Hypothetical question about the 2nd amendment..

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?

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 :-)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.