does the 2nd Amendment protect against tyranny?

[Anarchist420]

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.

 

[soccerballtux]

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.

 

[CallMeJoe]

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?

 

[Carmen813]

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.

 

[Schadenfroh]

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.

 

[Fear No Evil]

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..

 

[Kirby]

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.

 

[Genx87]

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.

 

[nonlnear]

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.

 

[irishScott]

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.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

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.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

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.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...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.

 

[spidey07]

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.

 

[werepossum]

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.

 

[woolfe9999]

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

 

[QuantumPion]

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.

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.

 

[piasabird]

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.

 

[Craig234]

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.

 

[sandorski]

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.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

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.

 

[irishScott]

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.

 

[qliveur]

If it were to happen, the military would split along with the rest of the country just like it did in 1861.

 

[PrinceofWands]

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%.

 

[irishScott]

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.