does the 2nd Amendment protect against tyranny?

[Anarchist420]

I don't think that there ever will be a 2nd American Revolution, because it would've happened already. Even though the 1st and 2nd Amendments probably give right to revolution, there are other parts in the Constitution that say that rebellions must be crushed and most Presidents have a tendency to ignore the 2nd Amendment and go with what Hamilton wanted.

There have only been a few Presidents throughout history who refused to send in Federal Troops in rebellions against states. John Tyler and Martin Van Buren are the only ones I can think of. Washington and Adams didn't even believe in a right to Revolution once they became President.

Before enough people could join the rebellion, the FBI would be informed, and the rebellion would be crushed

I personally support a revolution against the government as it is now (not like Tim McVeigh's empathy-lacking dumbass did though), but I'm not going to try it, because there is no way in hell I'd get past the first step. Think about how hard it is assassinate politicians--accomplishing that by killing all the neocons/statists in office is the only type of revolution. Then you'd have to organize a militia everywhere to stop people from replacing them with more neocons/statists at the polls.

 

[QuantumPion]

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.

The "militia" is the entire armed citizenry, something around 100,000,000 people. There is no way the army, navy, coast guard, and national guard, combined, could take us all on in the long run, unless they resorted to total war tactics against their own citizens. Which I highly doubt would even work anyways, it would breed such contempt within the army that they would switch sides. The "militia" wouldn't have to directly fight the army anyway, that's not how revolutions/citizen uprisings work.

FFS this place gets worse every day.

You're right on that count. Coincidentally, it started right about the time you started posting here! Go figure! :awe:

 

[QuantumPion]

I don't think that there ever will be a 2nd American Revolution, because it would've happened already. Even though the 1st and 2nd Amendments probably give right to revolution, there are other parts in the Constitution that say that rebellions must be crushed and most Presidents have a tendency to ignore the 2nd Amendment and go with what Hamilton wanted.

There have only been a few Presidents throughout history who refused to send in Federal Troops in rebellions against states. John Tyler and Martin Van Buren are the only ones I can think of. Washington and Adams didn't even believe in a right to Revolution once they became President.

Before enough people could join the rebellion, the FBI would be informed, and the rebellion would be crushed

I personally support a revolution against the government as it is now (not like Tim McVeigh's empathy-lacking dumbass did though), but I'm not going to try it, because there is no way in hell I'd get past the first step. Think about how hard it is assassinate politicians--accomplishing that by killing all the neocons/statists in office is the only type of revolution. Then you'd have to organize a militia everywhere to stop people from replacing them with more neocons/statists at the polls.

All it would take for a revolution to work would be a few million people refuse to pay their taxes. Either they get away with it, causing more and more people to stop paying taxes until the government collapses, or the government tries to force them, and the people fight back. Either situation seems totally plausible in the future if things continue they way they have been going.

 

[Craig234]

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?

No, you post nonsense.

And even in the laughably small chance that your doomsday predictions are correct

You can't read. I stopped reading your post at this point.

What I actually said:

We're nowhere near that, the US is still governed as a 'by consent' country.

I made no prediction for any scenario like that. In fact, The first sentence of my post is:

As I've said, there will never be another 'revolution'.

So you say I said the opposite of what I said - that I predict a 'doomsday scenario' I said will not happen.

So, I posted and cleaned up the mess. Come on, don't pull that.

I said that there is conflict between the ultra rich and the rest of the country that is increasing. That has nothing to do with 'predicting a doomsday scenario'.

There are all kinds of other likely things that will happen.

See the tea party for just a taste when the public falls victim to the ideology they're being fed by the right-wing interests. They demand the right-wing agenda.

You can keep people under control this way - the Soviets did it by keeping people hate the 'imperial west', the Nazis keeping people hating 'the Jews', we used communism.

Now people are being led to hate 'big government', the Democrats who are 'socialists who hate Christians', the poor who are unaffordable leeches, etc.

 

[werepossum]

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%.

I don't disagree, but I think at least a plurality must support the revolution IF the populace is armed. If the populace is disarmed, then obviously a comparatively small percentage of the populace may terrorize the rest into aiding or at least providing no help to the government. If a few revolutionaries burst into a house and are met with shotgun blasts, and then the neighbors come running with their arms, then a small minority cannot terrorize the populace into compliance. Government can do more with less than can revolutionaries because government by definition has moral authority, even more so in representative republics where even if we despise them, we have to acknowledge that we put them there.

As far as the various comments about the military intervening, no revolution should succeed in a country such as ours without the support of a large part of the military, simply because anything so heinous as to justify a revolution should be just as heinous to our military.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You're right on that count. Coincidentally, it started right about the time you started posting here! Go figure! :awe:

Gosh, that's clever, and completely unexpected. 10/10 originality

 

[Craig234]

All it would take for a revolution to work would be a few million people refuse to pay their taxes. Either they get away with it, causing more and more people to stop paying taxes until the government collapses, or the government tries to force them, and the people fight back. Either situation seems totally plausible in the future if things continue they way they have been going.

If some people refuse to pay their taxes, they'll be imprisoned and the country will support that. If for some reason the public agreed with the protesters, tax laws would shift.

There's really no need to overtax the common citizen when you have an extreme concentration of wealth - the issue is his relative poverty, not his tax rate.

Rather, the issue for the citizen is more the lack of any concern by the government, by the society, about most people's needs.

Imagine a Latin American oligarchy - they don't need to tax the average citizen, just to ignore them. 'Small government' is the agenda of the rich, who exploit the poor.

 

[irishScott]

No, you post nonsense.



You can't read. I stopped reading your post at this point.

What I actually said:



I made no prediction for any scenario like that. In fact, The first sentence of my post is:



So you say I said the opposite of what I said - that I predict a 'doomsday scenario' I said will not happen.

So, I posted and cleaned up the mess. Come on, don't pull that.

I said that there is conflict between the ultra rich and the rest of the country that is increasing. That has nothing to do with 'predicting a doomsday scenario'.

There are all kinds of other likely things that will happen.

See the tea party for just a taste when the public falls victim to the ideology they're being fed by the right-wing interests. They demand the right-wing agenda.

You can keep people under control this way - the Soviets did it by keeping people hate the 'imperial west', the Nazis keeping people hating 'the Jews', we used communism.

Now people are being led to hate 'big government', the Democrats who are 'socialists who hate Christians', the poor who are unaffordable leeches, etc.

And you argue semantics and deny your own logic. Let's follow it shall we?

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.

First your doomsday predictions. From the bolded, you specifically mention the rich laughing at "manipulated people" and state we're "slowly dismantling real democracy". In short, you are not just predicting, but saying in present tense that we are actively headed toward a government where the corporations reign supreme over the government and people are pacified and controlled. This is the left's biggest nightmare, which I labeled "doomsday predictions".

As for my "nonsense" well let's compare the logic of the theories.

Your theory: Corporations will take control of the populace by taking social programs away in the name of trimming down government. People will be easier to control without social programs.

My example hypothetical using your logic: Corporations will take control of the populace by encouraging social programs in the name of helping the poor and downtrodden. This will make people effectively dependent on government (and by extension, corporate) handouts and thus make them easier to control.

Both theories are well into conspiracy land, and both go as follows.

Corporations cheat populace through manipulation of government behind the scenes. The only difference is in the method of manipulation, which can be skewed any which way depending on your point of view.

 

[Carmen813]

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

Exactly. We're talking about a relatively weak, unorganized populace with no combat experience fighting against the single most effective fighting force in the history of the world. One that has lots of practice in fighting against guerrilla warfare tactics due to recent events.

I think it is flawed in the extreme to think that 50% of the American populace can come to a true agreement on anything, let alone coordinate an organized armed uprising. Say what you want regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, but those are countries where the insurgents have grown up in a state of war. They are very, very different than your average Iraqi or Afghan citizen.

Military service members take an oath to also follow the orders of the President and officers appoint over them. They would face a horrible choice, but I see many of them following orders. That is what they are trained to do.

Any serious attempt at armed revolt in the U.S. would be utterly crushed within less than a week. The President would label you domestic terrorists, the populace would turn against you, and you'd be killed or captured, and then hauled off to some not so secret government island where you be "interrogated."

All courtesy of laws that we gave government permission to enact in the first place.

Be realistic people

 

[Modelworks]

People are assuming the public could even come together to do any kind of rebellion. Most people I see like to talk about politics , laws, economy, but it is just talk. As soon as their tv show comes on or it is time for dinner it is forgotten to let someone else somewhere worry about it.

 

[Craig234]

And you argue semantics and deny your own logic. Let's follow it shall we?



First your doomsday predictions. From the bolded, you specifically mention the rich laughing at "manipulated people" and state we're "slowly dismantling real democracy". In short, you are not just predicting, but saying in present tense that we are actively headed toward a government where the corporations reign supreme over the government and people are pacified and controlled. This is the left's biggest nightmare, which I labeled "doomsday predictions".

I read your use of 'doomsday predictions' as predicting revolution. If you didn't, we had a misunderstanding that negates my criticism on that point.

Your theory: Corporations will take control of the populace by taking social programs away in the name of trimming down government. People will be easier to control without social programs.

That's greatly oversimplified, but not the opposite of what I'm saying, which is a refreshing improvement from some other posters.

To be clear, though, I'm not saying they will control the populace by taking social programs away.

In fact, the whole phrase 'control the populace' is inflammatory to the point of making it hard to discuss - it suggests some sort of Orwellian/Stalinist oppressive control.

It's a lot closer to what I've said before, for example, that a corrupt democracy is very effective for the wealthy, because people who think they have more power are far less likely to rebel. So, you'll hear all day nice feel good slogans about 'of the people, by the people, for the people', however corrupt it actually is.

The American middle class, largely created from progressive and FDR-era programs, is a radical new thing in the history of the human race filled with oligarchy.

And there is a tension between the interests of the rich and the rest of the people whether to have a stronger or weaker middle class.

We can talk about the long-term benefits of a strong middle class, but there is always a short-term interest to 'take their money'.

We could say that the rich are better off in the long term with a smaller share of a bigger pie, but that's not how it works a lot of the time.

My example hypothetical using your logic: Corporations will take control of the populace by encouraging social programs in the name of helping the poor and downtrodden. This will make people effectively dependent on government (and by extension, corporate) handouts and thus make them easier to control.

It's back to nonsense, really - conflating a lot of different things, eliminating things like the difference between 'government for the people' and the corporate agenda.

The bottom line isn't so much about government control - your worry - as about simply diverting resources out of the middle into the pockets of the top. Cheap labor, etc.

Both theories are well into conspiracy land, and both go as follows.

Corporations cheat populace through manipulation of government behind the scenes. The only difference is in the method of manipulation, which can be skewed any which way depending on your point of view.

There's nothing 'conspiracy land' about the issues of the corporate influence in our democracy, or the issues of policies of who gets a lot of the wealth.

When you get to the point you can't discuss those issues without claiming that any results - like big or small programs - are equally the 'corporate agenda', it's nonsensical.

It's very easy to keep score, who is getting more or less. There has been a radical shift towards concentrated wealth for 30 years.

 

[shortylickens]

The 2nd amendment was specifically designed to protect against tyranny. Defense against local criminals was just a side benefit.

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[Nebor]

Sure, if enough people rose up to fight, the military would crumble logistically (if not philosophically along the same lines that fragmented the rest of the nation.) The problem is, even people I know that own arsenals are too addicted to video games, mountain dew and Jersey Shore to EVER consider waging a real guerrilla war.

My time in the Army has taught me that the greatest threat in a domestic insurgency would be those ex and retired military members that know exactly how an insurgency works, how IEDs are made, how to harass without being killed, etc. Consider even if the relatively primitive enemies we face in Afghanistan had access to the raw materials that a typical small American town has. Batteries, chemicals, fuel, etc. Now give those materials to a sophisticated, highly trained warrior that knows how to properly and effectively employ them.

My overall point is, a very, very small percentage of the civilian population have the willpower to walk away from their television, much less watch their family die around them in a puddle of cold rain water. For that reason, they'll sit on their couch and complain when the government creeps into every bit of their lives.