One of the reasons given for the need for the 2nd Amendment is to give us common citizens the ability to take back our government from a tyrannical regime. Taking this at face value, it would seem that a majority of those who are armed would have to agree that such a nefarious point has been reached in our history for any uprising to have even the slightest possibility of success. Specifically, what would this “tyranny” consist of that might inspire such a mass reaction? What is/are the tipping point/points?
If you think that the 2nd Amendment is important for this reason, what (non-vague, please) reason would cause you to take up arms against the government?
The only thing that the majority of those who are armed would agree that a nefarious point has been reached is if the government banned private ownership of guns following the rules laid out in the Constitution (repeal the 2nd Amendment, pass federal law outlawing private ownership of guns). At which point, some gun owners, even though they’ve depended on the Constitution with regard to allowing private ownership of guns, would suddenly decide they didn’t like the Constitution and “rise up” against tyranny. Until the first group to “rise up” gets a supreme beat down by the US military or State National Guard (who get to keep their guns) and then the rest will simply turn in their guns.
I have to agree with this. It has been my experience that the overwhelming majority of these people believe gun confiscation is a necessary precondition to government tyranny. Since gun confiscation is the clearest sign of a tyrannical government, this is the point at which they (claim) to consider armed resistance.
Thus, it becomes something of a circular argument… The reason we have guns is to protect our ability to have guns.
Huh. Okay.
I’m not saying that there is nothing the government could do that would make me rebel against it. Certainly, I believe that there is a moral imperative that justifies the use of violence to depose tyranny and stop evil, to include a government that has lost its legitimacy.
Unfortunately, the history of armed rebellion has not been great. Most of the right-wing revolutionary types have this glorified or romanticized idea of the original American Revolution - and in fact the American Revolution had some unique factors that made it successful. The vast majority of violent revolutions against tyrannical government, no matter how justified or well-intentioned, end up being protracted bloodbaths (like Syria) or wind up with a government that is far worse than the original (like France).
Historically, “ballots or bullets”- forbidding people to vote has been considered sufficient:
Even during the American Civil War, when a third of the country was in open rebellion, the congressional and presidential elections still went on. If voting was ever suspended “due to a state of emergency” (which presumably would also involve heavy mobilization of military forces), a lot of people would get very suspicious.
For that to happen, so large a supermajority would have to support abolishing the Second Amendment that those who disagreed would be a small minority indeed.
For me, I’d think it would be something pretty much super-dire- a President disbanding Congress, or disregarding the Supreme Court, suspending voting or unilaterally dismantling the Constitution.
You know, things intended to directly cripple our system of government. Abhorrent changes that go through the right channels- well, I have to live with those, as they’re ostensibly the will of the people as interpreted by the system. But if one group/person in our system of government starts trying to obviously dismantle the system for its own benefit, then that’s when shit gets real.
I think that where it gets murky is when organizations try to dismantle the Constitution through the mechanism of case law, not via getting it amended, because amendments are hard. That’s sketchy as hell, if you ask me- if you can’t get enough support to get an amendment, doing back-door legal challenges to try and hamstring parts the Constitution that you don’t like seems terribly questionable to me.
One does wonder what scenario is envisioned by “The 2nd Amendment solution to Tyrannical Government.” The American Revolution was fought against a foreign army. Since American soldiers are unlikely to fire on Americans with legitimate grievances, what army would the gun citizens be fighting? Armies of Mexicans brought in by Obama to oppress America? Or perhaps, in some future, robots? I doubt if small arms are effective against robot-controlled tanks — is the NRA working to legalize bazookas and howitzers?
The French Revolution may be more relevant for discussion than the American Revolution, since their government was local. Most of the French soldiers took the Revolutionaries’ side; it was the very large number of Swiss and German mercenary troops hired by the French government that posed a problem. Perhaps that’s a key sign that gun citizens should be alert for: the incorporation of non-Americans (e.g. Mexicans and/or Islamists) into the U.S. Army.
BTW, the French Revolution was directed not against any specific oppression, so much as huge income inequality and, more immediately, severe hunger.
When one listens to the complaints of of America’s gun citizens, hunger and income inequality do not seem to be major concerns. Instead complaints are directed against certain ethnic groups, lower classes, and perceived anti-white government actions.
White households are twice as likely as black households to own guns. Republican households are more than twice as likely as Democratic households to own guns. Some gun citizens may eventually feel pressed to “Second Amendment solutions” but, setting aside nutcases like the Bundys, the violent action will not be against the gummint.
But this just wouldn’t, couldn’t happen.
Whatever its contemporary meaning should be, bear in mind that the amendment was written and ratified by people who considered themselves to have done just what you describe.
Leaving aside the fact that what they considered they accomplished and what actually happened are two different things, I already said in the OP that I wasn’t fighting the hypothetical-I am asking for details about the hypothetical.
It means anyone who disagrees with me, basically. So if the GOP gets any more power, then off with their heads, right? Who’s to decide what’s a proper usage of the “2nd Amendment Solution” and what’s not?"
Election of Trump?
The same Founding Fathers who wouldn’t let people vote directly for the President trusted the people enough to allow them to have guns to overthrow the government? Please.
They allowed the to have guns to protect the state, (“necessary to the security of a free state”) as they did not envision a standing army. Well, that and to put down slave revolts.
I agree.
Is a “tyranny” truly a “tyranny” if the majority agree to it…or is it just one massive S&M session?
Who knows? Again, that’s why “protecting us from tyranny” or whatever makes no sense. Although you can picture certain politicians in gimp suits if you like 
That face value is a weak assumption in terms of US military counterisurgency doctrine FM 3-24/MCWP 3-33.5 (It’s a Joint manual with the separate numbers reflecting US Army and USMC doctrinal naming conventions) which discusses both active and passive support from the population for insurgents. Let’s take a look at some quotes with my emphasis added.
Insurgencies, even successful ones, rarely have more than small a chunk of the population within the insurgency itself. It doesn’t take the majority of people owning arms to achieve the insurgency’s ends. It doesn’'t take the majority of the population, both armed and unarmed. It takes support from the population. People that get recruited without arms can be armed (easier if there are arms around internally to be volunteered or coerced into donations.) It’s high levels of passive support that’s critical. Those passive supporters require no arms for their role and their support can be coerced.
Support from the populace is also something that insurgencies build or lose; it’s dynamic not a static precondition. The populace don’t necessarily have to agree with the root cause grievances or ends of the insurgents at the start of the insurgency to end up giving support. Similarly depending on the progress of the insurgency, early popular support can be lost.
The “face value” you assume sets up a test requiring a majority of those with arms to take them up clashes with the US military understanding of insurgencies. Looking at what might reach that level is a bad test of whether a US based insurgency can be successful. It sets the bar too high. That makes the follow on questions interesting but mostly irrelevant to the 2n Amendment debate.
Then let me lower that bar, just for you: What specific “tyranny” or “tyrannies” do you think it would take for “however amount of people you think it would take” to rise up and overthrow the government? And the second question still applies: What specific “tyranny” or “tyrannies” would it take for you to rise up against the government?
I wonder. We already have the Patriot Act, civil forfeiture, and my town is covered with police cameras, “to prevent crime.” Tyranny may come for us slowly, like the mythical frog in hot water.
You probably won’t like my specificity of situation but I have a specific test. It is the oath I took long, long ago - “Support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Clear constitutional violations that aren’t responding to the normal system controls and don’t appear to have a reasonable solution through strictly political means and I’m an insurgent.
ETA- US military doctrine also points out that insurgencies don’t always proceed with the end of overthrowing the government. It’s possible for an insurgency to be successful by forcing the government to reform in a way that removes the issue. Other insurgencies can have other goals short of complete overthrow of the government.
Would asking for an example be totally out of the question?