Federal? State? Local?
What counts as “tyranny” when it comes to defending yourself with weaponry?
I bring this up because of a post in another thread:
That was one purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The fact that it doesn’t actually work is one argument that the 2nd Amendment was a bad idea.
Exclusively federal, I think. It’s for when a significant majority of the entire population decides the status quo is so unjust that a revolution is necessary. (And, as an incentive for the federal government to not to make that seem like the best option for the populace.)
Regarding whether it’s a purpose of the 2nd amendment, a previous thread:
The second part of the clause, in larger part, was to counter the necessary evil stated in the first part would be needed as part of governmental function. To have a free state we need government controlled guns (to point outwards towards external threats, and possibly internal terrorism ones). We know that government controlled guns is potentially bad for freedom so the people should also be armed to prevent those government guns pointing inwards towards it’s own people, instead of outwards to guard against external threats. So a large part is anti- tyranny. The second but lesser part was to ensure that guns were available incase of a external threat. That is my understanding of it.
The Constitution discusses *suppressing *insurrections against the government in multiple places, but nowhere does it authorize them. That would be silly. The claim is a fantasy.
No. The stated purpose of the Second Amendment is to explicitly limit the power of the government with respect to regulating arms. The reason the states added the Second Amendment to the Constitution is that they did not want a large standing military force, but instead wanted the population as a whole to have sufficient means to defend the country against outside powers.
Of course the Constitution is interpreted according to the times. We have long ago given up on having a small permanent military supported by a large civilian militia. So people find other interpretations to bolster their lust for personal armaments, since the original purpose has become outdated.
“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.”
Anyone who attempts to make a single, specific statement about what this meant in 1789 is talking out of their ass. These words meant different things to different people, as even a cursory reading of the writings and speeches of the time shows. For some people, the main purpose was to prevent the need for having troops paid by the national head of state, because said paid troops could be used against the people if the head of state was minded to do so. Thus, one could say that one purpose of the Amendment is to prevent the enabling of tyranny.
Of course, the funny part to all this is that, whatever they may have desired, the US ended up with a standing army almost right off the bat, because of the debacle in the West trying to deal with the Native American tribes more or less united for military action under Blue Jacket and Little Turtle. To defeat the tribes, the US had to resort to the creation of a standing army. Oh well…
Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.
IOW: Dood.
It’s truly remarkable how many people think the meaning of the word “suppress” has evolved to mean “facilitate”, but only in the special case of insurrections.
And btw, in case We the People were ever to come to think the constitutional government wasn’t meeting our needs and couldn’t be fixed, the writers thoughtfully laid out a parliamentary procedure for chucking the whole thing and starting over - with no gunfire required! Imagine that!
There’s a lot more to the document than one half of one amendment, people. Fascinating reading too; I recommend it highly.
There’s a whole bunch of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. that disagree pretty strongly. Ragtag militias have proven to be somewhat effective at resisting the most powerful military in the world…ours. Yes, they take losses…but we’ve been in Afghanistan for how long, now? 15 years or so? Still there. Still fighting the same people. Still not able to institute meaningful change in that country.
You don’t know if it does or doesn’t work. An armed populace is definitely a hedge against tyranny. Obviously, it’s not known before if it’s actually a successful hedge. By your logic seatbelts and airbags are a bad idea as some crashes still result in fatalities.
So the Second Amendment safeguards the right to make and plant IED’s? Cause that seems to be the logic. Pretty sure making a pipebomb brings some serious Federal charge,s what would making of a suicide vest or a vehicle bourne IED’s bring you? Cause its those and RPG’s which made life hell for US occupying forces, not guns as such.
For those who feel that fighting tyranny is an implied right under the Second Amendment, do you feel it is an individual right or a collective right?
In other words, does every citizen have the right to decide on their own that the government has become a tyranny and they should start shooting government representatives to defend themselves from this tyranny? Or is it a collective right where you can’t invoke it and begin shooting until a significant portion of the citizenry agree that the government has become tyrannical?
No, not even in the same zip code as the point–which was that yes, militias can be effective at resisting organized military troops. Nobody is saying IEDs are protected by the Second Amendment, which, incidentally, does not apply to any of those militias I mentioned anyway.
Practically, it’s a collective right. Which is sensible because it means the foundation document has failed and we are in a more obvious might makes right state.
At what level do you think this right extends? Only against the Federal government? What about State or Local governments? Can a collective rise up to combat a tyrannical state government? And how many people need to join the collective?
It should be remembered that at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment there was no standing army. The whole idea behind the 2nd was that said militias would serve in defense of the state, not in opposition to it.
Former Chief Justice Burger (nobody’s liberal) on the subject.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856