Does the second smendement really grant us the power to protect ourselves against the government?
On paper we should be able to defend ourselves against a government that has overstepped its privileges. However, if anyone nowadays were to try and start a revolution they would most certainly be deemed "terrorists" instead of constitutional defenders. The fact of the matter is that the constitution has been destroyed by the government now in power. Sure, you can go and see it in D.C. or buy a copy at a bookstore, but the meaning is no longer there. Be afraid.
Tyrannical government vs guns?
I think owing guns for just sporting and self and home defense reasons makes sense to me. Hunting not so much, but I’m not going to start that here. I really can’t understand the tyrannical government argument. I mean that’s what the 2nd amendments was for and so I can see why people include it in their argument. But really if the government was to turn on us and our tanks, jet, and war ships turned against us are few rifles really going to make a difference? Recall civil war for example? We focus on the human rights part so much(which we rightfully should, but that’s not the point right now) that we sometimes we forget that south was getting out of the union as they felt that the government was turning against them and had a full standing army and with much more than just rifles to make this happen. It didn’t really work out for them. I’m thinking that if people are serious about fighting off a tyrannical government they would have argued for the rights to own tanks and jets.(Not saying that we should but if we were serious about this) Seriously, I don’t think our best chance against the government is few pounds of steel in our homes, but the men and women in uniform, our brothers and sisters serving in the army that we are so afraid will turn on us, who will support the people if there were ever going to be a tyrannical rule. TL;DR: So should we even include defense against tyrannical rule as part of our justification for the 2nd amendment?
In the event that the US government does turn tyrannical, how likely is it that those who own guns will actually fight back?
The US government will not turn tyrannical towards the entire population, because it is set up in such a way that it can’t. Even if the president orders the military to do something harsh to all Americans, the military isn’t big enough and Congress holds the purse strings. The response to such an effort would not be with firearms, but with mass protests and rioting, like when Margaret Thatcher tried to impose the poll tax. Even its militarized police couldn’t handle truly mass protests.However, the government has been tyrannical towards minorities in the past, and gun owners did nothing because they were not the ones targeted. The internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II is Exhibit A.Anybody who is counting on the gun owners to protect their freedom is deluded. It won’t happen. More often than not, the gun owners were supportive of the tyranny.
Can the people still defend itself against a tyrannical government if forced to keep their guns locked up in a privately owned gun club?
The question, as asked by Chii Mikou (who appears to be an anti-gun troll based on their incomplete profile and two anti-gun questions) at the time of answering is:“Can the people still defend itself against a tyrannical government if forced to keep their guns locked up in a privately owned gun club?”Well, Mr. Mikou, that is a good question, maybe.Your implication that the ownership of firearms is ONLY for defense against a tyrannical government is, on the face, a logical fallacy. The recognized natural human right in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is to the right of defense of self.It can be a tyrannical government.It can be the failure of a government to protect the citizens.It can be the aftermath of a natural disaster when the “evil that lurks in men’s hearts” comes out.As to using small arms to defend against a government such as that of the United States: Go look at Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria. Is it an easy battle, nope. But it has been being done since the 1980s when the Afghan people battled the Soviets.As to the government failing to protect: I direct you to Koreatown in Los Angeles and the Rodney King riots.The LA riots were a rude awakening for Korean-AmericansThe government was UNABLE to defend these American citizens. They were left to their own ability to protect their property. Are you telling me they had no right to do so? I question your humanity if you do.And the Supreme Court has held, in several cases, the police are under no obligation to come help you.The Police are Not Required to Protect You - Barnes Law LLPI’m sorry that you don’t like this, but as for me and mine I will not simply lay down and take what a violent society tries to inflict upon us.
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.
If the Second Amendment is designed to defend against tyranny, how do civilians defend against tanks and nukes?
Many writers have addressed the OP’s skull-shatteringly idiotic assertion with regard to the efficacy of small arms in the hands of civilians wielded against a regular army.I wish to speak to another issue raised (or, more accurately, blithely ignored) by the question: it has as its unstated assumption that the only reason for the 2nd Amendment is as a counterweight against a tyrannical government.This assumption is just plain wrong.As has been shown clearly in other Answers, the 2nd Amendment serves to preserve and guarantee the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms. This right was a traditional Right of Englishmen, and was a right of the British colonists, and remained in place when the colonies separated from Britain (see, for example, the English Bill of Rights of 1689). As enjoyed in America for well over a century BEFORE the Revolution and the Constitution, that right and, accordingly, the 2nd Amendment serve four purposes, not just one. They are:To act as a deterrent to tyranny by the central government and, in the event of such tyranny, to enable the people to remove the tyrannical government and establish one that protects their rights and liberties. THAT is exactly what the Founders did! The core of the Continental Army was the colonial militias;To create at virtually no expense to the government a militia, already armed and proficient with its weapons, serving as a body of armed fighters sufficient to repel foreign invasion or raiders, suppress domestic insurrection, keep order in conditions of emergency, and otherwise protect the public safety in times of crisis;To guarantee to the people, many of whom then and now live far from settled areas and for whom summoned help may arrive only after many minutes, or even hours (and, sometimes, days), the ability to defend themselves against outlaws, robbers, and other dangerous individuals.To guarantee to the people, many of whom then and now rely on hunting for part of their meat supply, the ability to have weapons adequate to the task of hunting and taking game to feed themselves and their families, or for sport as enjoyed by members of our culture—then and now—thousands of years.The OP and his/her ilk want YOU to voluntarily give up a right held dear by your forebears going back to before the Revolution, and they want to persuade you to do it by misleading you as to the history and reasoning behind it.Take my advice folks. NEVER surrender a right of the people. Any right. EVER.
How will guns protect you from the "government"?
Before I get to the real question, here are some things to take into account: 1 - Lets say you're sound asleep, peaceful, then suddenly a criminal comes into your house armed and loaded. What are the chances your mind and body will be rested and in a perfect state to the point where you'll be able to shoot the criminal successfully? 2 - Do people really have such a high feeling of themselves to the point where they're perfectly okay in killing a person? Criminal or not. 3 - How long will it take for a "law abiding citizen" to take out their gun and shoot the criminal before he gets shot? Even with full training in certain predicaments, mistakes can be made. For example, the Aurora shooting in 2012. What are the chances of the "law abiding citizen" pulling out his gun and being able to successfully shoot the criminal without either being shot or shooting another "law abiding citizen", especially when it was dark and with tear gas? 4 - http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2013/01/07/video-heres-proof-that-carrying-a-gun-wont-protect-you-in-a-crisis/ With all this information in mind, how can you expect a weak militia of people with little fighting experience to have a mindset of killing and being quick to kill with no mistakes, let alone ignore other variables (weapon to weapon, drones, tanks, armor, etc.) vs the government of the United States?
Guns to protect against government tyranny -- Is it an out of date fantasy?
I'm in a strange position here. While I believe guns should be legal-I do not believe automatics should be for the reason you stated. However, neither do I believe any armament the citizenry can attain will match that of the government. I see handguns as an equalizer. An 80 year old woman can't beat a 20 year old man if he breaks into her house and tries to kill her. But she can easily shoot him. However, she won't be able to use an automatic weapon either, so guns seem to be the middle ground. If people hope to solve gun violence by outlawing guns they're sadly mistaken. Murder and violence existed prior to guns and even weapons being invented, so outlawing guns will only disarm law abiding citizens and make it that much harder to protect themselves against those who kept their guns. If a mugger holds a gun to your head and you've given him your wallet but he still holds it there-do you really think the police will make it there in time? So my theory is ban automatics because they're not only impractical (there's no actual use for them a citizen could possibly have) and because they're also far more dangerous than handguns. Should stricter laws be put into place for handguns? Of course they should! Only rifles and handguns in my opinion should be legal. --------------- Guerrilla warfare??? From my fellow Americans? You DO KNOW you have to have training in it first...right? It's not as easy as just hiding out and shooting. Besides, the vast majority of Americans would very quickly submit to an ACTUAL authoritarian structure. They've been psychologically primed for it for a long time now. Read up on Erich Fromm, Eric Hoffer, Phillip J. Zimbardo and Lt. Col. Dave Grossman to get an idea of what I'm talking about.