Reply #51: The second amendment allows use of force to protect other rights.

[Atypical Liberal]

Granted, this was a time when everyone carried a sword or a musket, and people in towns were expected to keep their own peace because there were no police. But, is this valid in 21st century America?

Yes.

By the "Second Amendment backing up the First," does that mean that if you criticize the government and they come after you for it, you can legally start shooting?

No.

Revolution is never legally sanctioned by the current government in power. This does not mean that revolution, even armed revolution, has never been necessary, good, or successful.

The second amendment insures that you have an armed population. Should that population determine that its rights are being oppressed to the point where armed resistance is necessary, they will be able to do so. But such action would never be legal, even though our Declaration of Independence advocated it.

What about if, say, the Bush Administration had shut down the New York Times - impinging on their freedom of the Press? Could, say, the NYT owners wave a gun at Federal officials? Or, in a more likely case, President Perry (or Bachmann, or Palin) says that we're going to declare Pastafarianism an illegal religion. Does that mean that followers of the FSM can hole up in a compound and start defending their freedom of religion, a la David Koresh?

No one can say what will be the spark that sets off a rebellion. If it gains no traction, then the rebels are just "fringe lunatics" who get carted away. If it gains traction, then they are "freedom fighters". Could the shutting down of the New York Times instigate armed rebellion? Who knows? Could the repression of a religion instigate armed rebellion? Who knows?

You know what the biggest thing is that sparks rebellion, including all the recent uprisings we have seen? The price of food.

I mean, the last time I actually heard of "The Government" forcing people to turn in their guns was during Hurricane Katrina - and that was for public safety. Besides, it was a Republican Administration.

Actually, it was Democratic Mayor Ray Nagan who ordered the confiscation of firearms. And while the government may have claimed that what they were doing was for "public safety", the fact of the matter is it was illegal for them to do so.

Do people REALLY believe that "The Government" is going to force them to give up legally purchased firearms, or is this just another RW canard?

It has happened before, in the United States and elsewhere. See the UK and Australia for large-scale examples. We have already discussed Katrina, but also see the SKS fiasco in California.

I mean, some regulation of firearms is necessary, or we'll all end up like Chicago during the '30's. Nobody seriously wants that.

The biggest driver of crime in Chicago in the 1930's was the same driver of crime in Chicago today: organized gangs fighting over the illegal, prohibited drug business. Chicago continues to have some of the most stringent firearm regulations in the country and it makes no difference. It makes no difference because there is a shit-load of money at stake in the illegal drug industry, just as there was with alcohol in the 30's.