And now I ask, how does that work, exactly? This ain’t Libya. Popular armed revolt or resistance here is only gonna work if majority enthusiasm is so near-unanimous that even a rigged political system will make it unnecessary.
The real reason protection of gun ownership was written into our constitution was to make sure armed revolution was possible.
Anyone who has done a little bit of research would be awfully confused, because our Supreme Court thinks it has a lot to do with self-defense.
Part of it is the basic idea of Citizen vs. Subject. Most old world governments consider their people to be subjects, which means that the State has absolute authority over them. The USA was founded on the idea that we are citizens with rights and freedoms that preclude the absolute authority of the State.
“Allowed” to have guns? Nope, when we set up shop, we told the Government that we were keeping our guns.
So the Second Amendment was a bad idea, then?
I’d say that if there are enough people in the armed revolution for it to succeed then it’s a sign that the government has lost the support of the people and deserves to be overthrown.
But realistically it’s a moot point. Military technology has moved on. Personally owned weapons can no longer form the basis of a viable military force.
Oh. You mean work as in succeed. Now I get you.
Armed revolt gets people locked up and/or hurt and/or dead. Cooler heads prevail. Or not. People take to the streets in protest. If force of arms is used to quell the protests, then force of arms will be used to emphasize the protesters position. Or not.
More people get locked up and/or get hurt and/or die. Cooler heads prevail. Or not. Things escalate. Or not. Etc.
Which is just the long way around the barn to say “It doesn’t work” as in “It doesn’t provide an immediate, painless solution.” What does work is the choice each individual makes about how they want to live and die when opposing whatever they define “tyranny” to be. The extremes are, on one end, doing nothing; on the other end, violent opposition. (And lots of grey area in between.) Neither are “right.” Neither are “wrong.” They are choices with consequences.
In this country, we have an armed population that allows for the greater possibility of violent opposition. Maybe this also allows for a greater possibility of cooler heads prevailing sooner in the process. Maybe. (Though when I think about the national guard being sent in to enforce integration or criminal investigations being taken out of the hands of local law enforcement during the civil rights movement, I don’t have a lot of hope.)
Is that a better answer to your question?
Another argument against the whole “armed populace as a defense against tyranny” thing is that an armed populace means a much more heavily armed, effectively paramilitary, police force.
If the US government did turn into a tyranny overnight they would have at their disposal an extremely well armed instrument of repression in the regular police force (even in small towns), without ever having to bring the army onto the streets. In other countries where there is less proliferation of private arms, that would not be the case.
Well put.
This assumes that elements of the military aren’t part of the armed revolution (as they were in Turkey). Or that the armed revolutionaries are not getting support from outside the country. Or that the armed revolutionaries foolishly choose to go toe-to-toe against the government forces instead of waging guerrilla warfare (as the IRA did).
The question is whether preserving that state of affairs is, in and of itself, an appropriate matter for constitutional protection. Based on the above, if that’s what the Second Amendment is all about, certainly it should be repealed.
How come?
“I want the freedom to have a gun so I can protect myself and my family because the police can’t always.”
“I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary.”
One sees the difference? The second consideration is, perhaps, a defensible one in some rare circumstances, but why does it belong in a constitution of all things?!
“I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary to protect my family.”
Rare circumstance, ain’t it? Not even Randy Weaver could claim that honestly.
Yes but this doesn’t change what I said. The issue of personal firearm ownership isn’t a factor in determining how the military splits its allegiance.
OK. I misunderstood. I admit that it’s tough for me to see how personal firearms ownership might correlate to how the military splits its allegiance. But do you think – in light of the last two examples I gave – that personally owned weapons can no longer form the basis of a viable military force?
I do see the difference and the circumstances are relatively rare in the U.S.. I think it belongs in a constitution because that makes it harder to deny at both the local and national level. (In fact it is still denied but making it part of the constitution makes it harder.) I don’t trust the local or national authorities to the degree I once did.
I think this question is about whether there is a weapon available (possibly for civilian use) that would incapacitate a large number of people in a given area. Or something to that effect…
Civilians may legally create an posses any weapon of any type so long as the materials used to create that weapon are legal to posses alone, were obtained legally, and not used in a prohibited manner. That being said, I’m not aware of any such weapon - to be used for mass incapacitation - that exists.
Government authorities have access to a variety of crowd control measures - tear gas comes to mind - but I don’t think civilians are allowed to posses/use tear gas.
I had Mace as a Security Officer, but you have to be really smart about when you use it. Two examples;
Me and another officer confronted by four punks OUTSIDE a restaurant. The leader of the punks trying to get into the other officer’s face and provoke him to attack first (not a good idea, the other guy was ex-special forces). Gets very heavily sprayed directed in the face and then when he turns, all over the top and back of his head.
Me trying to get 18 drunken 20-somethings out of a restaurant when 4 of them are violent, throwing water glasses and dumping over the table. Cops come and say “we wouldn’t have cared if you’d have maced the lot of them”. Sure, if I had done that INSIDE, then they’d have had to close the (packed) restaurant, losing a lot of business until the place was cleaned enough to re-open.