Dealt with by the Militia Acts of over a century ago. The militias are now the National Guard, and can be federalized at any time.
Don’t like it, you can find a way to appeal somehow, but don’t get your hopes up.
In theory, a state government could declare that it wants all able-bodied adults in good standing to keep an automatic rifle at home. And then when that ran afoul of federal law, claim that the Second Amendment forbids the federal government from disarming the militia.
That would be a fun spectacle.
The French Revolution was against a government perceived as tyrannical. Is there a better way to understand what leads to revolts than to consider actual instances?
Were the tyrannies they rose up against at all similar to the perceived tyrannies people speak of today when it comes to rebelling against our government? I don’t think the mere reuse of a word leads to much understanding without knowing the context behind each use.
I really don’t think the French peasants thought of tyranny as being on the losing side of a fair, democratic vote.
Sure, if we were talking about revolts in general. But I thought this topic was with regards to the US form of government, and what would be considered “tyranny” in relation to that.
So … I think two examples have emerged in the thread for tyrannical act that might cause an armed revolt:
(1) trying to ban the possession of guns, and
(2) denying the right to vote.
Are these the most realistic scenarios? With both major parties tending to support strong security measures, is it the hypothesis than an anti-Security but otherwise Trump-like figure will arise, and the incumbents will choose to nullify an election to prevent the pseudo-Trump from gaining power?
Perhaps that really is the likeliest possible cause for a future revolt, but I’m skeptical and thought to widen the inquiry by looking at historic revolts.
that’s just it. How would something like this even be possible? How could a Federal level “decree” nullify state elections?
I do agree that most plausible scenario would be banning of guns, but again, the amount of country-wide support that would need in order to succeed (namely, repealing the 2nd Amendment and passing Federal laws) would already serve as a damper to those unwilling to follow to Constitution and also willing to start an armed revolt that they most definitely would lose anyway. In the Civil War era, half the country (give or take) started an armed revolt, and THEY lost. I fail to see how a modern day “revolt” would even have a chance with our present form of government and military status.
Maybe those here with ideas of what would cause a revolt could lay out a general timeline of government/private actions that would lead to a revolt?
The reason for the Second Amendment—which is, you know, stated in the Second Amendment—is to ensure that there be a well-regulated militia, not to ensure that citizens have the means to overthrow the government. That’s just lunacy.
Weellll… The 1903 Militia Act (a.k.a. The Dick Act) divides the populace into the “Reserve Militia” and the “Organized Militia”, the latter being subject to federalization. Which led me to wonder: what exactly defines if you’re Reserve or Organized? If you’re part of any state-organized military force, are you automatically Organized Militia?
If I’m reading the somewhat musty language of the 1903 act correctly, a state military force is only considered part of the National Guard if it accepts federal funding- similar to how states accept having to meet national highway standards in return for federal funding. Apparently, if a state decided to arm, equip and train its citizens entirely on its own dime, they would not be Guardsmen and not subject to federalization.
For example, the Wikipedia Article on the 1903 act mentions:
[Apparently if you’re part of the National Guard or Naval Militia(?) you’re part of the Organized Militia (as far as the Federal government is concerned).
Otherwise, if you’re male, able-bodied, and between the ages of 17 and 45, you’re automatically part of the Reserve Militia.](10 U.S. Code § 311 - Exchange of defense personnel between United States and friendly foreign countries: authority | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute)
So I imagine one could conceivably make an argument that men keeping and bearing arms is part of being part of the well-regulated Reserve Militia.
Well, Czarcasm, doesn’t look like we can discuss the 2nd Amendment without bringing up the “well regulated militia”. Some would say that’s the very purpose of the amendment. But I digress …
The problem with the OP is that the situation where We the People would take up arms against our government is so unlikely, so remote, as to make any answer complete hyperbole. How can we realistically discuss the government shutting down the internet, forbidding commercial media, torturing confessions out of criminal suspects or disbanding the court system? All the other safe-guards to our freedoms are more than enough to prevent any of this.
I think the closest thing possible would be the next President using the military to enforce federal marijuana laws. When B-52’s are fire-bombing Denver, Juneau, Salem and Olympia … we might see some return fire from We the People … but then again, maybe not … it’s just not a realistic possibility IMEIO.
How can something be “well-regulated” if it isn’t even organized and arguably doesn’t even exist?
It exists legally in every state even if it doesn’t regularly meet and most of it’s members are clueless to their obligation. State law or constitutions also provide for codes of military justice (since UCMJ is for Federal forces). There’s a legal basis for what state forces can legally do while on state duty. There’s generally established procedures for a chain of command if the unorganized militia is called up by the governor. There’s established processes to issue state commissions from the governor for National Guard (and in most states the state defense forces that aren’t dual status like the Guard) that can be used to expand the officer corps to exercise command authority over a mobilized militia.
Sounds pretty regulated.
Based on the actual question posed in the OP,
“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?”
this thread should have been posted in IMHO, to begin with, and it may make it there, anyway.
However,
while it is here, everyone should limit themselves to discussing the actual question posed. Regardless of the nature and organizations of militias, the question is “what situation should or could promote, justify, excuse, or otherwise validate the the use of privately owned weapons to defend the citizenry against a tyrannical government?”
Further discussions regarding the meaning and justification of the Second Amendment should be taken up in a separate thread.
[ /Moderating ]
The lack of answers to that one that are more substantive than “There aren’t any” should indicate that there are none to be made, no?
Go back and reread:
Could either be possible through executive edict?