Anytime somebody starts an argument with this phrase, I make sure that my wallet is in my other pants…because they’re trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge. :dubious:
ISTM there is a commingling of foundational principles at work –
The Second Amendment recognizes the people’s right to keep and bear arms is not to be abridged.
It prefixes that this is in the public interest as it enables the formation of a people’s militia in order to protect the security of a free state. Not to be held as a threat against it.
Prior to that being written, the Constitution main text empowered Congress to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions – so the militia was already contemplated as existing to enforce the law and combat rebellions. (As I mentioned in another thread, that’s a cute habit of revolutionary movements: once the revolution triumphs, one of the first things they do is declare that rebellion against the new system must be crushed.)
Of course, the underlying philosophical premise is that the state in question is the legitimate agent of We the People. If it isn’t…
…However, the “right” to rebel against tyranny is NOT to be found in the Constitution. It’s in the Declaration of Independence, which is more a vision statement than a legal framework of government powers.
And even then it is stated it is only to be used as last resort if civil ways to resolve the issue fail to do justice.
(and ISTM… If the republic is functioning right, the government behaves properly because it abides the Rule of Law and fears being voted out of office or being taken to court and losing. Not because officials face armed threat from citizen factions if they try to enforce a lawfully enacted policy any such faction may dislike, be it a whiskey tax or charging for use of public lands. If the only way to avoid the “tyranny of the majority” is the threat of armed rebellion, then what is Rule of Law?)
I would argue that the proper response to a tyrannical local government would be to appeal to the next higher level of government. If your town council is acting tyrannical, contact your governor. If your state government is acting tyrannical, contact Washington. It’s only when you get to the national level that you have nobody to appeal to and you have to resort to taking up arms.
One theory, and I think it’s a reasonable one, is they were worried about slaves and Indians. An Indian attack or a slave uprising were the kind of thing a group of local citizens could fight with the kind of personal weapons a person might own in 1789.
So people in the west, where they worried about Indians, and in the south, where they worried about slaves, wanted to make sure the national government wouldn’t take away their guns.
To do what?
Yes, they’re amazingly well equipped to bomb a city. And if a group of folks are obliging enough to wear target uniforms, the US military can smash them like so many enemy shipyards or enemy airfields. They’re equipped for that part.
But the next part? The boots-on-the-ground part? The part where uniformed guys walk around saying Hey Good Ta See Ya Good Ta Know Ya? Where – after pointing overwhelming firepower at areas American forces don’t yet occupy – they occupy, hanging out among civilians without blasting away at said civilians, while said civilians hang out near said obliging folks wearing target uniforms?
Are they equipped for that? Has that been going well for them?
I don’t think it is a specific and intentional purpose inside the legal structure. The legal structure is a pretty bad place to try and include extra-legal solutions. 
The 2nd amendment does serve to help enable tt. Most insurgencies die before they can get out of Phase I.* Having easy access to a large stock of some of the resources that need to be collected in Ph 1 helps. Guns, ammo, and reloading supplies (which can help with some IED making) are that much less that take money and effort to buy and smuggle in when the insurgency is at it’s weakest. They also present options for typical actions taken to advance the insurgency out of Ph1 and as part of Ph2.
I don’t see an insurgency being something that happens at federal level. Federal forces might conduct a coup or support one side in a Constitutional crisis. That’s not the militia though. Given the state’s role, providing for a militia under the Governor’s control offers some power. That’s more a state level revolution/civil war than an insurgency. For effectiveness it relies on trying to threaten the fed government into backing down. It’s not a fair fight. It’s an even worse case for local governments. I don’t know of any case where they have enabling legislation, unlike states, providing for regulation of a militia anyway.
Once you make the move to individuals banding together we get back to my case of enabling insurgency against tyrants.
Once upon a time I swore to “Support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” My trigger for extra-legal solutions is a failure of our Constitutional system with the checks and balances unable to correct it. Call the government that operates that way a tyranny, dictatorship, authoritarianism or whatever else. I will oppose it using all means available.
It’s going to be less helpful to you than you think.
I would be aiming to undercut the public’s perception of the government and it’s ability to function effectively for them. It’s insurgency 101. Attacking things like utilities, communications, financial services, etc are all good ways to make them look bad while forcing them to commit assets to try and protect them. I wouldn’t necessarily be aiming force directly at the civilian population. Coerced and passive support from a good chunk of the populace can be enough for an insurgency but is not my preferred option. Still the most important places and things in your day to day life are potentially high payoff targets and stuff happens. Also remember another lessen of insurgency 101. Trying to use the governments reactions, and especially over reactions, to turn the populace against them. That exposes you a whole other set of risks to your life and well being. It does it intentionally.
Ultimately the only safe and functioning spaces I’d want to leave are the ones that are under my defacto control. I don’t want you to be able to comfortably sit out a fight between me and the government. I would do my best to inspire you to have to take sides. I could do something stupid like conduct a military centric insurgency that tries to transition to Ph. 3 early. That would leave spaces where the fight isn’t happening relatively safe. It’s also really stupid. My goal is to win and restore the Constitution. It’s not prove I can lose in a fair fight against better armed, trained, and equipped security forces. Fair fights are for suckers.
Or the short answer on where I will endeavor to leave you alone - nowhere.
-
- Based on Mao’s three phases which is used as an underpinning in current US military counter-insurgency doctrine. Reading a small part of that doctrinal manual, FM 3-24, that is available for free will flesh out my comments. The latest version was published in 2014 for those who choose to look for it.
That’s your opinion. And that’s fine. You get one vote.
In a serious insurrection the military may be well armed. But again they aren’t 100% unified and it’s not like their families and other interests will have tanks.
But tactics are irrelevant to the concept that checks and balances act as a hedge not a guarantee. Again, it’s like the seatbelt example I directed towards Chronus. 100% certainty is not the goal.
Seems to me that’s two different questions. “Can a militia be effective against a modern army?” and “Can an insurgency be effective against an occupying democratic government?” The answer to the first question seems to pretty clearly be “No.” No militia was ever going to forcibly expel the US military from Iraq, for example. Now, sometimes, the second question can be “Yes.” Democracies - particularly modern ones - often don’t have the stomach for the brutality necessary to subdue an occupied nation. But in the context of this thread, we’re not talking about the second question - if the US government ever went so far off the rails that a domestic insurgency was justified, we would no longer be dealing with an occupying democracy - we’d be dealing with a tyrant, and he’s not going to be subject to the checks of having to appeal to a constituency.
But you pointed out a key factor. If an insurgency is going to be successful at some point it does have to step forward and make itself visible. To succeed, a band of guerrillas has to become a uniformed army. If they don’t do that, then they’re going to remain a bunch of guys hiding up in the hills. They may kill some soldiers but they’re no threat to the tyrannical government.
But emphasize the double jump: the US, which doesn’t have the stomach for enough brutality against civilians we don’t even really give a crap about way over there, will (a) find the stomach for that much brutality in general, and will (b) find the stomach for that much brutality against civilians who are American citizens?
What are you envisioning? If one civilian in street clothes shoots a single American soldier in Miami, is the US Navy parking an aircraft carrier on the other side of the horizon and conducting bombing runs on, like, Miami?
…why? Is this some iron law I was not previously aware of? They can kill all of the uniformed soldiers they want, but we can keep chuckling at how they literally can’t succeed until and unless they someday put uniforms of their own on? Come, let us sneer at the hapless fools who (a) kill soldiers without dressing up, and (b) haven’t yet realized how silly it is that they think they can win without dressing up?
I’m having trouble sussing out a pro-2nd argument from this thread that doesn’t contain an element of hero-fantasy that it’s your .357 specifically that holds back the tide of oppression.
So the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria are tangible proof of the 2nd Amendment’s goodness? :rolleyes: I doubt that’s your claim.
Send me a PM, please, when you guys reach a consensus. 
From Heller:
That it may be less effective doesn’t eliminate one of the purposes.
Would it help you suss out my psychology if I mentioned that I’ve been on the other side of the equation? That, while wearing a target uniform, I thought to myself, “man, it’d sure be easy for a civilian in street clothes to kill me right now, wouldn’t it? I mean, here I am, pointedly (a) not looking for uniformed enemies to fire on first, but instead (b) just hoping no one in civvies wants me dead, y’know?”
Like, can you maybe fit the “sussing” into a whole ‘nightmare’ scenario instead of some ‘hero fantasy’ context? Ooh, maybe dismissively lump me in with folks who support this or that Muslim ban because of fear – figuring that once THEY’RE here, it’s maybe already too late to stop THEM from easily killing people here?
Maybe flip it around, is what I’m saying?
The goal is to overthrow the tyrannical government. If you don’t do that, then your rebellion failed. It doesn’t mean crap if you’re just annoying the tyrannical government.
How can you tell that the tyrannical government has been overthrown? When a new government takes its place. That’s when you win; when you get to start up your own government to replace the tyrannical government you were rebelling against.
And while this apparently is news to you, governments have things likes armies and navies and police forces. They show that your government is for real and that you’re going to defend your borders and enforce your laws. You show me a country that doesn’t have people in uniform.
That’s real important when you’re trying to create your government through a violent revolution. Because there’s that tyrannical government out there and they don’t want to be replaced by you. People aren’t going to support your revolution unless they see that you can stand up to the tyrannical government and protect the people that follow you.
I’m astounded that you’ve never heard any of this before. Didn’t they teach any history where you went to school?
If some civilian in street clothes had shot and killed you, would the United States government have collapsed? Or would they have just sent another soldier to take your place?
Killing random soldiers doesn’t overthrow a government.
But you don’t need to “start up your own government” to win; you can just kill off A’s troops left and right until A gets replaced by B – and if B is a big improvement over A, then figure that’s a win for C wins even if C never actually got around to putting on target uniforms of their own; that was A’s job, now it’s B’s job. Is that
Huh. No, I can’t say that it is; maybe your post there is in error? Why, I even took the time to specifically mention the US Navy just a little ways upthread; it’s hard to miss, maybe you should take another look?
I have. Gosh, that’s weird; the first time, you hedged with an “apparently” – but this time, you just flatly state that I haven’t? I guess that marks a point where your post is decidedly in error? If you feel like making more, I’ll point 'em out.
I’m guessing they’d have sent someone else. And I’m guessing that, if that one got killed, they’d have sent another one to also get killed. But I’m also guessing that something in that story would eventually change, because – hey, weren’t you just mentioning history? I’m pretty sure there are lessons from history about how things have been known to change when a thing like that drags on for a good long while.
I can’t figure out what your point is.