Hypothetical question about the 2nd amendment..

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.