Right to an Armed Insurrection?

**Templeton** · 01-15-2013, 03:54 PM

As I’ve been following this gun debate, I’ve recently come across a pro-gun argument that I’ve never heard before. Basically it states that the founding fathers wanted people to be armed so that they could fight off a tyrannical government. Is this a widespread belief amongst gun supporters? What are they basing this belief on?

**boognish** · 01-15-2013, 04:12 PM

The 2nd Amendment.

Edit: I'm not trying to be cynical, but that's the most common explanation.

**Naveen** · 01-15-2013, 04:22 PM

Paranoia

**Sycamore** · 01-15-2013, 04:25 PM

I guess you just started paying attention to the gun debate?

**NickTheCage** · 01-15-2013, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Templeton

As I’ve been following this gun debate, I’ve recently come across a pro-gun argument that I’ve never heard before. Basically it states that the founding fathers wanted people to be armed so that they could fight off a tyrannical government. Is this a widespread belief amongst gun supporters? What are they basing this belief on?

Is this a serious question? Did you think the 2nd amendment is abt hunting down bambi?

Not trying to be a dcik but what do you think the 2nd is all abt?

**OffenseTaken** · 01-15-2013, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Templeton

As I’ve been following this gun debate, I’ve recently come across a pro-gun argument that I’ve never heard before. Basically it states that the founding fathers wanted people to be armed so that they could fight off a tyrannical government. Is this a widespread belief amongst gun supporters? What are they basing this belief on?

A sophisticated, nuanced, impeccably researched interpretation of the Second Amendment that was pulled directly out of their hairy butts.

**lemonfresh** · 01-15-2013, 04:41 PM

But how likely are we to have a dictatorship to have to rebel against? It would be interesting to see what the rates of voter participation are among gun owners. It's already too low in general.

**Geno** · 01-15-2013, 04:42 PM

I have news for the insurrections: they have an army with really cool stuff. Forget it.

**NickTheCage** · 01-15-2013, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Geno

I have news for the insurrections: they have an army with really cool stuff. Forget it.

What makes you think the army would turn on their own people, family and friends?

**Geno** · 01-15-2013, 04:46 PM

That's a ****ing pipe dream. The US Government has an Army. Some paranoid flabby losers defending their "liberty" aren't going to fare too well. Better go live in that freak compound in Idaho.

**Geno** · 01-15-2013, 04:49 PM

Sorry about two posts saying the same thing. The Army isn't going to attack citizens, but if a gang of armed crazies just started firing on the pentagon say, I'm sure they would be thwarted immediately.

**Eastcoast** · 01-15-2013, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Templeton

As I’ve been following this gun debate, I’ve recently come across a pro-gun argument that I’ve never heard before. Basically it states that the founding fathers wanted people to be armed so that they could fight off a tyrannical government. Is this a widespread belief amongst gun supporters? What are they basing this belief on?

Most likely they are basing this line of thought on a quote by Jefferson.

Thomas not George.

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

**NickTheCage** · 01-15-2013, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Geno

That's a ****ing pipe dream. The US Government has an Army. Some paranoid flabby losers defending their "liberty" aren't going to fare too well. Better go live in that freak compound in Idaho.

Yet you didn't answer the question! I'll make it easier on you. What makes you think the entire army would turn their guns on the citizens of this country especially knowing that many of their family and friends would be under the exact same 'siege' back at home? I'm just curious how you come to that notion ... it didn't even work in the USSR as the army proved declined to murder a bunch of its citizens to protect a coup by their own superiors. What makes you think our military hierarchy wouldn’t turn it’s guns on our govt and institute a govt to their liking?

There are so many scenarios that could play out but you just think it’s the govt’s army and they will do as they’re told which is factually wrong if you read your history. For a regime to squelch a revolution they must have complete control of their military. This means that they must hold enough control over the officers and that the officers still have enough control over their troops to do the nasty work of winning a civil war.

**bootsywannabe** · 01-15-2013, 05:12 PM

If you take a brief look at modern history, the seizure of guns owned by private citizens preceded their subsequent mass extermination in a number of countries - Stalin, Hitler, Mao all come to mind, heck even the Cambodians. Don't think it could happen here? What about when we rounded up and more or less exterminated a bunch of native americans? Or how about the internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry during WWII? How come Homeland Security can buy more than a billion rounds of ammo for high capacity rifles, as well as the rifles themselves, and we can't own high capacity magazines? What do they need them for? How about the police?

**NickTheCage** · 01-15-2013, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by bootsywannabe

If you take a brief look at modern history, the seizure of guns owned by private citizens preceded their subsequent mass extermination in a number of countries - Stalin, Hitler, Mao all come to mind, heck even the Cambodians.

1911 - Turkey bans civilian ownership of firearms. From 1911 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

1928 - Germany bans firearms. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill & others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1929 - The Soviet Union bans firearms. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were systematically eliminated.

1935 - China bans firearms. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were killed.

1956 - Cambodia bans firearms. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

1964 - Guatemala bans firearms. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

1970 - Uganda bans firearms. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated. In one infamous incident, the habitants of a small village took refuge in a church, where every man, woman and child was massacred with guns and machetes as they were unable to physically defend themselves.

1995 - 6,000 Bosnian Muslims were massacred at Srebrenica in the ironically named "UN safe area" after having been disarmed first (a process aided by the UN).

**Geno** · 01-15-2013, 05:36 PM

I answered your question. I said the army would not turn on citizens. What makes you think citizens are going to attack the government? Or a military post?

**Dayman** · 01-15-2013, 05:41 PM

I'm pretty sure it's so the government would have a large body of well-trained self-armed militia who could be called up in case of war to fight invasions that would be cheaper than a standing army and less prone to being used tyrannically.

I'm all for instituting mandatory service (18-20 for example. Pick your branch or do 2 years civil service in something like the CCC, USPHS, etc.) and reducing the core of the standing military down to SNCOs and officers.

**NickTheCage** · 01-15-2013, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Geno

I answered your question. I said the army would not turn on citizens. What makes you think citizens are going to attack the government? Or a military post?

My bad .. thought you wrote double post (#11) as I and other have been having that problem with the site. I addressed post #10 and I don't think they would attack the govt per say. That isn't how successful revolutions begin.

**sharkey** · 01-15-2013, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Geno

That's a ****ing pipe dream. The US Government has an Army. Some paranoid flabby losers defending their "liberty" aren't going to fare too well. Better go live in that freak compound in Idaho.

Sort of like a bunch of colonists defeating the greatest military power in the world, huh? Not a history major, are you?

**sharkey** · 01-15-2013, 05:59 PM

Why don't you all just read the 2nd Am.? Keep in mind that "well regulated" does not mean regulated as in today's use of "heavily controlled by rules", but rather "well equipped and well prepared." Also, at that time the term "militia" meant simply the mass of able bodied men who could take up arms if needed, not a gov't organization like the Nat. Guard. Does anything in the 2nd Am. refer to the right to hunt or to target shoot? No. Does it refer to the right to defend ourselves against common criminals? You could interpret it that way, as criminals do take our freedom from us in a sense, but it makes more sense to conclude that the arming of common citizens is meant to protect against a despotic government taking our freedom.