HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Bearing arms to fend of a...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:17 PM

Bearing arms to fend of a tyrannic government...

We've all heard this particular argument in defense of the 2nd amendment:
People should be allowed to own arms, so they won't be defenseless when their government becomes tyrannic and turns to oppression.

Let's leave aside the fact that the government has electronic and long-range means to be oppressive that no gun can counter.
Let's leave aside the fact that a government does not turn into a tyranny over night.

How would this "tyranny" be defined? A bill you don't like?
Who is "government"? A legally elected official?
And how would you use your arms to stand up against the oppression? Present them in showcases as a stark reminder of your disapproval?

No.
You would kill people because you don't like, what particular politicians are doing.
You would kill to force them (and the general population) to follow policies you approve of instead.






I don't know what you think about this, but to me this sounds like the definition of terrorism.

22 replies, 1322 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bearing arms to fend of a tyrannic government... (Original post)
DetlefK Dec 2012 OP
Loudly Dec 2012 #1
riqster Dec 2012 #2
KansDem Dec 2012 #3
Bucky Dec 2012 #4
jody Dec 2012 #5
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #8
jody Dec 2012 #9
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #10
jody Dec 2012 #11
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #12
jody Dec 2012 #15
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #18
jody Dec 2012 #19
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #20
jody Dec 2012 #22
Marinedem Dec 2012 #6
DetlefK Dec 2012 #7
Xithras Dec 2012 #16
DetlefK Dec 2012 #21
Romulox Dec 2012 #13
Ganja Ninja Dec 2012 #14
cynatnite Dec 2012 #17

Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:21 PM

1. Tyranny: An organized effort to end slavery as a cherished tradition and way of life.

Our Appomattox covenant is that armed rebellion is never legitimate in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:30 PM

2. After Kent State

... Many of us were convinced that Nixon was going to impose martial law. Thankfully, it did not happen.

Had we shot the Guardsmen, we would not have been defending against tyranny - we would have killed a bunch of people who were being used by Jim Rhodes to make him look big and bad, so he could get a cushy job in D.C.

I expect that most other situations in the past century would be viewed in a similar light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:56 PM

3. I was thinking along the same lines

And how would you use your arms to stand up against the oppression?

When Nixon conspired with South Vietnam to abandon the peace talks LBJ was pursuing to end the Vietnam War, resulting in a war that lasted years longer and took many more American lives--a traitorous act: Where were the guns?

When Reagan conspired with Iran to hold onto the American hostages until after the 1980 elections, promising American military hardware in exchange for cash to send to Ollie North's death squads in Central America--a traitorous act: Where were the guns?

When the Supreme Court conspired to intervene in the 2000 elections by stopping the vote counting in Florida thereby giving the election to the loser Bush: Where were the guns?

When Bush sat and did nothing while we were attacked by his family friends and business partners, the Saudis: Where were the guns?

When Bush first said he saw the first attack on TV, then said it was reported to him, obviously lying: Where were the guns?

When Bush said he instructed his staff to respond to the attack even though the video shows no communication with CoS Andrew Card: Where were the guns?

When Bush and Cheney lied about Iraq and WMDs and invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11: Where were the guns?

When the Supreme Court granted "personhood" to corporations: Where were the guns?

When it was revealed that the US was engaging in torture: Where were the guns?

When Nancy Pelosi announced any investigation of Bush and Cheney for war crimes was "off the table:" Where were the guns?

When Wall Street and Big Bankers pulled swindles that crashed the world economy, then got Congress to give them money to bail them out: Where were the guns?

When American taxpayers financed huge CEO bonuses of corrupt bankers and Wall Street brokers: Where were the guns?

When the justice department refused to investigate and indict HSBC's money laundering of $880,000,000 of drug cartel and terrorist money: Where were the guns?

When voter suppression was undertaken by Republicans: Where were the guns?

And, when Social Security, which has nothing to do with the deficit, is "on the table" during deficit-reduction "compromising:" Where are the guns?

The NRA and its ilk are avid supporters of the Second Amendment, but only when it favors their political positions...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:59 PM

4. It's a stupid, paranoid argument. The best control against bad gov't is voting.

Like your assault rifle is gonna help you deal with unfair tax audits or hired Blackwater thugs eavesdropping on your phone calls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:02 PM

5. 2A is about an individual's RKBA for self defense. Congress has all the authority it needs for the

 

militia in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16.

SCOTUS acknowledged in Heller both opinion and dissent that individuals have a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The main difference was the opinion said that right was in the Second Amendment and the dissent disagreed but recognized the right in the extract below.

The dissent by recognizing the right but asserting it was not an enumerated right protected by the Second Amendment meant the right was an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.

The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment ’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expresslyprotect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state,” 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that “the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed,” id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed “hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.” Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:29 AM

8. No, actually, it isn't

it has nothing whatever to do with the individual right to self-defence. This is a historically revisionist right-wing interpretation that relies upon both ignoring the historical context and the contingent phrasing of "well-regulated militia". Guaranteeing the right to arms as part of "well-regulated" militias in the several states was a compromise and a check on the power of the Federal government at a time when the Jeffersonian anti-Federalists were a powerful faction distrustful of centralised authority. (Although it is interesting and instructive to see that right-wing judicial activism based on a highly questionable application of "Constitutional originalism" is popular among some here.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:48 AM

9. Thanks for your opinion but DC v Heller defines the law and 2A is about individual self-defense. Get

 

used to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:24 AM

10. Until such a time as it's reviewed by a later Court decision.

Which is likely if the court is less conservative in coming years with the likely retirement of some members and appointment of others by a Democratic president. For almost 70 years the controlling decision was US v Miller, 1939, which endorsed the collective right view; there's not any reason to think that this may not be the case again, especially if the composition of the court changes. And no, the Second Amendment isn't "about individual self-defence"; see "well-regulated militia". See also: http://www.tnr.com/article/books/defense-looseness and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/washington/21guns.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin& (Scalia's legal reasoning has been criticised from the right as well as the left).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:38 AM

11. Dissents by Stevens & Breyer cite PA(1776) & VT(1777) constitutions that declare natural, inherent,

 

inalienable/unalienable rights including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

If the four dissenting justices had one more vote, their dissents would have been the basis for a decision you want but that decision would simply mean the right to keep and bear arms for self defense is an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:58 AM

12. You're extremely wrong

Steven cited those, but did not find them to be "inherent or inalienable" (and neither do the specific things cited). Stevens only cites them to highlight the omission of a "right to bear arms" absent the purpose of a "well-regulated militia". I'd suggest you bother actually reading the dissents in the case, since you clearly haven't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:09 PM

15. Read the PA & VT constitutions that use those words. Stevens acknowledged those constitutions.

 

SCOTUS also said "Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

The meaning is clear, a right exists with or without our Constitution or the PA & VT constitutions.

You can try to reinterpret that any way you wish but it always comes out the same, words on paper do not create a right and words on paper do not destroy a right.

As inalienable/unalienable rights, the citizens of PA & VT could not have given any of their declared rights away when they ratified our Constitution.

RKBA is indisputably an inalienable/unalienable right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:12 PM

18. No, actually, it isn't

thanks for the right wing talking points, though. Scalia the conservative judicial activist, imposing a novel interpretation widely criticised by legal scholars, said so. Which doesn't mean it won't be re-examined by a future court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:14 PM

19. What do you mean with your general statement "No, actually, it isn't"? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:24 PM

20. "isn't indisputably an inalienable right".

The Second Amendment has not been incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment. All existing state restrictions on gun ownership have been upheld, despite challenges. The decision in DC v Heller is at present applicable only to persons residing under Federal and not state jurisdiction (which means in Washington DC).

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/heller-provides-no-protection-of-individual-rights/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:38 PM

22. I believe McDonald v. Chicago did incorporate the Second in the Fourteenth, see wikipedia

 

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:36 PM

6. I guess

 

You could ask the Syrians. Or Libyans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marinedem (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:06 AM

7. That doesn't hold any water.

In neither case the government was/is legitimized by a fair election.
In both cases the dictatorship had unfolded long ago.

If G.W.Bush had installed a family-member as his "rightfully-elected" successor, there would have been civil war, 2nd amendment or not.

You don't need a legitimization to fight the illegitimate. The above interpretation of the 2nd amendment just sows distrust and provides a quasi-legal excuse for armed insurrection whenever you feel like.
Not moral excuse.
Quasi-legal excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:09 PM

16. You make the assumption that elections will always be fair

Personally, I've never bought into the "gotta defend ourselves against the government angle", but just for the sake of discussion:

Let's say that, in 2014, the Republicans take the Senate. In 2016 they take the White House. It's a purely Republican government.

In 2017 we receive unquestionable proof that the Republican Party colluded with Diebold to steal the elections, and that they shouldn't have control of either. Think it can't happen? There are MANY people right here on this board who suspect that elections have ALREADY been influenced to change outcomes in some races. It's idiotic to claim that it could never happen here, or that there aren't people in our government who wouldn't do this in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.

Would fighting back be legitimate THEN?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:33 PM

21. Morality and legality aren't the same.

The problem with the argument I'm complaining about is, that it transforms the fight against oppression from a moral duty to a legal duty.

G.W.Bush's win in Florida was legal, because the court said so. That still doesn't make it right.
Tiller was murdered, based on the moral that he were a murderer. That still doesn't make it legal.

If you let laws decide for you what's moral and what's not, you give up your freedom to decide so yourself. The "brake-in-case-of-tyranny"-argument does exactly that. These people figure that they have a legal case to use armed insurrection if those ill-defined limits they set up are violated.
Who wastes time finding a moral reason to do something when you already have a legal reason to do something?
You are upholding law and order as it was intentioned!
Whereas, if you have the strongest of moral reasons to do something, you still have to consider the legal ramifications.



The fight against tyranny shouldn't be a matter of what the book says.
It should be a matter of what your heart, your conscience and your ethics say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:59 AM

13. That's how this country was formed, though. It's hard to reconcile. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:00 PM

14. Don't forget reason #2 the coming race war.

That becomes reason #1 when a Republican is in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:11 PM

17. They need reminded that Red Dawn is not a documentary. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread