# A question about one aspect of the 2nd Amendment-and please read the OP before responding **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 13, 2026, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650 "2026-01-13T18:30:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/61 "2026-01-15T13:40:45Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > if that city was more heavily armed and open carry was allowed, would ICE be more restrained with protestors? As if ICE would refrain from shooting people who threaten them with guns? The protester who pulls out a gun would be gunned down, along with any other protesters nearby, and even the progressives would blame the protester for endangering the peaceful people around them by starting a gunfight. The reason this doesn’t work is that it needs organization. The police, ICE, military, they are organized. They have a plan, of sorts, and can execute coordinated operations. Protesters can’t. Not if they’re planning to use guns and shoot federal or local officers. You can’t do it secretly enough to avoid getting raided before your plan comes together, it’s a crime all the various types of officers would be happy to shut down hard. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/62 "2026-01-15T13:56:27Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > As if ICE would refrain from shooting people who threaten them with guns? IMHO you took it too far, ICE would behave far better and within the law, and back down sooner, if surrounded by legally armed protestors. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/63 "2026-01-15T15:31:37Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > IMHO you took it too far, ICE would behave far better and within the law, and back down sooner, if surrounded by legally armed protestors. …who are surrounded by National Guardsmen? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/64 "2026-01-15T15:58:05Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > ICE would behave far better Guns don’t make people behave. Guns make people comply. ICE (and any other law enforcement group) will not be forced to comply by the populace. If you ever have enough guns coalesced to force them to comply, they will bring in enough guns to make sure it never happens again. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/65 "2026-01-15T16:18:59Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > ICE (and any other law enforcement group) will not be forced to comply by the populace. If you ever have enough guns coalesced to force them to comply, they will bring in enough guns to make sure it never happens again. And… this is where we disagree. I really don’t think that this ICE action would even have happened with such an armed populous. IMHO what they are doing is illegal and the only reason they get away with it is because they are armed because … > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Guns make people comply. Exactly ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/66 "2026-01-15T16:21:39Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > …who are surrounded by National Guardsmen? Have you actually see that happen yet. I know it was called for, but I have not seen any results. Yes it would be interesting to see if that improves ICE’s civility. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/67 "2026-01-15T16:28:26Z")
To try to tie this into the topic, are there examples of ICE (a governmental agency) backing off from places because they are more heavily armed, or is this more theoretical? ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/68 "2026-01-15T16:36:50Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Have you actually see that happen yet. You were the one who decided to delve into hypotheticals. We have not seen ICE “surrounded by legally armed protestors” either. Did you want to talk about a hypothetical situation, or do you want to talk about what has already happened? > [@kanicbird](#): > > Yes it would be interesting to see if that improves ICE’s civility. I’m interested too, though the funny thing about the National Guard is that it can be run by the state or the federal government. If run by the state, it would most likely be to keep the two sides apart and try to maintain civility. That’s what Walz was talking about potentially doing. If run by the federal government, it would (or at least should) be because there is a state of emergency. And as reluctant as I am to say it, ICE folks being held hostage by an armed group seems like a legitimate emergency rather than one that was invented as an excuse (as has been the case this past year when the administration has tried to federalize NG troops as an intimidation tactic). Tying back into the OP here, I think that ICE being surrounded by legally armed protestors would be a perfect example of: > [@Czarcasm](#): > > major guns rights groups that are speaking up (or even rising up) against current actions taken up by the President and/or his followers ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/69 "2026-01-15T16:58:54Z")
Well as the Declaration of Independence phrased it: > Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed In other words, things have to get pretty drastic before _ **fomenting armed revolution against the government** _ becomes the lesser of two evils. Or perhaps as Claire Wolfe, author of “101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution” put it: “America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards”. As to why we haven’t seen ICE agents come under fire yet, I can only suppose that it’s because the protesters are reluctant for one reason or another to take up arms. Of course there are a scattering of loners like Tyler James Robinson, Thomas Crooks and this guy– [Wisconsin teen accused of killing parents to fund plot to assassinate Trump pleads guilty to homicide - CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nikita-casap-accused-killing-parents-fund-assassination-plot-pleads-guilty-wisconsin/) And finally of course to whatever extent gun ownership skews right on the political spectrum, conservative gun owners are going to view the administration’s actions less unfavorably. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/70 "2026-01-15T17:11:02Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > he unwritten part would be to balance those State militias against the federal government/army. In the 18th-19th century sense of the word, the USA no longer has any state militia forces. The reorganization of state forces into the National Guard beginning with the 1903 Militia Act was explicitly to bring such forces under the federal wing, and to remove the limitations on the federal government’s authority over them as originally given in Article One, Section Eight clause 15. The National Guard is now more or less a branch of the Army Reserve, and they can be yanked out from state control at any time; the Supreme Court case of _Perpich v. Department of Defense_ ruled that a state governor could not prevent their state’s National Guard forces from serving overseas. > [@DrDeth](#): > > And in a few armed stand-offs , they think that is what happened. See the Bundy stand-off 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. The Bundy incident was something that I like to call “armed civil disobedience”. It’s the absolute last step before plunging off the cliff of open rebellion. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/71 "2026-01-15T17:14:35Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > > [@Cheesesteak](#): > > > > Guns make people comply. > > Exactly Can you name a single time in the last century when the Federal Government “complied” with the wishes of a well armed group of agitators? I will not accept times when the government laid siege rather than storming in, because the agitators wanted the Feds to go away, not wait for reinforcements. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/72 "2026-01-15T17:29:53Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Can you name a single time in the last century when the Federal Government “complied” with the wishes of a well armed group of agitators? You are missing my point, which is that the federal government would typically not pursue such a path and would chose to work within other means in areas with higher firearm ownership and bearing arms. But yes it does happen: Bundy Ranch [Bundy standoff - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff). ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/73 "2026-01-15T18:49:19Z")
Going back to the OP … > [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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? Not that I can tell except insofar as mentioned earlier, objecting to things that directly counter Second Amendment rights like asking for organization membership lists or disarming trans people. But repelling mass intimidation campaigns or at least marching along with the opposition? Crickets. IMO, even if there were stuff to go down that **would** meet some kind of a “tyranny threshold” I’d think the leadership of major advocacy organizations, as such, wouldn’t ever risk being accused of _inciting_ armed rebellion. They know that being declared a terrorist group just takes a signature on a piece of paper and that a dozen current and former members of a board of directors can be arrested and made an example of quickly. At most I’d expect to see some “2A influencers” stoking the fires of a stochastic resistance. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2026, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/74 "2026-01-15T19:53:10Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > In the 18th-19th century sense of the word, the USA no longer has any state militia forces. A few states have their own militias not part of the national guard. But they seem to be mostly ceremonial. > [@Lumpy](#): > > . The reorganization of state forces into the National Guard beginning with the 1903 Militia Act was explicitly to bring such forces under the federal wing, and to remove the limitations on the federal government’s authority over them as originally given in Article One, Section Eight clause 15. The National Guard is now more or less a branch of the Army Re > > serve, and they can be yanked out from state control at any time; Correct. The National Guard is no longer a true state militia. > [@kanicbird](#): > > You are missing my point, which is that the federal government would typically not pursue such a path and would chose to work within other means in areas with higher firearm ownership and bearing arms. But yes it does happen: > Bundy Ranch Correct. They learned from Waco and Weaver, that just escalating to shooting first can be a really bad idea. The Bundy stand off was a good example- what was the use of getting into a firefight over something rather trivial, that could be solved by other means. There have been others- > **[Standoffs over the last 25 years](https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/2016/01/standoffs_over_the_last_25_yea.html)** > > More than a dozen standoffs between armed right-wing groups and the government have developed since the 1990s, each resulting in varying degrees of confrontation. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/75 "2026-01-16T15:43:49Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > A few states have their own militias not part of the national guard. But they seem to be mostly ceremonial. Some do use them as auxiliaries for emergencies when the mainline NG formations may be deployed elsewhere or be busy in locations more severely impacted by a disaster. Not fighting units. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2026, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650/76 "2026-01-16T17:07:53Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > A few states have their own militias not part of the national guard. But they seem to be mostly ceremonial. If you’re thinking of the [State Defense Forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force), they’re not quite exactly militia either. To go back to the Constitution, Article One Section Ten spells out which sovereign powers the state governments agreed to cede to the federal government. The third clause of A1S10 is the so-called Compact Clause, which reads > No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. In other words, the states were forbidden to possess their own independent professional state armies. This is in line with multiple other provisions of Article One, which gave sole authority to the federal government to maintain an army and navy, declare war and negotiate treaties of peace. The states were forbidden to maintain the means by which they might pursue independent foreign policies. The exception being by “the Consent of Congress”. And in the case of the State Defense Forces, that was granted by federal statute, 32 U.S.C. § 109. Legally then, the State Defense Forces **are** “troops” under the Compact Clause’s meaning. They therefore exist at the federal government’s sufferance, and they could be abolished at any time by appropriate federal legislation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-one-aspect-of-the-2nd-amendment-and-please-read-the-op-before-responding/1026650.md?page=3)