Posted on Sep 25, 2015
Hypothetical question about the 2nd amendment..
12.3K
127
67
11
11
0
Thinking about the 2nd Amendment, a lot of people talk about needing firearms to stop a tyrannical government. So does this mean that I can go buy a firearm and start shooting republicans in congress since I feel they are tyranical? Obviously I'm not going to go do that. I feel though, that, that statement is bought up a lot about government but at what point would it be legal? what really consists of a tyrannical government? What if the national guard was called out to stop such a coup?
2nd Amendment
Government
Firearms and Guns
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 26
18
18
0
I love how this question is couched. It is most telling, isn't it? The simple fact is that if a tyranny arises, the shooting won't start with We the People. It will begin with the government. What keeps the government from firing the first shot? The fear that an armed populace will shoot back. That's how it works. Now for the proof. Every tyranny of the 20th Century stifled its ambitions until it first disarmed the citizens. They did it "lawfully" of course and the citizens acquiesced because they wanted to be "safe". They couldn't conceive that their leaders wanted anything but to keep them safe. Sound familiar?
(18)
(0)
PO3 Sherry Thornburg
Familiar? There has been a bunch of that going around in my lifetime and plently before I came around.
Examples:
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
That's just government's turning on citizens.
No you can't go around shooting government officials, but hypothetically, if the government starts shooting at civilians, our constitution allows citizens to shoot back.
Examples:
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
That's just government's turning on citizens.
No you can't go around shooting government officials, but hypothetically, if the government starts shooting at civilians, our constitution allows citizens to shoot back.
(3)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
...and the government often turns to it's federal police and military, or some "special" troops within those organizations, to do the killing. That's when we say no, to unlawful orders. That's why our oath is to the constitution itself, and not the president or Congress.
(5)
(0)
12
12
0
Since it is hypothetical LCpl Mark Lefler: It would be more logical to shoot those who are in favor of stricter gun control for law abiding citizens; stabbing or slashing people who are in favor of stricter control for sharp bladed weapons; and better yet removing the voice boxes of those who preach freedom of speech yet use "tolerance" as a club to criminalize speech or cations that don't meet their definition of tolerance :-)
(12)
(0)
SGT William Howell
LTC Stephen F. Sorry about that. Next time I'll at least give you a "Frag Out!" before letting loose with one of those.
(2)
(0)
11
11
0
LCpl Mark Lefler I am a firm believer that our Bill of Rights (Protections) are in place in case we ever actually need to overthrow a government.
If you look at ALL of them, it Protects our ability to do just that. We can assemble. We can talk about the government. We have the Right to Redress. We cannot be forcibly unarmed. Troops cannot be placed in our homes. The government must have cause to search us or to seize our property. And the government must provide a trial. I can keep going.
Now take a look back at the Declaration of Independence.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
It was men who assembled, spoke freely, AFTER petitioning the government for redress. It was then that they affirmed there was a tyranny, and that they something had to be done.
Now, the 2a doesn't exist in a vacuum. None of the amendments or articles of the Constitution do. You have to look at them as a whole. You have to look at how the clauses interact with each other. That's why we have SCOTUS. Yes, the 2a does offer protection for the citizen from government overreach, but it does not grant the power to break laws.
If you look at ALL of them, it Protects our ability to do just that. We can assemble. We can talk about the government. We have the Right to Redress. We cannot be forcibly unarmed. Troops cannot be placed in our homes. The government must have cause to search us or to seize our property. And the government must provide a trial. I can keep going.
Now take a look back at the Declaration of Independence.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
It was men who assembled, spoke freely, AFTER petitioning the government for redress. It was then that they affirmed there was a tyranny, and that they something had to be done.
Now, the 2a doesn't exist in a vacuum. None of the amendments or articles of the Constitution do. You have to look at them as a whole. You have to look at how the clauses interact with each other. That's why we have SCOTUS. Yes, the 2a does offer protection for the citizen from government overreach, but it does not grant the power to break laws.
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript
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.
(11)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google