Is fighting tyranny a purpose of the 2nd Amendment and, if so, at what level of government?

[Czarcasm]

Why a need for at least what your personal definition of “tyranny” is?
If you plan on shooting people, places or things in the name of defending against it, I wouldn’t mind knowing where to hide and when to duck when your particular “tyranny” trigger trips.

[begbert2]

@octopus

We are. You do know what self governance refers to? What is this trend of looking for some weird loophole in a definition about?

Self governance means that the unit, the “self”, governs itself independent of outside authority.

If you meant that the constitution means for the USA to be, as a nation, self-governing, then DUH. It’s an independent country. What a bizarre thing to say.

If you meant that the constitution means for the states to be self-governing, then you’re advocating for the breakup of the union.

If you meant that the constitution means for individuals to be self-governing, then you’re talking about motherloving anarchy. Straight up anarchy.

So I ask again, please clarify what sort of “self governance” you think the constitution seeks to enable?

[Bone]

Alex Kozinski is the son of Holocaust survivors. From Kozinski’s dissent in Silveira v. Lockyerin the 9th circuit:

But the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went”). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history — Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few — were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

It may not be the only reason for the 2nd amendment, but it is a reason.

[XT]

Is fighting tyranny a purpose of the 2nd Amendment and, if so, at what level of government?

Well, it’s one of the reasons. Personal defense is another one. As for levels, I’d say at all levels is what the authors envisioned.

What counts as “tyranny” when it comes to defending yourself with weaponry?

Eye of the beholder I’d guess, as people have very different ideas of what a good President is and what a tyrant is, what constitutes (heh) good government and what constitutes ‘tyranny’.

As for the question quoted in the OP, the problem is isolating the response. Basically, IF enough citizens decided to take up arms against (and for) the government, it’s not going to be an isolated event. So, police and soldiers (who are also citizens) are not going to be in lockstep for the government. You will have some on one side, some on the other, some staying out of it and some on the fence. IOW, it’s not going to be the US military just bombing the shit out of a bunch of whack-a-do armed citizens with their personal guns, but instead a civil war.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@begbert2

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.

Overseas, potshot-takers “defeat the goddamn US military” while hiding out among collateral-damage civilians that America – well, doesn’t really give a crap about, but will, uh, sure try not to kill too indiscriminately, if we have to, I guess. And you think “the goddamn US military” would have an easier time of it against potshot-takers hiding out among civilians that America actually thinks twice about?

[k9bfriender]

@Oakminster

Bullshit. It’s spot on. A militia can, in fact, resist a regular army. The examples I mentioned have been doing it for years. That is my point.

A militia employing items that are not covered by the second amendment. They weapons they use to “resist” the army are not weapons that are legal to possess in the United States. So, unless you are arguing that people in the united states should have access to the same types of weaponry that is used by foreign insurgencies, then the second amendment is not useful for that purpose.

And it can be debated as to how effective the resistance is. It’s not like the insurgencies really kept us from going in and doing what we wanted, it really just did enough damage and killed enough of our soldiers that we used even heavier weapons against them, inflicting more collateral damage to innocent civilians.

As Zoe once said “A hero is someone that gets other people killed.”

@Shodan

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.

Regards,
Shodan

The constitution does spell out how to rebel, it’s called voting.

[octopus]

@Czarcasm

Why a need for at least what your personal definition of “tyranny” is?
If you plan on shooting people, places or things in the name of defending against it, I wouldn’t mind knowing where to hide and when to duck when your particular “tyranny” trigger trips.

Ha. You don’t need to worry about my definition tyranny then.

@begbert2

Self governance means that the unit, the “self”, governs itself independent of outside authority.

If you meant that the constitution means for the USA to be, as a nation, self-governing, then DUH. It’s an independent country. What a bizarre thing to say.

If you meant that the constitution means for the states to be self-governing, then you’re advocating for the breakup of the union.

If you meant that the constitution means for individuals to be self-governing, then you’re talking about motherloving anarchy. Straight up anarchy.

So I ask again, please clarify what sort of “self governance” you think the constitution seeks to enable?

I think you are mistaken and your lack of knowledge about this commonly used political term needs fixing. Here http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+does+self+governance+mean

[begbert2]

@Bone

Alex Kozinski is the son of Holocaust survivors. From Kozinski’s dissent in Silveira v. Lockyerin the 9th circuit:

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

It may not be the only reason for the 2nd amendment, but it is a reason.

(Shortened inner quote to relevent bit.)

So by this argument, the answer to the OP’s question of “at what level” is “national only”. Only if the national government itself had been taken over by rogue elements would would the rogue government elements be free to run unchecked to the extreme degree that Kozinski says would justify armed rebellion.

[octopus]

@begbert2

(Shortened inner quote to relevent bit.)

So by this argument, the answer to the OP’s question of “at what level” is “national only”. Only if the national government itself had been taken over by rogue elements would would the rogue government elements be free to run unchecked to the extreme degree that Kozinski says would justify armed rebellion.

That’s not clear at all.

[begbert2]

@octopus

I think you are mistaken and your lack of knowledge about this commonly used political term needs fixing. Here http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+does+self+governance+mean

You’re a funny man, but I already did that google. And that google says exactly what I did - you are talking about motherfucking anarchy. If people are self-governing there is no government.

I believe I’ve made enough attempts to find some way to interpret your statement that aren’t goddamned insane. So I think it’s been established - your position is that the US constitution and government have an end that they seek to enable: their own dissolution. Which, in the context of the post to which you were replying, means that you think that when the founding fathers included the second amendment in the bill of rights they literally wanted their government to be overthrown by armed insurgents. And since they were the heads of the government at the time, you apparently think that the second amendment was actually a convoluted suicide plot.

With all due respect, I disagree that this was a primary motivating factor in the creation of the second amendment.

[begbert2]

@octopus

That’s not clear at all.

-where the government refuses to stand for reelection
-and silences those who protest
-where courts have lost the courage to oppose
-or can find no one to enforce their decrees
I suppose you could, in theory, have a township that suffers from some madman (or sheriff) taking over, silencing their enemies, ignoring the courts and ignoring their rulings - but I’m fairly confident that the supreme court judge doesn’t think the best immediate recourse is to immediately take to the streets spraying gunfire everywhere.

[octopus]

@begbert2

You’re a funny man, but I already did that google. And that google says exactly what I did - you are talking about motherfucking anarchy. If people are self-governing there is no government.

I believe I’ve made enough attempts to find some way to interpret your statement that aren’t goddamned insane. So I think it’s been established - your position is that the US constitution and government have an end that they seek to enable: their own dissolution. Which, in the context of the post to which you were replying, means that you think that when the founding fathers included the second amendment in the bill of rights they literally wanted their government to be overthrown by armed insurgents. And since they were the heads of the government at the time, you apparently think that the second amendment was actually a convoluted suicide plot.

With all due respect, I disagree that this was a primary motivating factor in the creation of the second amendment.

That’s not what self governance in the context of nations means. Idioms yo!

[begbert2]

@octopus

That’s not what self governance in the context of nations means. Idioms yo!

I invite you to relate the (self-evident) fact that the USA is a self-governing country with a theory -any theory- on why the second amendment was written, and/or the discussion of fighting a tyranny.

I’ll give you one for free: I think that the fledgling USA wanted a ready supply of armed men to be drafted as needed into “militias” to serve as units of an ad-hoc, non-permanent army. Of course such a method of formulating an army from existing armed men fell by the wayside when a standing national army was created.

[Little_Nemo]

@Oakminster

Bullshit. It’s spot on. A militia can, in fact, resist a regular army. The examples I mentioned have been doing it for years. That is my point.

No, not really. The era when a militia could hope to defeat a regular army is long past. It was already fading during the American Revolution.

Groups like the Vietcong or the Mujahideen or the FLN all had access to military weapons. If they had just been equipped with handguns, rifles, and shotguns they would have lost.

[Oakminster]

@k9bfriender

A militia employing items that are not covered by the second amendment. They weapons they use to “resist” the army are not weapons that are legal to possess in the United States. So, unless you are arguing that people in the united states should have access to the same types of weaponry that is used by foreign insurgencies, then the second amendment is not useful for that purpose.

Jesus Fucking Christ. Let it go already. Armed revolt isn’t legal, either. No intelligent person could possibly infer that I’m arguing to legalize IEDs. I said only that militias can resist regular armies. Quit fucking trying to put words in my mouth.

[begbert2]

@Oakminster

Jesus Fucking Christ. Let it go already. Armed revolt isn’t legal, either. No intelligent person could possibly infer that I’m arguing to legalize IEDs. I said only that militias can resist regular armies. Quit fucking trying to put words in my mouth.

The reason you’re being chewed on is because “militias” formed by second-amendmenters emphatically aren’t the kind that can resist regular armies.

It’s sort of like if people were talking about how cake tastes good, and you responded that cake tastes awful and is poisonous, clarifying it later that you meant cake uranium. People wouldn’t take that as a good injection into the discussion.

[octopus]

@begbert2

The reason you’re being chewed on is because “militias” formed by second-amendmenters emphatically aren’t the kind that can resist regular armies.

It’s sort of like if people were talking about how cake tastes good, and you responded that cake tastes awful and is poisonous, clarifying it later that you meant cake uranium. People wouldn’t take that as a good injection into the discussion.

Stop thinking so simplistically. Armies aren’t monoliths and they have people in them with different points of view. In a break down of society that leads to people grabbing their rifles and revolting, military units could quite possibly join in. Life isn’t binary.

[begbert2]

@octopus

Stop thinking so simplistically. Armies aren’t monoliths and they have people in them with different points of view. In a break down of society that leads to people grabbing their rifles and revolting, military units could quite possibly join in. Life isn’t binary.

In which case you don’t need the second amendmenters. Hell, you don’t even need the rebellion - just let the fracturing military take out the leaders you don’t like. Er, in a coup. That always works out well, right?

[octopus]

@begbert2

In which case you don’t need the second amendmenters. Hell, you don’t even need the rebellion - just let the fracturing military take out the leaders you don’t like. Er, in a coup. That always works out well, right?

Yeah you do. Read how totalitarian states work. They do it by fracturing other powerful institutions. It’s all about balance of power and hedges against power. One check isn’t necessarily sufficient.

Why didn’t the German Army stop the Nazis? You imply there is a precise analytical solution to the structure of society to mitigate against abuse. There isn’t.

[begbert2]

@octopus

Yeah you do. Read how totalitarian states work. They do it by fracturing other powerful institutions. It’s all about balance of power and hedges against power. One check isn’t necessarily sufficient.

Why didn’t the German Army stop the Nazis? You imply there is a precise analytical solution to the structure of society to mitigate against abuse. There isn’t.

Well, what I’m actually implying is that the United States military is amazingly well equipped. The idea that a significant portion of its members could go rogue and survive the process -which would likely require them to coordinate to simultaneously steal a large number weapons and materiel and then promptly slaughter all their teammates- is a pretty big stretch, and the idea that civilian gun-toters would play any part in this process at all (aside perhaps as coordinators) is a laughable non-starter.