USA began shipping them Stingers and providing training. Consider how many Americans own scoped rifles capable of reliably hitting a man-sized target at three to five hundred yards - with bullets not stoppable by body armor. Consider also that our military is not some minority-oriented group, but very much a product of, and representative of, the American populace. The protection against tyranny afforded by the Second Amendment is as effective today as it ever was.
I think you vastly underestimate the power of an armed and dedicated populace. The American Revolution didn't have a majority, and even the plurality is suspect (estimates run from 30-45% supporting actual revolution). About 20-30% actively supported Britain, and the rest favored some sort of compromise. It was supported by a minority and actually fought by a TINY percentage (less than 10%).

If you study revolutions you'll find that they almost never have more than 10% participation, and often as little as 1-3%.
__________________
*weeps for humanity and common sense* ~my Lifer post
PrinceofWands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2010, 03:07 PM   #25
irishScott
Lifer
 
irishScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Delaware
Posts: 20,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig234 View Post
As I've said, there will never be another 'revolution'. Many people don't appreciate the ability of a power to control the American people from such an event today.

It includes everything from propaganda and media efforts, to communication, to IMO the American people's not being willing to take a lot of personal risk, and much more.

People don't even hardly carry a sign in the street or write their Congressman about things like the 30 year class war against them and the financial crisis.

It's really not that hard to control a population like we have here.

It's inspiring to look at the history's of some of the movements in Latin America against tyrants (armed with the help of the US too frequently).

These people would face things like being 'disappeared' and tortured and murdered, and they still pushed for more freedom and democracy. It's really something.

But read about things like a factory - sometimes a US corporation's factory - that was patrolled by armed guards, where sometimes a worker who had rebelled was hauled into the parking lot and tortured where the rest could hear it, and you get an idea how well that could keep people controlled.

We're nowhere near that, the US is still governed as a 'by consent' country. But the trends towards extreme concentrations of wealth, to disposable poor and such, towards the rich looking at how to weaken the ability of an elected government to do anything about their abuse of power, and we're on a collision course between democracy and a powerful rich.

Having politicians who serve the rich but tell pretty lies to the public only works so long. We're slowly dismantling real democracy, as the right's ideology is spread to pacify people.

'We the people DEMAND you gut the big evil government, ESPECIALLY any programs that are aimed at the benefit of the general public.'

The rich must laugh when they see the people manipulated so well to their agenda.
By your logic I could say the left is intentionally providing said public programs with the goal of making Americans weak and dependent, and thus easy to control. See what I did there?

And even in the laughably small chance that your doomsday predictions are correct, I'd rather live in a country of a rich elite and a large ghetto poor so long as I had the opportunity to become one of said rich. Don't get me wrong it'd be far from ideal, but it's better than a country of nanny-state middle class yuppies dependent on government cheese.
irishScott is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.