Please-no discussion about the formation of the 2nd Amendment or what the founders intended. This is not a free-for-all, and no “gun owners are poopyheads” vs “they want to take away all our weapons” arguments.
It is said by many, and even heard on this message board in the past, that the importance of the second amendment is the ability to rebel against a tyrannical government . Are there any here that still hold this to be true and, if so, what tyranny are they waiting for? Are there any major guns rights groups that are speaking up (or even rising up) against current actions taken up by the President and/or his followers?
What is the Debate? I’ll move this to P&E instead.
Moderating:
I think the laughable Sovereign Citizen types think they’re fighting the Federal government.
I’m sure there are 100s of militant groups, with weapons who would love to see a full revolution and would join in a heartbeat.
A revolution against whom? Your surety aside, where is there any evidence that any of these militant groups plan to rise up against Trump?
I’m not sure, but it apparently wasn’t the explicitly legalized murder of a million helpless babies a year for 50 years, so I’d say they’re waiting for something pretty serious.
Antifa and Anti government militias want to fight against police and government over reach.
There’s the Redneck Revolt. (I suggest they are not who you’d you like to associate with).
I think when SHTF it will be on yourself to defend yourself. I don’t think any group is powerful enough to have any numbers to do anything but get killed by the US Army or Trump’s ICE thugs.
Yeah. YMMV but I’m not counting on this to save me.
Not a pro-gun group…or even a real organization at all, for that matter. This thread isn’t about everyone that opposes Trump. BTW, the Redneck Revolt disbanded back in 2019.
This is pretty interesting to me because it’s new to me. Since I don’t know, I’m guessing the importance you note is for an individual (not a State)? It might not matter.
I’ve always understood the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right to own a gun to join the State militia. The unwritten part would be to balance those State militias against the federal government/army.
Sure, state militias can be included for the purpose of this thread. Of the ones that can’t be controlled by the Federal Government, are any rising up, or threatening to rise up against the current regime?
Things change. This was indeed a value for the 2nd in the past, when America did not really have a standing army, when the State Militias were more powerful. This is what happened more or less in the American Civil war, altho only the slave owners thought the Federal government was about to become tyrannical.
Other minor rebellions have occurred in the past.
Now with one of the most powerful standing armies in the world, this is hardly possible on any sort of scale.
And in a few armed stand-offs , they think that is what happened. See the Bundy stand-ff in Nevada, where the Feds decided that the end benefit weren’t worth the possible bad optics of a massive gun fight. So, still today, that is possible- on a small scale.
Correct, Up until the Spanish American War, or maybe WW1.
But just plain armed citizenry rebelling wasnt part of the reasoning behind the 2nd. Part was the State militias protecting their state from the “evil Federal standing army”.
Which BTW is nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment. As it stands, it says that the citizenry has the right to be armed and assemble as a militia, “for the security of a free state”. It’s the various political advocates that then claim an implicit “…against a tyrannical central authority” based on debates and writings and claims about originalist thinking.
In turn, the only mentions of the militia elsewhere in the text of the Constitution are to the effect that it can be called up on government orders to repel invasion or suppress insurrection.
(The existence of a general right of revolt against tyranny, as it were, is not expressed in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence)
Ok. I clearly don’t understand what you wanna get at here.
I’m out. I’ll be reading along though.
I would really rather not get into past history and the reasonings behind its inception, as stated in the OP.
Got it. If they really believe, then it seems like they should be doing this. So yea, why not.
I’m guessing it’s going to be one of those things were the anticipation/pretending is much more fun than the actual doing.
I assume your point is that one of the most prominent arguments for the existence of the Second Amendment is to resist tyranny. Yet, we seem to be faced with actual tyranny, and not only are the groups who traditionally support the Second Amendment not speaking out against it, they side with the administration that is perpetuating it. Which points out their hypocrisy, and belies their spoken reason for maintaining that amendment.
I think it’s a very valid point.
My only question is whether you think it better to repeal the amendment, or to exercise it in resisting the current tyrannical actions? (Without actually advocating for violent action here on the boards, of course, but rather just as a matter of philosophy.)
Most of the people who promoted this notion of “Resisting tyranny” over the last 20 years or so predicated that position on the assumption that it would be left-wing tyranny, trying to force socialism and homosexuality on everyone. Since it’s a right-wing government employing tyranny to get rid of the homosexuals and other undesirables, they’re fine with it.
Hence the hypocrisy.
I would like to hear from pro-gun and pro-2nd Amendment posters, also.
If you dont allow any historical perspective, then you are really shutting down most reasoned debate on the subject.
It is - BUT ONLY as far as the State organized Militias vs the Federal Standing army.
But not- as some would claim- individuals rebelling.
The NRA does not represent most gun owners. It has less that 4 million members and there are around 100 million gun owners in the USA. In other words, they represent less than 4% of gun owners. And we really arent facing “tyranny”, we still have free elections.
I am a pro-Bill of Rights Poster, but you say dont want to hear any historical perspective. That is critical to understanding this idea.
The 2nd Ad is part of the Bill of Rights, and is therefore important and must be protected. Just like the 1st Ad and the 5th Ad.
I’m not pro-gun, but I always thought the anti-tyranny argument was BS, and it’s just as BS when people are talking about rebelling against a right-wing government instead of a left-wing one.