What sort of gun should Rosa Parks have carried when she got on the bus? At first I thought that it should be a handgun in her purse. Rosa would have been able to get the drop on the bus driver, so that should have been enough to encourage him to shut up and keep moving. But then I realized that the white passengers should have been armed as well, and they would have been in their rights to defend the bus driver (who after all was obeying the law). To truly defend her freedom, as guaranteed in the Constitution and endowed by God, she would probably need something more like a street sweeper shotgun. I don’t know that much about guns, so I’m sure I’ll get some informed opinions.
How about the mother who wanted to register her child to attend the white school in Little Rock? Should she have just gone down to the school by herself with a gun, or would it have made more sense to have a larger armed group accompany her? I’m sure that the local NRA could have provided some volunteers to demonstrate the importance of the 2nd amendment in defending against tyranny.
Of course those are in the past, the real reason I need to know is that I have a gay friend who wants to be married and the courthouse refuses to allow it. What sort of gun should he bring with him to prevent the judge from denying him liberty? Should his fiancé bring a similar gun or would that be too matchy-matchy?
A fake suicide gun to use on herself. Should cause some kind of national attention without anyone being killed.
Actually a fake suicide gun has a better use than any of the scenarios you mentioned: enter a casino with bag, put the bag on the table and say “Two million.” So you play against the house. If you win, good. If you lose, open the bag, take out the gun and put it to your head. The hustlers will carry you all the way to the hospital and the next day will hear you were discharged in sound condition.
I assume you’re aware that the very same Holy Second Amendment of God™ that entitles Americans (or rather, according to the Apostle Glenn Beck, all humans) to stand their ground with guns, or even shoot in the back a busdriver who defrauded her of her busfare … would entitle Ms. Parks to only 3/5 of a gun.
I recommend that Ms. Parks choose, for the 2/5 of the gun she must omit, the magazine or cylinder, relying solely on a round in the chamber. I don’t think she’s going to get a second shot off anyway.
It seems to me that most of the people who can’t stop talking about their precious 2nd Amendment rights would have been afraid of the Black Panthers for appreciating their own.
I don’t know. They seem awfully sure that more guns for everyone makes us all safer.
The Freedom Riders certainly would have gotten the rights already granted by our enlightened Boston Tea Party partaking forefathers had they arrived armed. Or not.
Both of those situations were illegal. RP, or anyone else for that matter, has no 2nd amendment right to break a law. That’s why they call what she did “Civil Disobedience”. She was disobeying a law. Had she carried a gun and pointed it at the bus driver, she would have been violating another law, and he could probably have shot her if he thought his life was in danger. I would have sided with the bus driver in that case.
Same as above. If your friend tries to force a JotP to marry him at gunpoint, I will side with the JotP when he shoots your friend dead.
Did you have any other questions?
ETA: As a declared anti-Second Amendment guy, I have to say I am embarrassed to have the OP, and the rest of the responders to this thread so far, on my side.
I don’t believe the point was that they were illegal but that the laws were unconstitutional limitations on freedom (at least as it was later found by the courts in many situations.)
The argument of many fervent pro-2nd amendment types is that the 2nd amendment protects the others. I believe the OP is asking how the second amendment could have protected the others in the situations addressed in the OP. Because liberties were not protected in those cases, so the OP is wondering how the “2nd amendment protection” could have been utilized.
When someone on this MB makes the argument that guns should be used to force government officials to conform to their interpretation of the constitution, then that would be an interesting point to make. Until then, not so much.
John, in fairness, Rush Limbaugh (and I think others) have claimed the civil rights movement would have been less violent had those in favor of civil rights been armed.
There is also the rhetoric on the right in favor of “Second Amendment remedies” when traditional modes of effecting government change fail (ie they find the majority didn’t vote the way they thought they should). Given that the blacks at the time were largely disenfranchised, they had more reason to seek such remedies than do the conservatives of today.
Most tyrannies have laws that support their actions. The second amendment supporters are quite clear that they would use their guns to resist legal gun confiscation for example. So I’m just wondering what kind of guns are appropriate to oppose other sorts of legal tyranny?
Ah, I see. You’re “just asking questions”. No wonder your thread got moved to the Pit so quickly.
Look, most of us would take up arms against the government at some point-- certainly if the US became an actual tyranny. What’s so hard to understand about that? We see it happening today all over the Middle East.
What if the government decided to “legally” confiscate cell phones, computers and printing presses? If you wanted to mount an armed struggle, and asked what gun you should have… well, the biggest, baddest one you can get your hands on, the smallest, stealthiest one you could find, and everything in-between. That’s what I’d say.