So, you have a second amendment to defend against tyranny. How does it work in practice?

[bilby]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

 

[fromderinside]

Well it is in the constitution so that's something. Framers thought it important. On the other hand George Washington feared a two party system yet we still enshrined fixed electoral intervals only excepting for death the need for other elections as the root of two party politics.

We didn't bother listening to Eisenhower who warned us of the Joining of the Military with the industrial complex so we aren't protected from being ruled by militant nationalists.

We're still wringing out relations among tribes which we tried to overcome with our 13th and 14th amendments and for sexes with our 19th amendment.

That idea of election for life of Supreme Court Justices seems to be coming basck to bite us in this rapidly changing social environment.

I'm pretty sure, by the way justices have voted that as a result of WWII the interpretation of the second amendment has moved from an organized militia to the individual even at a time when guns as we are debating right now are more or less irrelevant to the military in keeping order within the country. Now that we're down to about 3 percent rural the idea of guns for recreation or livelihood seems moot when most of gun play is in large cities between gangs and by certified public safety officials. Real 'heros' seem to live in remote places like Nevada, Idaho, Montana, up state Michigan, oh, and in Waco Texas.

All in all we're still pretty much in tact as a melting pot even with current tribilish unrest as our population continues to brown.

Heck, we're even legalizing medical pot in Oklahoma while our Attorney General is reverting to heavy reefer madness philosophy.

Guns. Not so bad overall. Look at Costa Rica and Venezuela Mexico and Columbia where guns are blasting like crazy. Of course our ridiculous drug policy is probably pretty much to blame for most of it.

Oh yeah, our enshrined separation of church and state doesn't seem to be working out so whell even as religious adherence is down to about 40%. No accounting for the oow information thumping convinced I guess. As for Taxes tithing is pretty much enshrined in the tax code without review.

I became politically active in the late fifties and early sixties when the John Birch Society and Robert Welch were all the rage. These are the reich wing crazies who preceded the free speech movement, Flower Power, Black Panthers and those kinds later. Maybe you have people like them in 'stralia.

Keep sending us your great actors actresses and performers though 'cause we are addicted to two things here, Videos cartoons and video make believe reality.

Hope you don't mind too much that I opened up this discussion to our whole damn constitution 'cause, seriously, the second amendment is a dead ender.

 

[bilby]

This thread is NOT about the merits of gun control in preventing crimes; Nor is it about wider constitutional questions or issues.

Please limit responses to the topic of the OP - How does (or does not) the second amendment work to remove a tyrant, or tyrannical government from power?

How do people invisage an attempt to remove such tyranny playing out?

What would inspire the armed populace to act, and what would the results of their actions be?

 

[barbos]

I presume if Trump loses next elections but decides to stay, gun owners will try to revolt.

 

[Patooka]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

I still haven't had it properly explained to me that somehow this:

whilst very effective against unarmed children is even remotely fucking useful against this:

 

[braces_for_impact]

I presume if Trump loses next elections but decides to stay, gun owners will try to revolt.

Why would you think that? Most of the gun owners support Trump.

As to OP: It doesn't work. It may have in the 1700's, but warfare has advanced considerably.

How things pan out exactly I think depends on the scenario. Among questions I would ask of such a scenario is...

How much restraint will the pro-government military forces show their opponents? Why would they show that level of restraint, if any?

Are there any "rebel" government military forces, or are they 100 percent backing fascism? If not, what percentage is on the other side, what forces do they have access to, etc.

It seems to me, if we're talking about some faction of the military that's pro-fascism, vs some contingent that's not, even then Hillbilly Bob and his jungle survivor course won't mean much, accept as a distraction or cannon fodder. Sure it makes an armed resistance possible, but still not very likely of deterring the fascist government.

 

[Politesse]

This thread is NOT about the merits of gun control in preventing crimes; Nor is it about wider constitutional questions or issues.

Please limit responses to the topic of the OP - How does (or does not) the second amendment work to remove a tyrant, or tyrannical government from power?

How do people invisage an attempt to remove such tyranny playing out?

What would inspire the armed populace to act, and what would the results of their actions be?

Well, when in the course of human events....


I think the framers of the Constitution had a very simple idea about these conditions, considering most of them had been involved in an armed rebellion to various degrees in their younger days. This is echoed throughout the document, in fact. I don't think they were actually thinking ahead to a point two centuries in the future, where the US had become a giant behemoth impossible to unseat from power by force of peasant arms. The inertia of a very old political regime, the sheer size and scale of our permanent military (which did not exist at all in 1791, the vast difference in armament between military and civilian, the shortening of the perceptive distance between people and government due to expansion of transportation technology, and the similar imbalance of economic welfare have made a good old fashioned people's rebellion seem a lot less plausible than it did at the time. Not impossible, just less plausible.

As with their rebellion, it does matter whether the major banks get on board or not, and the presence or absence of international allies. Hope and grit by themselves do not a sustainable revolution make, as our many colonial copycats over the centuries have often demonstrated.

 

[Treedbear]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

Well we did have a Civil War which basically started by vigilante groups on both sides. It still generates a lot of interest. Imagine "Bleeding Kansas" happening across the entire country. But we kind of have that already.

Kansas is an important staging ground for what some people argue is the first battles of the Civil War, because it is this battlefield on which the forces of anti-slavery and the forces of slavery meet. ... That is, the war between slavery and anti-slavery in the Kansas territory.

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

Look no further than the situation in Syria.

 

[Axulus]

Armed guerilla warfare can be pretty effective against a superior force. Think Vietnam, Afganistan (against the Russians) and even, to some extent, FARC in Colombia.

The way it would work is similar to how all civil wars work. A large enough population organizes itself and attempts to hold territory or otherwise sabotage federal targets. In the US it would likely involve states seceeding like they did in the Civil War. If they can turn some military generals against the federal government they could obtain vastly more firepower.

They idea would be to make warfare so expensive and so unpopular for the federal government that it caves in to some of the demands of the rebels.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Armed guerilla warfare can be pretty effective against a superior force. Think Vietnam, Afganistan (against the Russians) and even, to some extent, FARC in Colombia.

The way it would work is similar to how all civil wars work. A large enough population organizes itself and attempts to hold territory or otherwise sabotage federal targets. In the US it would likely involve states seceeding like they did in the Civil War. If they can turn some military generals against the federal government they could obtain vastly more firepower.

Yup... using the Civil War to explain how the rebellion can win seems like using WWII to explain how pre-emptive attacks can win wars.

 

[Axulus]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

I still haven't had it properly explained to me that somehow this:

whilst very effective against unarmed children is even remotely fucking useful against this:

If the helicopter slaughtered an armed militia in a lopsided victory the rebels may be able to win from a propaganda perspective. Supporters of the federal government may see such slaughter as excessive as those being slaughtered will, to a great extent, still be considered "our people". It could lead to greater support for a compromise and less will to fight with the full force of the federal government has to offer.

This also assumes that the rebels were unable to turn any military generals to their side. The rebels could potentially obtain a few helicopters of their own.

 

[prideandfall]

Armed guerilla warfare can be pretty effective against a superior force.

in sparsely populated areas full of natural geographic cover (jungle, desert, caves, etc) where it's difficult to get good recon or equipment, and the attacking force has a vested interested in not scorched-earthing the problem into oblivion... yes, it is.
guerilla warfare is effective the same way hunger protests are effective: they're only good when the aggressor you're against is intentionally holding back, and sympathy is your true weapon.
this doesn't even touch on the fact that in any kind of actual government-vs-the-people situation in the US a military response is completely unnecessary because all you'd need to do is shut down power and internet and stop incoming goods delivery and you could decimate a huge population center within a week with no combat whatsoever.

as for the OP:
it's literally impossible - it's as much of a Rambo-style fantasy of delusional gun wanks as is the perennial dream about being the one guy at the mall with a gun who takes down a team of slavic terrorists, which is what all gun nuts think is eventually going to happen to them.

firstly there's the fact that individual gun ownership isn't in the 2nd amendment and wasn't the intent.
secondly there's the fact that when the constitution was written there was no standing federal army nor any any consistent state armies.
thirdly is contextual for the time and the thinking that "tyranny" comes in the form of mounted swordsman and that a level playing field would act as a sort of small-arms M.A.D. to prevent conflict.
fourth is the fact that the 2nd is predicated on everyone having access to muskets and that's it, because nothing else existed. no matter how big your dick feels when you shoot off your glock, that isn't a legitimate countering force to a predator drone.
fifth is the fact that the entire thing is purely masturbatory in terms of practical application even for the time, because the only way it could be implemented would be if a citizen militia rolled up and blockaded a burgeoning federal army before it got properly formed.
sixth and perhaps most importantly is the fact that the 2nd amendment only exists because slave states wanted it codified into law that isolated plantation owners could own stockpiles of firearms in order to oppress black people, and the lofty wording about "tyranny" and "infringing" was a bunch of self-righteous aristocrats trying to make "let the whiteys own enough guns to keep the niggers in check" sound poetic and important.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Utlimately, it doesn't matter how armed you are if you don't have enough resources to survive. Food both pre and post digestion are pretty big components to winning a war. The idiots in Oregon were shitting in trenches after just a week or two. And if the Government wanted to take the BLM occupation down, it could have done so quickly, effectively, and thoroughly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

I still haven't had it properly explained to me that somehow this:

whilst very effective against unarmed children is even remotely fucking useful against this:

While the chopper is in the air, it's useless. Most of the time the chopper isn't in the air.

 

[RVonse]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

This

Armed guerilla warfare can be pretty effective against a superior force. Think Vietnam, Afganistan (against the Russians) and even, to some extent, FARC in Colombia.

The way it would work is similar to how all civil wars work. A large enough population organizes itself and attempts to hold territory or otherwise sabotage federal targets. In the US it would likely involve states seceeding like they did in the Civil War. If they can turn some military generals against the federal government they could obtain vastly more firepower.

They idea would be to make warfare so expensive and so unpopular for the federal government that it caves in to some of the demands of the rebels.

But also this:
(purely hypothetical)
Think Nazi Germany and how Trump haters, liberals, and democrats think that Trump is Hitler and racist right now. So then Trump decides to round up and exterminate all the blacks from Ferguson, Missouri because he doesn't like them anymore. But then Trump has to think twice about doing such a thing because he knows they are heavily armed and that the police will suffer heavy casualties if they go in there. And the airforce would not want to bomb Ferguson because they might damage nearby white populations.

Trump would not be able to simply round up a given population and take them to the gas chambers.

And it would be only the 2nd amendment giving those populations life over death in such a tyrannical situation.

 

[bilby]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

This

Armed guerilla warfare can be pretty effective against a superior force. Think Vietnam, Afganistan (against the Russians) and even, to some extent, FARC in Colombia.

The way it would work is similar to how all civil wars work. A large enough population organizes itself and attempts to hold territory or otherwise sabotage federal targets. In the US it would likely involve states seceeding like they did in the Civil War. If they can turn some military generals against the federal government they could obtain vastly more firepower.

They idea would be to make warfare so expensive and so unpopular for the federal government that it caves in to some of the demands of the rebels.

But also this:
(purely hypothetical)
Think Nazi Germany and how Trump haters, liberals, and democrats think that Trump is Hitler and racist right now. So then Trump decides to round up and exterminate all the blacks from Ferguson, Missouri because he doesn't like them anymore. But then Trump has to think twice about doing such a thing because he knows they are heavily armed and that the police will suffer heavy casualties if they go in there.

Trump would not be able to simply round up a given population and take them to the gas chambers.

And it would be only the 2nd amendment to give those populations life over death in a tyrannical event.

How is 'rounding people up' logistically different from 'serving an arrest warrant on' a bunch of people?

People who are being 'rounded up' by the government because they are suspected of stealing stuff, selling drugs, or robbing other citizens, often have guns - But those guns don't prevent the government agents from taking them from their homes and putting them in jail.

So how does the situation differ substantively when the reason for arresting people is political rather than criminal charges?

Or are you suggesting that people don't get jailed in America in large numbers today?

According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in US federal and state prisons, and county jails in 2013 – about 0.91% of adults (1 in 110) in the U.S. resident population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

Presumably most of these people didn't want to go - but the 2nd Amendment didn't allow them to prevent the government from taking them anyway.

 

[Underseer]

This


But also this:
(purely hypothetical)
Think Nazi Germany and how Trump haters, liberals, and democrats think that Trump is Hitler and racist right now. So then Trump decides to round up and exterminate all the blacks from Ferguson, Missouri because he doesn't like them anymore. But then Trump has to think twice about doing such a thing because he knows they are heavily armed and that the police will suffer heavy casualties if they go in there.

Trump would not be able to simply round up a given population and take them to the gas chambers.

And it would be only the 2nd amendment to give those populations life over death in a tyrannical event.

How is 'rounding people up' logistically different from 'serving an arrest warrant on' a bunch of people?

People who are being 'rounded up' by the government because they are suspected of stealing stuff, selling drugs, or robbing other citizens, often have guns - But those guns don't prevent the government agents from taking them from their homes and putting them in jail.

So how does the situation differ substantively when the reason for arresting people is political rather than criminal charges?

Or are you suggesting that people don't get jailed in America in large numbers today?

According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in US federal and state prisons, and county jails in 2013 – about 0.91% of adults (1 in 110) in the U.S. resident population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

Presumably most of these people didn't want to go - but the 2nd Amendment didn't allow them to prevent the government from taking them anyway.

Yes, but with the gun, Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob can feel less bad about his small penis.

 

[ZiprHead]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

I still haven't had it properly explained to me that somehow this:

whilst very effective against unarmed children is even remotely fucking useful against this:

While the chopper is in the air, it's useless. Most of the time the chopper isn't in the air.

Why did I know this was a Loren Pechtel post before I even looked at who posted it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

I still haven't had it properly explained to me that somehow this:

whilst very effective against unarmed children is even remotely fucking useful against this:

While the chopper is in the air, it's useless. Most of the time the chopper isn't in the air.

Sounds like a married man's penis.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

This

Armed guerilla warfare can be pretty effective against a superior force. Think Vietnam, Afganistan (against the Russians) and even, to some extent, FARC in Colombia.

The way it would work is similar to how all civil wars work. A large enough population organizes itself and attempts to hold territory or otherwise sabotage federal targets. In the US it would likely involve states seceeding like they did in the Civil War. If they can turn some military generals against the federal government they could obtain vastly more firepower.

They idea would be to make warfare so expensive and so unpopular for the federal government that it caves in to some of the demands of the rebels.

But also this:
(purely hypothetical)
Think Nazi Germany and how Trump haters, liberals, and democrats think that Trump is Hitler and racist right now.

Mussolini... he's like Mussolini.

So then Trump decides to round up and exterminate all the blacks from Ferguson, Missouri because he doesn't like them anymore. But then Trump has to think twice about doing such a thing because he knows they are heavily armed and that the police will suffer heavy casualties if they go in there. And the airforce would not want to bomb Ferguson because they might damage nearby white populations.

Exactly! I'm glad someone gets it...

...wait what?

Trump would not be able to simply round up a given population and take them to the gas chambers.

He would if he said it was to a Ted Nugent concert (right-wing) or income redistribution town hall (left-wing).

And it would be only the 2nd amendment giving those populations life over death in such a tyrannical situation.

So if Trump asked his brown shirts to take arms against liberals (he'd probably call them leftist traitors), he wouldn't even need the military to do much. Of course, the liberals could likely drag things out by tricking the brown shirts by painting tunnels on mountain sides and by getting them to run off cliffs.

Mind you, it wouldn't also take too long for the brown shirts to start killing each other (see Bunkerville).