Hypothetical question about the 2nd amendment..

2015-09-25T12:45:01-04:00

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?

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Sep 25 at 2015 12:47 PM

2015-09-25T12:47:25-04:00

if that was the case they would be dead, hypothetically.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 25 at 2015 12:54 PM

2015-09-25T12:54:11-04:00

You need to review the difference between defense and offense. Further the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was the need for an armed militia. Remember what the reason for the Constitution was. Care to explain the tyranny of the Republicans. Seemed to have slipped right by me.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Sep 25 at 2015 12:57 PM

2015-09-25T12:57:00-04:00

LCpl Mark Lefler You can do whatever you wish (you might not live long doing so). Our founders provided a pretty good model for this. When is it appropriate to use force to counter a tyrannical government? Well they were facing significant tax burden without an ability to vote in the policies. But that wasn't all, they also had military troops occupying prominnt civilian cities. That still wasn't all. Those armies marched out from those cities to sieze civilian owned stockpiles of arms (the powder raids). They did it multiple times. Eventually the citizens organized a response process. When the army marched out of Boston to seize stockpiles at Lexington and Concord, the militias responded with force to defend their arms. That is the match strike that ignited the war.

So overlay the process on the modern era and ask whether the government you describe as tyrannical has crossed all the same thresholds.

Response by SGT David T. made Sep 25 at 2015 1:04 PM

2015-09-25T13:04:37-04:00

You have the right to revolution not the right to rebel. The difference is simple a revolution is successful a rebellion is not. So if you on your own and do as the scenario describes, there is a very very high probability that you would be killed or captured and thus not successful and no right to do it. Tyranny is pretty subjective. If we use the situation of the American Revolution as the standard then we hit it a very long time ago. However to me that seems insufficient in the modern era. I really cannot say what the line is before something becomes tyrannical. The guard would be in a very tough predicament but if they hold true to historical form, they will follow their orders.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Sep 25 at 2015 1:14 PM

2015-09-25T13:14:33-04:00

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?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 25 at 2015 1:16 PM

2015-09-25T13:16:45-04:00

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.

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.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Sep 25 at 2015 1:30 PM

2015-09-25T13:30:09-04:00

"Bringing a gun to a drone fight" comes to mind for some reason...

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Sep 25 at 2015 1:53 PM

2015-09-25T13:53:07-04:00

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 :-)

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Sep 25 at 2015 1:56 PM

2015-09-25T13:56:03-04:00

I think this type of statement is used by those "lesser informed". That's not saying you at all, but to those who think OMG they're taking my weapons away, OMG they're invading Texas, OMG they're going to take away curly fries at Arby's, OMG Rosy O'Donnell's going to be the next MCPON....and Obama's to blame. In some of these cases, they refuse to look at the whole Constitution, or Dec of Independence, but can tell you all about the one part of one amendment that suits them; and even then it's not correct. They get all riled up, go buy weapons and claim they're going to take America back. From whom? When was it invaded? That Red Dawn remake sucked ass BTW and if that's your reasoning, you need more help than any weapon can give you. And all these weapons suddenly bought are on FB pages from folks selling them. I know this much being I'm a member of a few of them here in VA (always on the hunt for a good deal)
There is a legal way to make grievances known to the government, and even effect change in it. Problem is it takes time, and some folks think that having a Bradley in their driveway will solve it quicker. I like weapons and have a few of my own, but I'm not dumb enough to think getting a few shit talking youtube, FB "hero's" or MEGAPatriots together are going to solve anything. My vote does that. My due diligence in researching a candidate's history does that. Talking with people and not just the like minded ones will help make a change. No matter what party line you lean on, we do have some common grounds that we all hold dear. If there ever was a coup to overthrow the government, we have officially sunk BELOW the lowest of the low because we allowed our minds to be corrupted by the money and minds of those who will be sitting on a ranch somewhere calling shots and not lifting a finger. Those same assclowns will be the first ones saying they had no part in anything should it go south, yet be the first ones claiming victory with their starbucks cup in hand. If you really want someone out of office, become that next INFORMED youtube sensation. That INFORMED blogger, that INFORMED radio/radio host that can make all politicians squirm with the hard questions. Peace effects change because you have a wider audience to talk to, and they're alive to hear it. War is the last resort of the intelligent and the first resort of the weak minded.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Sep 25 at 2015 2:43 PM

2015-09-25T14:43:09-04:00

LCpl Mark Lefler I sure would be careful saying something like that on the internet, in this day and age. Might garner you some unwanted scrutiny, and I can't say it wouldn't be warranted. (Regarding taking a gun to shoot congressmen).

Response by SGT Jimmy Carpenter made Sep 25 at 2015 3:42 PM

2015-09-25T15:42:29-04:00

I find it odd that the op feels that republicans are tyrannical when it's the democrats that are trying to limit or completely do away with our rights. The 1st and 2nd amendments specifically and the 4th in some cases.

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Sep 25 at 2015 4:38 PM

2015-09-25T16:38:36-04:00

Most people who make this statement generally mean if there was martial law wrongly declared and the general populace were being forced to do what the government desires against their free will.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 25 at 2015 4:43 PM

2015-09-25T16:43:21-04:00

I have firearms because I like to shoot, I like to hunt, for home defense... I don't expect the government to turn against me...

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 6:51 PM

2015-09-25T18:51:14-04:00

I don't see many folks claiming they need guns for use against a tyrannical government. But could that ever happen, I suppose anything is a possibility. There will always be those that are a little sideways in thinking. But I believe the vast majority feel the need for weapons for self defense, hunting, target shooting and God forbid the possible invasion by a foreign enemy. I believe the second Amendment is pretty clear in it's meaning although many try to twist its intended purpose. Because of the Second Amendment is why their won't be a coup or the National Guard called to stop one.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 25 at 2015 7:53 PM

2015-09-25T19:53:05-04:00

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 8:41 PM

2015-09-25T20:41:01-04:00

Well, let's face it-- a "tyrannical" government is always defined by "the other guy".

We'll never get the luxury of having a President stand up during a State of the Union address on TV and literally take a copy of the Constitution and tear it up, and roll up his sleeve to reveal a Swastika, and make it all easy for us.

It will always be anyone who doesn't like the current government (whatever it is) to call it "tyrannical", and the rest of us will either go "yup, sure 'nuff" or "you're crazy". And thus the cycle continues.

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Sep 28 at 2015 1:29 AM

2015-09-28T01:29:30-04:00

To take up arms against the government would be to start a civil war or revolution depending on the purpose. Doing so is treason until you get enough people to agree with you and win said war. Then you can call the old government tyranical, unjust and undeserving. Our revolutionaries are only considered patriots wiith great ideas because they won, not once but twice. Had the English won, they all would have been hung or shot and that would be the end of it.

He who wins writes the history books.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 28 at 2015 12:54 PM

2015-09-28T12:54:42-04:00

Constitution only work on a well informed citizens. If the citizens behaved like how you describe, does it matter there is a 2nd Amendment at all?

Look into "the Battle of Athens TN". That would be a good example for the 2nd Amendment. Good luck with that.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Sep 30 at 2015 10:20 AM

2015-09-30T10:20:50-04:00

Such an act would never be legal as I very highly doubt that lawmakers would permit an open season on themselves. That said, I would think that such an act would become moral and just were the government to do things like suspending elections which would end the voice of the people in their own governance.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Oct 1 at 2015 2:22 PM

2015-10-01T14:22:59-04:00

LCpl Mark Lefler - Lance Corporal; You ask "At what point would it be legal?" and there is a very simple answer to your question.

IF the "Patriots" WIN then all actions in furtherance of the revolution become "legal", BUT IF the "Loyalists" win then all actions in furtherance of the revolution remain "illegal".

Response by SFC William "Bill" Moore made Oct 1 at 2015 2:29 PM

2015-10-01T14:29:53-04:00

Many have responded to this with an understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so, I will not add anything more to it than this. By late 1700's standards, our current government would be considered tyrannical to the point that started the American Revolution, i.e. confiscation of property and firearms. No, troops are not occupying our homes and such. But our vote counts for very little, our elected officials seem to forget who they work for, therefore failing to dispatch their duties according to their constituents. Don't get me wrong, I am a firm believer of the vote, as well as our flawed legal system, it is, by my accounts, still the best in the world.
I will air my concerns with the question of whether or not the National Guard, or for that matter, Active troops would follow orders to detain, round up or shoot its citizens. In the 80's and early 90's, I would have said no. We were taught, at an early age, what the Constitution and Bill of Rights were and what they meant. Both Democrat and Republican knew what it took to make changes in society and law. We bickered amongst ourselves, but, without a doubt, we knew we were Americans and what that meant. Roll forward a decade and a half, Young men and women are not taught what it means to be an American, not taught our founding documents and are not taught respect.
I retired in 2011 having spent an almost equal amount of time Active duty and Active Guard. I can honestly say that I would not put much faith on trusting whether or not a 20 to 30 year old soldier would understand if they were given an unlawful order, or an order went against the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am not saying anything derogatory towards them or their intelligence. They are some of the brightest and most intelligent in our society today. It would not be their fault for following such an order to put down the citizenry. It would be the fault of us older, more experienced soldiers and veterans to educate them on our founding documents. Start by talking about these documents, have competitions on who has the best understanding of them, encourage them to read. Read the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers. If you do, the worst that could happen is you have an informed soldier on your hands. The best, you have a soldier that understands what it means to be an American and why these documents are so vitally important, a soldier that understands their responsibilities and oath to their people.

Sorry so long.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Oct 2 at 2015 8:58 PM

2015-10-02T20:58:39-04:00

I agree with your point because that is all the gun lobby wants to cry about. I don't thing laws need to be made to take guns away but they do need be adjusted so that they are not so easy to get.

Response by SGT William Howell made Oct 5 at 2015 4:52 PM

2015-10-05T16:52:01-04:00

Hypothetically, I think you are so far off base that you are in the parking lot.

Being that you could even pose that question proves that we do not have a tyrannical government. Run on over to China and spit that bullshit out and see how that goes for you.

Response by SGT William Howell made Oct 6 at 2015 11:20 AM

2015-10-06T11:20:20-04:00

LCpl Mark Lefler The more I think about this "Hypothetical" thing it is kind of like, "With all due respect, sir......". We all know what ever comes after that has no respect with the comment.

Using "hypothetically" does really not give you a free pass to to say shit like you want to shoot people in our government.

I am going to go for the shock factor here please take this in context. So if I were to walk up to you and just say, "Hypothetically, I want to rape and kill your wife." What would your reaction be? I know what mine would be. You would be breathing out of a straw for the rest of your life. I am just trying to put this into context.

So to talk about mass murder of members of Congress because you prefaced it with hypothetically does not make it less of a threat.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Dec 13 at 2018 5:17 PM

2018-12-13T17:17:38-05:00

I laugh to myself whenever I see someone post the need an AR 15 for fighting a tyrannical government. A few over the hill types with beer guts and an AR in their hands would not have a chance against the government if that government decided to come after them.
I wrote and published a novel back in '04 based on that theory. Even in fiction, I could not devise a means that a few civilians with weapons could succeed.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2019 5:12 PM

2019-08-04T17:12:13-04:00

Well, I suppose it depends. After WW2 a group of armed veterans overthrew a corrupt Sheriff and the Mayor of a town as well if I’m not mistaken.