So what you’re saying is that the purpose of gun rights is to protect gun rights?
I really hate the term ‘pro gun’. It’s a tool just like all the other tools I have in my garage. Sure I treat them differently than a screwdriver, but I’m not ‘pro gun’. I have been a target shooter since I was 9 years old.
I do, especially now, think we should have the right to defend ourselves. Voting is the best bet. That could go away though, the GOP is working on it.
What I am is pro Democracy.
Is that a reasonable interpretation? If you are forced into an armed rebellion against a tyrannical government, does it matter what the regular law says at that point?
(Also, what is “armed rebellion” supposed to mean in this context? Guerilla warfare? You are not supposed to bring guns to street demonstrations or other avenues of civil resistance. And, as a practical political matter, if you are rebelling you definitely ideally want the military to stay well out of it, unless you can be sure they are going to protect you from the cops/government forces and not the other way around.)
It sure looks like it has degenerated into that at this point for some of the “2A community”.
It would be the one sensible thing if it came to that.
The law doesn’t give people the right to rebel. The law gives people the right to have guns.
The argument is that rebelling is easier if you’re armed, and it’s easier to be armed if it’s legal to own a gun.
So the argument has done logic behind it. It’s just that the argument seems to be a bunch of BS once it’s put to the test.
ETA: I forgot to add that a handgun isn’t going to help much against a drone with a missile, or a bunch of guys with assault rifles, or a combat helicopter, or a tank battalion, etc. The kind of arms that might give you a chance against the US military is very much illegal. That’s definitely worth pointing out in this discussion I think.
My apologies to the OP.
I’ve felt the ICE recruits are guys who like guns and now have an excuse to dress up and shoot people.
I have always thought that the second amendment was a way for the founders to justify revolting against Britain.
Hidden to try to not hijack the thread too much
While this goes against the OP’s request not to get into the founder’s intentions, and I hope this doesn’t become a whole side discussion (in which case we should probably have a new thread), but as this is the SDMB I feel obligated to point out that the colonies rebelled against Britain in 1776, and that war ended in 1783. The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights written over the course of debate over the adoption of the US Constitution, and was written between 1787-1788, years after the war was over. There was no need to justify the revolt since the revolt was already history by that point. The Bill of Rights was just trying to convince people to accept a centralized government without worry of having another oppressive ruler like England.
The justification for rebellion was what was in the Declaration of Independence.
It was my impression that most gun owners don’t seriously think they could successfully rebel against a tyrannical government* and are mostly interested in self-protection, target shooting, hunting, firearms collecting etc.
The “but the Second Amendment is supposed to be about a well-regulated militia” argument was effectively put to rest a long time ago.
*and the ones who do are only serious about repelling left-wing tyranny, so they won’t be receptive to “well, what are you waiting for?”. 
Except that the IRA and kin managed to more or less beat the british army with nothing but small arms and bombs, by waging guerilla war and terrorism. Ireland is now free and independent.
Guerilla warfare can be very effective, even against foes with tanks and helicopters- see the Viet-Nam war.
You are correct. Only a few right wing nuts think they are gonna rise up against tyranny.
Half of it is. Like many things in the Constitution it was a compromise- the writers wanted to BOTH protect the right to bear arms AND the right of the States to have Militias. So, they wrote a rather confusing amendment, which they understood, anyway.
And the tyranny hasnt gotten to that point anyway.
There are 100 million US gun owners. Probably 60/40 right/left. At least 50% of the right is MAGA.
That’s 30 million MAGA gun owners. If 1% of those are hard core Infowars types, that’s 300k dedicated wackos. I’d bet the percentage is more like 5%. If so, they outnumber the US Army.
They certainly don’t outgun or out-tactic the Army. But as you rightly said of the IRA, that crowd could sure be a major thorn in the side of a government they hated enough.
I agree with most of your numbers, except that the NRA has less than 4 Million members. Which means around 4% are diehard "take my gun away from my cold dead hands " types.
But yeah, I’d say about 60/40 GOP/Dem, except I think a good third are Indy voters.
Once again, I am not asking if the oft-stated plan to use the 2nd Amendment as an excuse to rise up and fight a tyrannical government is feasible. I am asking if it is still a “thing” amongst individuals, gun rights groups and private militias.
A look back in recent history:
NPR: Some Gun Control Opponents Cite Fear Of Government Tyranny
The then-CEO of the NRA:
“Senator, I think without any doubt, if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny,” LaPierre said.
And Gun Owners of America:
“I think principally the Second Amendment deals with keeping the government from going astray in a tyrannical direction,” says Larry Pratt, the group’s executive director.
I’ll note that this was in 2013, early in Obama’s second term.
Today? Well, they did oppose the idea of Trump wanting to block trans people from owning guns. Funny enough, this is from Fix News of all places.
I’ve searched carefully and that’s the closest thing I can find to opposition to Trump’s authoritarianism from guns rights groups.
The Framers would not have envisioned the 2nd Amendment as a vehicle to “rebel against a tyrannical government” while having Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 give Congress the explicit power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
The premise is flawed.
Really not the point in this thread, though.
I was going to make this exact point. Also to state that it’s pretty freakin’ absurd the believe that the Founders, who didn’t even trust the populace to directly elect Senators much less the President, would provide the populace with the right to have guns for the express purpose of overthrowing the very government they were establishing.
Moderating:
As a reminder, the OP @Czarcasm, requested that we leave originalism out of the discussion:
Please-no discussion about the formation of the 2nd Amendment or what the founders intended.
Please respect the clearly written parameters of the OP. Though of course, it’s probably worthy of another thread (hint, hint).
How to Reply as a linked Topic
Click Reply, in the upper left corner of the reply window is the reply type button, looks like a curving arrow point to the right.
Choose Reply as linked topic and it starts a new thread. As an example, you can choose GD, IMHO or The Pit for it.
That is actually the best method.
The NRA opposed trumps bump stock ban, which did get overturned in the Courts.
Enough children have been mass murdered in the US to show that the guns have far more solid rights than the children do. In the wake of the same kind of tragedy happening over and over again, the refrain of “now is not the time to politicize this!” has been said so many times it is self-parody now.
No. It is virtual signalling, plain and simple. It is like all those people who swear up and down that if they ever encounter a pedophile they will kill him on the spot. The President of the United States is a pedophile and he’s protecting other pedophiles. Nobody is going to do anything about it other than talking shit. Same goes for tyrannical governments. It’s far easier to stretch one’s definition of tyranny to exclude whatever the current situation is than it is to arm up and go fling some freedom seeds downrange at people who will shoot back.
One can look to the situation in Iran with a disarmed citizenship under a dictator who is willing to shoot protestors to see that may be a possibly reason to support an armed citizenship to defend against such state action. Now swing to the early ICE action, which is targeting a population who is not armed so much (blue cities), and one has to wonder if that city was more heavily armed and open carry was allowed, would ICE be more restrained with protestors? I think the only reason you don’t here 2nd amendments groups saying that is because they are mostly red groups and have not shown much care to democrats.