If it’s a collective right, and it requires a significant portion of the citizenry to agree, why not just have them vote instead?
That’s the one time when I think that an uprising or insurrection would be defensible, if we no longer had the ability to vote on our govt. As long as we have free and fair elections, we do have a revolution in this country every couple of years, it’s just that it requires fewer bullets and casualties than our last civil war.
Wait, are you saying that the insurgencies in afghanistan, iraq, et al. are not using IEDs?
Since you are talking about an armed rebellion against a tyrannical state you’ll only know after hostilities cease if the numbers were sufficient. Look at the perceptions of the Revolutionary War vs the Civil War as an example.
If the foundation document has failed and you’re in a might makes right state then you don’t need the foundation document’s permission to collect together and oppose the government - you’re in open rebellion anyway.
The fact that you might already have a large scary stockpile of AK-47s in your compound might make such rebellion easier - but that’s probably not the constitution’s intent, since it mostly talks about allowing changes to itself via legal means but open rebellion should be crushed rather than embraced.
My gradually-formed impression is now that the intention of the second amendment was to give states an easy way to form standing armies ‘on the fly’, replacing the need for George Washington having a personal (federal) army which he could then use to burn Maine to the ground, while still being able to muster forces as necessary to serve as a national army in times of need - war with other countries, and of course to wipe rebellious compounds off the map too.
I did read what you wrote, and it’s a bit ambiguous as to whether you were saying that the insurgents don’t have IED’s, or if the insurgents aren’t covered by the second amendment. The latter of which is an utterly pointless observation, so I had to assume you were making the former one.
Okay, so other countries are not covered by the second amendment. That’s good to know. Thank you for pointing that out for anyone who is not aware of that.
So, to the point that you were responding to, but instead made a random comment about the limited geographic extent of the second amendment, the point was that the militias in these areas are creating insurgencies that are difficult to quell, even with our forces. But they are using more than just guns, they are using IEDs and other types of devices that are not covered by the second amendment.
When you then compared the militias of these foreign countries to the militias in the US, you indicated that these US militias would be as effective as those in other countries. But those in other countries are using weapons that are not covered by the second amendment, so your comparison completely fails.
The constitution or the government is a means to an end. The end is enabling the concept of self governance. That’s why the constitution is written specifically with checks and balances not just between branches of the central government but also between the central government and other powerful institutions.
It was the Founding Fathers’ intent to make such rebellion/resistance possible, by guaranteeing that the people could keep arms. They say that the people have the right to rebel in the Declaration of Independence.
The provisions for amendment in the Constitution are there for a government who is securing the inalienable rights of men. The Second Amendment is there, in part, for when that government is failing to do so. The FFs recognized, in other words, that the Constitution might not be respected, so they included the Second Amendment for when it wasn’t.
Could you clarify what you mean by “self governance”? Surely you don’t mean that each person is their own sovereign nation. (Well, I suppose you could mean that, but it’s clearly untrue that that’s the constitution’s end game.)
That’s one interpretation - however it’s not the only one, and in my opinion this interpretation does not match up with available facts and knowledge on the subject. (I did mention I was talking about my own opinion, I believe.)
Why? You have a dictionary right? We can’t get a working definition of what is and what isn’t hate speech on this forum. Why should I go down the rabbit hole of trying to define tyranny?
All that matters is there is a realistic option that isn’t unduly constrained for people to act as a hedge against a tyrannical state.
Self-governance isn’t commonly a reference to a world without government.
So the argument is that people are allowed to have guns = people with guns are a militia = people with guns also have (legal?) rocket launchers and IEDs = people with guns can defeat the goddamn US military on home soil?
Or put another way, not all militias are created equal.
Okay, so you didn’t mean a world without government. So what did you actually mean? What end were you imagining when you said “The constitution or the government is a means to an end. The end is enabling the concept of self governance.”
(I’m trying to figure out if we’re talking about the same constitution/government here.)
Any level. The DoI says that governments exist to secure the inalienable rights of men. It doesn’t specify that any level of government is exempt.
Pretty much by definition, any rebellion at any level is going to be extra-legal or illegal, according to the laws of the government being rebelled against. So it doesn’t make much sense for the Constitution to spell out the conditions under which the people can rebel - the existing power structure is going to say they’re wrong no matter what, and thus not respect whatever conditions were put there.