Should government have the power to limit the rights of their citizens during wartime?
Yes, history has shown that the government needs the ability to limit citizen rights during wartime. The draft is a good example of this. When there are too few young citizens to meet the requirements of the military, which is charged with defending us, then compulsory military service is appropriate, In wartime the government can restrict our rights to go certain places and do or see certain things if our doing or seeing those things could affect the country's ability to fight the enemy. The government, needs the ability to restrict freedom of speech if it is to keep secret information from reaching the enemy or if publication of certain information might be of aid to the enemy. In WW2 the government excercised its power to make us turn off our lights in order to prevent the enemy from seeing our cities or seeing ships passing our shores. There are many situations where the government has the need and the right to restrict the rights of individuals to protect the lives or property of the citizens.
Do the US citizens have a right to overthrow their government?
The Declaration of Rights says right in it "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..." Of course, we don't govern our nation based on the Declaration. Our gov't is run on the Constitution. There is no provision in the Constitution for over throwing the gov't. But the Declaration is precedence. Our gov't exists only because we over threw the old one. And we can do it again if need be.
Is the federal government becoming too powerful?
They can now take away all our resources ( cutt off communication, water supply, food, and power) with the disaster preparedness act (including peacetime). They are also trying to take away our right to own assault weapons (our capability to fight back if they get too powerful). They can abduct and detain anyone that is coined a terrorist and detain them indefinitely without trial. Are we slowly giving up our rights?
What kind of Government would seek to disarm it's LAW ABIDING citizens?
Criminals, Murderers and general scum will always find weapons regardless of whether they are legal or not, just like drug sellers and users will always find drugs, regardless of whether they are legal or not. So what kind of Government would seek to disarm LAW ABIDING citizens and what would be this Governments real motive for doing so?
Do people who promote the "disarming of private citizens," e.g. taking away all guns, trust our government leaders and its military completely?
I do not need a gun to keep my government in line.The 2nd amendment was created before cell phones, twitter, and the internet. In early America, Britain and other countries, pretty much did whatever to Americans that they wanted to do. Nobody could do a damn thing about it. Guns helped stop some of tthe abuse of private citizens, but when it came down to it, when 20 soldiers with guns showed up, people let them into their homes and fed them. I will grant you that 200 years ago, a lone person in the middle of nowhere needed a gun to protect themselves from wolves, Natives, robbers. Heck, I will even acknowledge that some people still need guns for those things, but not as many as think they do.Today, I have a voice without a gun. I have the internet, TV news, cel service,,, nothing the government does goes un-noticed for long, and like it or not, Stephen Colbert keeps the government in line more effectively than all the gun toting 2nd amendment supporters added together. (and that is still almost not at all) Maybe the NRA has more influence on what the government does, but even they don’t use guns to accomplish that.If a person thinks the only thing that is keeping the government out of their home is a personal firearm, the Government will gladly give you a useless gun to keep you quiet.
How do you define a "tryannical government"?
What you have described is the Patriot Act which was approved by OUR congress. They have had a chance to repeal it but have not. We should vote in congressmen/women who will repeal it. Yes, this would constitute a Tyrannical Government, but if you say that you would be labeled "un-patriotic" and would be investigated. Wake up people, your rights are being taken away while you watch American Idol.
In modern times, how would armed citizens in the United States rise up against a government they deemed tyrannical?
A lot of unduly dismissive answers here. All these responses seem to forget recent history. The US fought (or is fighting) two counter-insurgencies against “armed citizens,” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those went particularly well for the US military.Factors to consider:The US is huge. Around 20 times bigger than Iraq and 15 times bigger than Afghanistan. Much of it is remote . There are a lot of places for freedom fighters to hide.Conversely, the US is very urban. 80 percent of the population lives in cities. Urban counter-insurgencies are a nightmare to fight.The US is awash in guns - around 300 million of them. I agree that Joe Sixpack’s 12 gauge and 9 mm pistol aren’t a match for a M4 carbine or a M249, but they can still kill or wound someone.There are around 20 million veterans in the US - men and women with military training and even combat experience. And guess what the combat experience was in - counter-insurgency. These veterans, who will form the core of the freedom fighters, will know the tactics that would be used against them by the active military.The US is highly decentralized - states, counties, municipalities/cities all have relatively independent governments. Some of these lower governmental units will support the freedom fighters, providing shelter, food, medicine, etc., either explicitly or covertly.Similarly, we can expect foreign aid to our freedom fighters. Russia would delight in getting some payback for Afghanistan 1980–88. Depending on how “tyrannical” the federal government is, and how hostile it is to the rest of the world, I could see other countries lining up to support the freedom fighters.The freedom fighters don’t have to win, they just have to not lose. Gain the hearts and minds of the population, avoid big set-piece battles, hit and run.Interestingly, this question allows people on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum to reach the same (I think incorrect) conclusion: People on the right can argue that America’s military is too strong for mere “armed citizens” to have any effect, while people on the left can argue against the Second Amendment. Both interpretations are overly simplistic.