When are "Second Amendment Solutions" justified?

[Tamerlane]

@Blalron

Gerrymandering is one of those gray areas. It’s anti-democratic, because it can allow a minority party to remain in power despite the wishes of the majority. But is it worth picking up arms for it?

Well, nobody has since the term was coined in 1812.

[Blalron]

@XT

I don’t think it will happen at all, gradual or sudden. I think at this stage we are beyond that. Since both sides use gerrymandering and have done so for over a century, I’m not overly excited about it

Gerrymandering has been around a long time, but new technology and better mapping information makes it more efficient than it was in the past. It will take a +7 percent vote advantage for Democrats to gain a simple majority in the House.

[PatrickLondon]

@MEBuckner

I believe the idea rather is that the Second Amendment would allow the citizenry to use armed resistance/revolt against a government that was acting against or outside of the U.S. Constitution, rather than one actually produced by it.

It would have to have been produced by the constitution in the first place, or it wouldn’t be in a position to act against or outside it.

[PatrickLondon]

@MEBuckner

Sorry for the double post/reply; thinking about it some more, I would also say that a major part of the intent of the Second Amendment was that an “armed citizenry”/militia was a better model for the national defense of a republic (including defense against a foreign invasion or against an illegitimate insurrection) than a professionalized standing army model; “standing armies” were greatly distrusted by many of the founding generation of the American Republic, on the grounds that some ambitious American Caesar could win the loyalty of the troops and seize power, against the will of, and without regard to the interests of, the people as a whole.

As indeed in the UK after the Civil War, to the point that the army was only authorised to exist by an Act of Parliament that had to be debated and voted annually - right up to 1955 if memory serves!

One can trace a number of the founding principles of your constitution back to the thinking of the Civil War and post-Civil War period in England - in this case, the Parliamentarians had the memory of a king raising an army to suppress their rights, and the Royalists the memory of parliamentary rule descending into more or less a military dictatorship - and radical democrats had the memory of oppression by both. Likewise, the objections raised in 1688 to James VII/II permitting Catholic landed gentry to bear arms, but taking away that right from the lower orders (Protestant and Catholic alike).

But the question still remains, what might fail in the system of checks and balances to permit Caesarism to happen, and what way is there to deal with it, short of recourse to arms?

[Isamu]

@MEBuckner

I believe the idea rather is that the Second Amendment would allow the citizenry to use armed resistance/revolt against a government that was acting against or outside of the U.S. Constitution, rather than one actually produced by it.

The trouble with that is the moment you fire the first shot you become a criminal and the government can go after you with everything it has.

[Bruce_Wayne]

@Lamoral

I don’t know, we’re continually losing troops in Afghanistan, even highly trained forces like Navy SEALs and Army Rangers, to guerrilla warfare. Granted, these guerrillas have access to weapons that Americans don’t; they have RPGs and machine guns, and they build bombs. But if we ever got to the point where there was a civil war in America, the rebels here would undoubtedly start building IEDs and improvised rocket launchers and automatic weapons. Even a handful of trained engineers, a few dozen people to do the manual labor, and a clandestine workshop, could probably crank out illegal armaments equal to what guerrillas in Afghanistan are currently using against our troops.

Everyone always focuses on the guns in this hypothetical scenario but they never talk about the bombs that would undoubtedly be made. Right now there are people all over America who have the ability to create homemade bombs, but no reason to do so. If they had a reason, and they had organization and communication, there would be shit blowing up all over the place.

I agree and depending on how widespread or how popular the rebellion there would probably be defectors from both law enforcement and the military who could lend their expertise and possibly supply military grade equipment to the rebellion. Almost every nation on Earth would have an interest in the outcome of an American rebellion. It’s safe to assume some would lend financial support or supply arms to the side they thought best matched their own interests.

[XT]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

The protections of the Constitution are only as strong as the willingness of the government in power to enforce them, and the people appointed to adjudicate them. While “both sides” have engaged in partisan gerrymandering to suit their purposes in local and state elections, one party in particular has used systematic, widespread gerrymandering to essentially exclude participation by entire classes of people, and has applied other measures such as restrictive voter i.d. laws to exclude demographic sections of voters.

The notion that “it can’t happen here” is given iie by the fact that “it”, in the sense of systemic repression and brutality, has often happened here, just to marginalized groups who have been ignored and often practically written out of history books (at least, those that you study in school). People want to treat German fascism and the rise of Adolf Hitler as some special case but he was only one of several fascist leaders in Europe, who had the advantage of gaining control over the German industry and national angst over being set aside by older dominant powers. That we’ve never had a serious challenge by a hyper-nationalist presidential candidate is in large measure a result of having such a diverse and multicultural population where no one group could be readily isolated and scapegoated for all problems although you can see elements of this in blaming inner city blacks for the "crack cocaine epidemic (as if it was inner city blacks who brought the cocaine into the country, or this was unique compared to the methamphetamine or opioid epidemics which were not inner city phenomena). But elements of this kind of intentional, planned social divisiveness go back to Lee Atwater’s infamous “Nigger, nigger” observation about obscuring racial attacks in the guise of state’s rights and economic justifications, or the “Southern Strategy” of Republican realignment in the South by inculcating racial backlash against civil rights.

The response to that, however, isn’t to arm everybody up and let God sort it out at the Pearly Gates; it is to recognize and attack those deliberate inequalities and the motivation behind them, and to engender greater integration and opportunity regardless of socioeconomic background or cultural affiliation.

Stranger

Perhaps you don’t understand the use of ‘I don’t think’ and ‘I personally think’…these generally indicate someone giving their opinion. Your opinion is that it’s already happened based on your read of history. I think these are indications that our system has grown stronger over time, able to shift with the shifting attitudes, culture and mores of the citizens and been able, over time, to at least shift our system in better ways. We haven’t solved all the problems, but IN MY HONEST OPINION, it’s gotten progressively better over time…and will continue to do so. And IN MY HONEST OPINION we have progressed past the stage where the whole thing will fall apart into some banana republic fascist nightmare. And IN MY HONEST OPINION, you are wrong.
See how that works? BTW, where did you get that last bit of horseshit about arming everyone and letting god sort things out from anything I said or wrote? Just curious.

[XT]

@Blalron

Gerrymandering has been around a long time, but new technology and better mapping information makes it more efficient than it was in the past. It will take a +7 percent vote advantage for Democrats to gain a simple majority in the House.

Well, the entire history of US voting has been a progression of technology changing the game, and each side attempting to game it for their own ends. In the latest round the Republicans seemed to have come out on top, to be sure, but I have every confidence that they are smart enough to figure something out at some point.

[AHunter3]

@Blalron

Many proponents of the Second Amendment believe that’s it purpose was to allow the civilian population to rise up and overthrow the government if it gets too tyrannical. Let’s assume for the purpose of discussion that interpretation is true, and that civilian militias could successfully stage a coup d’etat if need be, and not crushed by overwhelming force.

What criteria do you use to justify taking such an extraordinary act? What would it take for you to feel justified in picking up an AR-15 and shooting at government officials? How do you differentiate “tyranny” from “government policy that I disagree with”?

@Thomas Jefferson

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

(emphasis added)

[DrDeth]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

I’ll be honest and admit that I used to buy into this line or reasoning. Then I grew up and came to the realization that if it ever really applied it has long been a defunct notion insofar as a group of partisans with small arms stands about as much chance of facing off with even foot infantry, much less mechanized infantry, air cavalry, combined arms, or air assault as an does in deflecting a boot. There are other justifications for recognizing and allowing for an armed citizenry (albeit not without rational oversight and restriction as to the type of weapons and ammunition available to the general public) but figing off tyranny is not one that could be realistically put into practice.

Sure, but would the military all line up behind a dictator who abrogated the Constitution?

I mean, if it got so damn bad there was a mass civilian armed uprising, I’d expect many members of the military to join in, even whole units like the National Guard.

So it would be another Civil war, but with few geographical boundaries.

[madmonk28]

@Alessan

If the government cancelled elections, I’d consider it illegitimate and use force to remove them from any position of power they may be holding. I’d try mass non-violent protest first, though.

What about the situation we have now in Georgia where the GOP candidate is using his current position as Secretary of State to prevent blacks from voting in a transparent attempt to “win” an election through undemocratic means; do you believe violence is reasonable to restore democracy?

[k9bfriender]

@Lamoral

Everyone always focuses on the guns in this hypothetical scenario but they never talk about the bombs that would undoubtedly be made. Right now there are people all over America who have the ability to create homemade bombs, but no reason to do so. If they had a reason, and they had organization and communication, there would be shit blowing up all over the place.

Have you seen Afghanistan recently (or even not recently)? Is that what we want for our country?

People have to be in pretty desperate situation in order to strap a bomb onto their chest and blow themselves up.

In any case, they are not winning the war. Are we anywhere near surrendering to Afghanistan?

@Blalron

If I were living in the colonies in 1776, I would have been a Loyalist. If “taxation without representation” is justification for armed rebellion, are the folks in Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia justified in taking up arms?

Puerto Rico doesn’t pay federal income tax. D.C. does have a more justified complaint, but they have stopped at making snarky comments on their license plates.

@Little_Nemo

In my opinion, people are justified in using violent means to overthrow a regime when the regime is acting in an intolerable manner and there are no non-violent means to change that are reasonably available.

I have always said that I would never take up arms against a country that has free and fair elections.

Has it ever been the case in history that oppressors have stopped oppressing because the oppressed asked nicely enough?

@Bruce_Wayne

I agree and depending on how widespread or how popular the rebellion there would probably be defectors from both law enforcement and the military who could lend their expertise and possibly supply military grade equipment to the rebellion. Almost every nation on Earth would have an interest in the outcome of an American rebellion. It’s safe to assume some would lend financial support or supply arms to the side they thought best matched their own interests.

Military grade equipment? Does that include planes, tanks and helicopters? If so, does that include the logistical supply chain to keep that equipement in repair?

Our military is far bigger than anyone else’s by a significant enough margin that I don’t think that anyone would even dare get involved, for fear of ending up supporting the losing side. If there is any involvement from overseas, it will be to assist the side that most appears able to win to further suppress their population.

[XT]

@k9bfriender

Have you seen Afghanistan recently (or even not recently)? Is that what we want for our country?

People have to be in pretty desperate situation in order to strap a bomb onto their chest and blow themselves up.

In any case, they are not winning the war. Are we anywhere near surrendering to Afghanistan?

I don’t think the point is that this is what anyone would want for the country. No one wanted a Civil War, either. Certainly they have to be pretty desperate to do the whole semi-intelligent guided bomb thingy, but that’s kind of what we’d be talking about.

I’d say currently, it’s a draw at best. But here is the thing…IIRC, the Taliban has less than 100k actual fighters. Even if we double that it’s only 200k (this is being way generous too…I’ve heard they might have as few as 30k). And most of them are pretty untrained, since the cream of the crop has been continually worn away by attacks. Think about those numbers for a moment. Then consider…in Afghanistan, the Taliban are holding their own against a coalition of forces, using modern integrated ground, sea and air attacks and they have very little modern support. THEY don’t have the integrated systems or advanced technology…mainly, they have a bunch of guys with guns, improvised explosives and maybe some old Soviet era tanks that are held together with bailing wire and duct tape, with a smattering of some heavy (old ass) guns, again from the Soviet era.
Finally, consider what the average American would have access too in comparison. Next time you are in a store, look around. Then consider…if enough citizens really rose up against the government, whether for a noble cause or not, some percentage of the US military (and police) are going to as well. The US military isn’t the Pretorian guard…it’s comprised of folks just like you, me and everyone else in this thread. Hell, I’m guessing I’m not the only one who is former military in this thread alone. These folks aren’t in lock step, and they can certainly decide for themselves which side they are on. And you can bet that some percentage of them are going to be on the side opposing the government, just as a percentage of them will be on the governments side…and a percentage of them will be on the fence. Just like the citizens.
So, taking that into account, this is why Afghanistan and other such uprisings are brought up…because real life isn’t a movie. In real life, things are complicated and messy, instead of black and white, a few stupid bible thumpin’ gun nuts fighting out in the open Red Dawn style so the military can keep things high and tight and be home by supper verse reality, where potentially millions of armed citizens are fighting potentially millions of other armed citizens with the military and police taking sides as well.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@XT

Perhaps you don’t understand the use of ‘I don’t think’ and ‘I personally think’…these generally indicate someone giving their opinion. Your opinion is that it’s already happened based on your read of history. I think these are indications that our system has grown stronger over time, able to shift with the shifting attitudes, culture and mores of the citizens and been able, over time, to at least shift our system in better ways. We haven’t solved all the problems, but IN MY HONEST OPINION, it’s gotten progressively better over time…and will continue to do so. And IN MY HONEST OPINION we have progressed past the stage where the whole thing will fall apart into some banana republic fascist nightmare. And IN MY HONEST OPINION, you are wrong.
See how that works? BTW, where did you get that last bit of horseshit about arming everyone and letting god sort things out from anything I said or wrote? Just curious.

You seem to have taken my post as some kind of personal attack, which I assure was not the intent. However, the notion of private citizens armed with small arms and IEDs enjoining in an uprising to overthrow a tyrannical regime is at best fanciful and at worst foments exactly the kind of radicalization which an oppressive government could use to justify the creation of a police state. Textual Innuendo actually has it right; all of the self-proclaimed “patriots” and “sovereign citizens” who insist an absolute right to own whatever weapons they wish as some kind of check against dictatorship have well abrogated any presumed responsibility they have for doing so when the government openly acknowledged engaging in warrantless wiretapping, affirming the right of “corporate persons” to engage in politically chicanery while their benefactors remain anonymous, and various other acts that undermine the essential democratic norms upon which our assurances that the Constitution is worth more than just a ragged piece of parchment rest. The only “horseshit” is maintaining the idea that these are the people who are going to save the US from tyranny by engaging in some kind of armed rebellion, doubtless resulting in their deaths and those of many other innocent people to no good end.

It is true that the general protection of personal rights has improved dramatically over the history of the nation, from literally enslaving a demographic and denying approximately half the population the right to vote or often even own property to near-universal suffrage and the use of federal authority to assure that rights are protected even when the leaders a particular region view some people as not deserving of those rights. But it is also the case that we’ve seen some pretty dramatic reversals of that trend toward a liberal (in the classical, not political sense) democracy, and they have all been the result of actions by one party. The “both sides do it” argument doesn’t really hold water beyond partisan gerrymandering, which is a pervasive and probably unsolvable issue, and even there it is clear that one side is gerrymandering in a more systematic and concerted fashion.

@DrDeth

Sure, but would the military all line up behind a dictator who abrogated the Constitution?

I mean, if it got so damn bad there was a mass civilian armed uprising, I’d expect many members of the military to join in, even whole units like the National Guard.

So it would be another Civil war, but with few geographical boundaries.

If you are expecting a military uprising against a would-be dictator, then you don’t really need those partisan rebels very much, do you? But military revolts tend to take on their own character, typically (though not always) resulting in a military dictatorship that is reluctant to hand over power to an elected leader. Regardless, citizens armed with small arms and whatever IEDs they can MacGyver together without blowing their fingers off aren’t going to have much of a say against a military force for or against them, and especially if the military controls logistics, transportation, and borders.

Returning to the claims that non-soldier combatants in Afghanistan, Iraq, et cetera have effectively held out from concerted military force, this is true, but it is also true that they haven’t actually formed any kind of stable government (and in the case of Afghanistan, do not want one beyond tribal alliances that have actually been the governing force for centuries). I suppose if you want to live in a lawless near-wasteland with mob rule and no infrastructure, education, or hope, then that might seem appealing. I would rather work to avoid that kind of scenario, though, as most of the developed world (aside from the former Czechoslovakia) has for the last seven decades.

Stranger

[PatrickLondon]

aside from the former Czechoslovakia) has for the last seven decades.

I think you mean Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia managed to split up entirely peacefully.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@PatrickLondon

I think you mean Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia managed to split up entirely peacefully.

Goddamnit…yes, Yugoslavia. For some reason my brain keeps getting the two confused.

Stranger

[Sage_Rat]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

Several people tried to kill Adolf Hitler without success (although a time-looping Tom Cruise is inching ever closer with each iteration), and the Central Intelligence Agency had a concerted campaign to figure out how to kill Fidel Castro in the early 'Sixties, who instead annoyingly live another five decades, which either speaks to the difficulty of assassinating someone who is aware and has the means to secure himself, or the utter incompetence of the CIA (not mutually exclusive).

Even if you manage to kill the leader, totalitarian regimes are rarely so unstable that they completely collapse at the death of the leader. Neither the Soviet Union nor the Peoples Republic of China fell apart when their founding leaders died, and continued to survive despite internal power struggles. The “Go back and kill Hitler” meme only works if you assume that an angsty failed artist was the only thing that caused Germany to tilt toward fascism and anti-Semitism even those fascist and hyper-nationalist regimes were emerging all over Europe.

On the other hand, once Robespierre went down, everyone stepped back from the edge and started to go a better direction. And while the outcome of the assassination of Arch-duke Ferdinand was not pleasant, it did send things in a different direction.

The point is not that assassinations work or coups work or revolutions work or whatever else, it’s that context matters.

Your argument was, “This will be a pitched battle on an open field between the entire army of the United States against a disorganized group of random citizens with pistols. And that being true, the citizens have no hope. Ergo, the Second Amendment is useless.”

That argument is, simply, stupid. You have excluded so much middle that you’re barely even leaving a paper-thin fraction of rind.

There are an infinite number of ways that everything could play out. And even if we say that in a majority of those cases an armed populace would not help, that still doesn’t mean that the fractions are the same between armed and unarmed. Almost certainly, the populace has less of a disadvantage when they’re armed. And what the politicos feel comfortable doing on the road from here to there is different when any one of them could be gunned down in the street by an angry citizen.

[k9bfriender]

@XT

I don’t think the point is that this is what anyone would want for the country. No one wanted a Civil War, either. Certainly they have to be pretty desperate to do the whole semi-intelligent guided bomb thingy, but that’s kind of what we’d be talking about.

Well, talking about how terrible it would be may have some small effect of preventing people from deciding it to be a viable option.

I’d say currently, it’s a draw at best. But here is the thing…IIRC, the Taliban has less than 100k actual fighters. Even if we double that it’s only 200k (this is being way generous too…I’ve heard they might have as few as 30k). And most of them are pretty untrained, since the cream of the crop has been continually worn away by attacks. Think about those numbers for a moment. Then consider…in Afghanistan, the Taliban are holding their own against a coalition of forces, using modern integrated ground, sea and air attacks and they have very little modern support. THEY don’t have the integrated systems or advanced technology…mainly, they have a bunch of guys with guns, improvised explosives and maybe some old Soviet era tanks that are held together with bailing wire and duct tape, with a smattering of some heavy (old ass) guns, again from the Soviet era.

They live in mountainous and nasty terrain. Hard to control and contain. It would be like all your “freedom fighters” heading up to the Rocky Mountains and holing up. Who cares what they do up there, when all the productive areas are secured?

Finally, consider what the average American would have access too in comparison. Next time you are in a store, look around. Then consider…if enough citizens really rose up against the government, whether for a noble cause or not, some percentage of the US military (and police) are going to as well. The US military isn’t the Pretorian guard…it’s comprised of folks just like you, me and everyone else in this thread. Hell, I’m guessing I’m not the only one who is former military in this thread alone. These folks aren’t in lock step, and they can certainly decide for themselves which side they are on. And you can bet that some percentage of them are going to be on the side opposing the government, just as a percentage of them will be on the governments side…and a percentage of them will be on the fence. Just like the citizens.

The fact that we have all these nice things is part of the reason why we would not revolt. Take all these things away, and we may revolt, but then we don’t have all these things with which to revolt anymore.

I don’t know how the military will react, but I do think that most military will follow the direction given by their commanders. Deserters, if they are not caught and prosecuted, are not going to be creating a military force to oppose the US military, they will be, at best, hiding in the mountains.

We’ve killed thousands of civilians in Afghanistan, and our military isn’t fracturing over it. In Afghanistan, there are hundreds, maybe thousands killed for every US soldier.

So, taking that into account, this is why Afghanistan and other such uprisings are brought up…because real life isn’t a movie. In real life, things are complicated and messy, instead of black and white, a few stupid bible thumpin’ gun nuts fighting out in the open Red Dawn style so the military can keep things high and tight and be home by supper verse reality, where potentially millions of armed citizens are fighting potentially millions of other armed citizens with the military and police taking sides as well.

If we have millions of civilians taking up guns and going out and fighting each other in the streets, then when are we going to have any time at all to overthrow the government?

[XT]

I can’t tell if folks are being deliberately obtuse, or if they really can’t see it. It’s like people think that the military and police will be in lockstep and that the rebels will be some compilation of Avatar natives riding into fire on horses and a replaying of those idiots in Waco or Ruby Ridge. Just some idiotic bible thumpin’ gun nuts, standing in a field, waiting for the gubbermint to mow them down.
I mean, you guys seem to realize that in Afghanistan, a bunch of guys (a few 10’s of thousands, MAYBE 100k) with guns have pretty much fought the US to a standstill. And that similar things happened in, oh, say Vietnam and Iraq. Somehow, it’s impossible for you guys to make any sort of connection there. And it really IS impossible for you guys to even think that the military and police might not be in total lockstep with the government. Oh, sure…some individual deserters or something. What can they do against the might of the US? So, a few deserter types and some bible thumpers with guns…easy meat! The military would just mow those civilians down probably while slapping each other on the back and saying USA!! USA!! USA!!
Except that reality isn’t an Avatar movie. James Cameron is a good story teller, but knows dick all about the military. In reality, you could have whole regiments, even divisions breaking away to join the rebels. You could have whole towns doing so. You don’t NEED to have a couple schlubs up in the Rockies playing out Red Dawn…we live on a freaking continent sized nation. Look the fuck around…even if the military and police were in total lock step, there is no way they could lock down a nation this sized unless it really was your strawman of a couple of gun nuts beating off on their bibles. But it wouldn’t be…and we haven’t even started getting into who else might be helping the rebels. Perhaps everyone would be too frightened about the big, bad US wolf if we had a new civil war, but I seriously doubt it. China and Russia would almost certainly, and just for shits and giggles be willing to smuggle in support.
I just want to end here with some reality check numbers, since this seems to be going over folks heads. There are over 250 million guns in the US…probably double that. There are, currently, over 40 million gun owners in the US. And there are over 300 million citizens. If 1% of those gun owners ALONE decide to kick in with the rebels, that’s 400k armed people (consider that in the context of what we were talking about wrt the Taliban). Even if all of the government is in lockstep to put them down as hard as they can, that’s going to be a hell of a task in a country this sized. If 1% of the total population decides to join in that’s 3 MILLION people…there are guns enough to arm them many times over. That’s going to be impossible to lock down, even if they all just stupidly came out on their horses painted blue and charging at every military base or police station in the country.
Try and consider, for just a moment, that perhaps, just perhaps, a few military and police might join them…and what that would mean. Just try and set aside your visions of movies and preconceptions about gun nuts and bibles for just a moment and think about it. Whether they would win or lose, it’s not going to be a cake walk or turkey shoot, even if you get robotic soldiers and police willing to mow down hapless civilians by the boatload.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Sage_Rat

On the other hand, once Robespierre went down, everyone stepped back from the edge and started to go a better direction. And while the outcome of the assassination of Arch-duke Ferdinand was not pleasant, it did send things in a different direction.

The point is not that assassinations work or coups work or revolutions work or whatever else, it’s that context matters.

Your argument was, “This will be a pitched battle on an open field between the entire army of the United States against a disorganized group of random citizens with pistols. And that being true, the citizens have no hope. Ergo, the Second Amendment is useless.”

That argument is, simply, stupid. You have excluded so much middle that you’re barely even leaving a paper-thin fraction of rind.

There are an infinite number of ways that everything could play out. And even if we say that in a majority of those cases an armed populace would not help, that still doesn’t mean that the fractions are the same between armed and unarmed. Almost certainly, the populace has less of a disadvantage when they’re armed. And what the politicos feel comfortable doing on the road from here to there is different when any one of them could be gunned down in the street by an angry citizen.

I’m sorry by my memory is not what it once was. You’ll have to remind me where in the Federalist Papers or other writings of the Founding Fathers they discussed the need for an armed citizenry to conduct political assassination.

As for Robespierre, I think you need to do some reading up on dissent within the National Convention and the Thermidorian Reaction. The arrest and execution of Maximilien Robespierre was hardly a singular incident that brought down the Committee for Public Safety and the French Revolutiuon; it was one in a series of internal conflicts and disagreements that were longstanding within the National Convention and associated groups.

Citing the resulting war that was ostensibly caused by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand hardly makes the case for the positive impact of political assassination, but again that killing took place within a larger context of nations already at each other’s throats, and if it had not been the unwarranted assassination (Ferdinand was actually an advocate for expanded rights to Czechs and Slavs within the Austro-Hungarian Empire) there would doubtless have been some other casus belli that would have kicked off a war over tensions that had been boiling for sixty-odd years with the rise of the Kingdom of Prussia.

Stranger