Amazon.com Widgets

Does the Second Amendment protect citizens from a tyrannical government?

  • That was it's purpose.

    Ask yourself this, when the colonists got sick of british rule, did they petition the government to change? Did they ask nicely? Did they try to move somewhere else? NO. They shot them with military equivalent rifle because they knew the only way to free themselves was with the blood of the tyrants. When the reds showed up with cannons, we made our own cannons. Anyone who thinks that the 80 million or so gun owners can't stand up to the government is dumb. Look at how well the Islamic terrorists are standing up to us, and the highest power weapon they have is an Improvised explosive devise, which alot of Americans can make if it's necessary. All it takes to be free, is the courage to pick up arms and just fight back against your various tyrants

  • Let history answer this question.

    The great thing about the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it" Thomas Jefferson
    Examples of guns protecting liberty even against an overwhelmingly stronger enemy.
    -Battle of Thermopylae something B.C.
    -Revolutionary War 1776+1812
    -Battle of Athens Tenn. 1946
    -Mexican Giopess farmers 1950 - present
    -Ruby Ridge 90s
    -Mexican vigilantes 2012-present
    -Bundy ranch 2014
    To name a few look it up if these incidents do not seem familiar. Still questioning if a small low tech military can fight off a much larger stronger and technologically advanced military? Think of the Vietnam war and the war in the middle east... I would have to say the A symmetric tactics used there worked well against our military!!

  • Second Amendment protects us from tyrannical Governments

    Our bill of rights came basically from everything the British did to the American colonies. The rights stated in the Bill of rights were to prevent what the British had done to the Americans (then also British, their own citizens) from ever happening again. History has shown us time and time again that when the population is disarmed that the Government presiding over them takes complete control and tyranny reigns free. The Burma, Cambodia, North Korea, Belarus, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Rome, Cuba, Zimbabwe Governments are all modern day examples of tyrannical Governments. These countries also happen to have very little or no gun ownership. History repeats itself, and while you may believe that something like this is not capable in the U.S., you best think again. Great Empires like Greece or Rome have fallen when no one thought it possible. It is already happening now, and if we do not stand up for our rights and defend them now, we too will be added to the list. Tyranny and treason already exist on a large scale inside the United States and is only becoming more and more oppressive.

  • Yes, the second amendment does protect citizens.

    While I do not agree with guns personally, it is still a right, and that right gives a person the chance to keep their families safe from crooks. It is the right given to us from our forefathers, and we should be able to exercise that right without fear of recourse.

  • Yes. The Second Amendment offers private citizens some protection should the government become overbearing or controlling.

    The original purpose of the second amendment was to offer citizens the opportunity to avoid the type of tyrannical rule that they came to America to escape. While the modern government is designed to be fair to all citizens, political and social unrest can cause governmental response and unforeseen consequences that impugn the rights of individuals.

    To protect themselves from a government that, however inadvertently, no longer protects them or, even worse, attempts to persecute them, citizens must be able to maintain their own arms.

  • History has proved that an unarmed populace is completely vulnerable to a tyrannical government. The people need a way to keep their government in check.

    While it may seam far fetched it is not. If the president decided he wanted the United States to be a tyranny, whats really to stop him? He can declare martial law at anytime and from there he can really do whatever he wants. He is the commander in chief of our military and has its loyalty ? It would be hard to oppose that, and near impossible if the people have no way of fighting back. And that is exactly why the first thing that a tyrannical ruler does is outlaw guns with the penalty of death. That's exactly what Ferdinand Marcos did in the Philippines, after which he was able to rule as a dictator. He changed the constitution, outlawed things that promote or facilitate a rebellion, such as free speech and and guns (Its no coincidence that these are the first 2 amendments), and gave himself full control over the military. This gave him full impunity to do whatever he wanted. This same thing has occurred many times throughout history. People forget that politicians are PUBLIC SERVANTS; they're supposed to work for us, the citizens. However, the only way to ensure they're loyalty, is if the risk of an armed rebellion is ever-present. Without an armed populace, the government, whom may i remind you is backed by the military and police, can do whatever it wants and the people cant do anything about it. Think about how much corruption is already in place, is the leap from spying on your own citizens and violating the constitution, things that already occur regularly today, to tyranny really that big. We acknowledge the wisdom imparted by our founding fathers with the checks and balances system of the government within but reject the idea that they would put in place a similar system for the people to keep the entire government in check. People confuse authority with power. A law enforcement officer derives its authority from the government, and all the power it has, and their power from their gun which can take someones life at their discretion, compelling people to obey them. And the government derives it from the people and people forget that. We cant have a direct democracy because 300 million people all trying to make laws would be complete chaos; that is why we elect representatives to do this for us with our ideals in mind and delegate authority to them. By doing this, we are giving them the authority over the collective power of their constituency, in exchange for a government that can function. However, authority relies on the power to back it. In order for authority to exist, it has to have power itself or the loyalty of power. In our government, our elected officials don't carry guns, but they have the loyalty of the military instead. The only way a populace can challenge this power, is if they have equal or greater power which can only be the case in an armed populace.

  • History has supported this theory throughout!

    While it may seam far fetched it is not. If the president decided he wanted the United States to be a tyranny, whats really to stop him? He can declare martial law at anytime and from there he can really do whatever he wants. He is the commander in chief of our military and has its loyalty ? It would be hard to oppose that, and near impossible if the people have no way of fighting back. And that is exactly why the first thing that a tyrannical ruler does is outlaw guns with the penalty of death. That's exactly what Ferdinand Marcos did in the Philippines, after which he was able to rule effectively as a dictator. He changed the constitution, made himself much more powerful, outlawed things that promote or facilitate a rebellion, such as free speech and and guns (Its no coincidence that these are the first 2 amendments) , and gave himself full control over the military. This gave him full impunity to do whatever he wanted. This same thing has occurred many times throughout history. People forget that politicians are PUBLIC SERVANTS; they're supposed to work for us, the citizens. The risk of an armed rebellion is what is supposed to keep the government in check. Without an armed populace, the government, whom may i remind you is backed by the military and police, can do whatever it wants and the people cant do anything about it. Think about how much corruption is already in place, is the leap from spying on your own citizens and violating the constitution, things that already occur regularly today, to tyranny really that big. We acknowledge the wisdom imparted by our founding fathers with the checks and balances system of the government within but reject the idea that they would put in place a similar system for the people to keep the entire government in check. People confuse authority with power. A law enforcement officer derives its authority from the government, and all the power it has, and their power from their gun which can take someones life at their discretion, compelling people to obey them. And the government derives it from the people and people forget that. We cant have a direct democracy because 300 million people all trying to make laws would be complete chaos; that is why we elect representatives to do this for us with our ideals in mind and delegate authority to them. By doing this, we are giving them the authority over us, in exchange for a government that can function. However, authority relies on the power to back it. In order for authority to exist, it has to have power itself or the loyalty of power. In our government, our elected officials don't carry guns, but they have the loyalty of the military instead. The only way a populace can challenge this power, is if they have equal or greater power which can only be the case in an armed populace.

  • Support of the 2nd Amendment

    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. ~ Thomas Jefferson

    If you outlaw guns, the only people that will have them is Outlaws! Also, if you ignore history, it will definitely repeat itself!

  • Support of the 2nd Amendment

    The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. ~ Thomas Jefferson

    If you outlaw guns, the only people that will have them is Outlaws! Also, if you ignore history, it will definitely repeat itself!

  • Yes it should.

    The second amendment, or at least one of the amendments should protect the citizens from being ruled by a tyrannical government. Citizens of the country need to be reasurred that those in power will not abuse the power and use it for their own gain. The country belongs to everyone, not any one person.

  • Our military has come a long way.

    I believe the idea behind it does, but not the actual working idea. Considering we have the most powerful military in the world, more powerful than the other countries behind us by several magnitudes, it's unlikely that even a "well armed" militia would be able to stop any tyrannical acts carried out by the full force of our government. The weapons available to civilians just doesn't compare to the tech and logistics that our military possesses.

  • Ghandi didn't need guns, MLK didn't need guns...

    Ghandi didn't need guns to throw off their British dictators.

    MLK didn't need guns to fight against racism in the United States

    The Egyptian people stood up to their government without weapons, the military just didn't fight against the people.

    During the uprising in China popularly known as the Tiananmen square massacre, the Chinese people stood up to their government. Yes, they were attacked by the Chinese military, but their SACRIFICE led to eventual changes within their government.

    Are you more of a coward than those people that you would need a gun to sacrifice yourself for your country?

  • Our times answer the question.

    Our current government is forcing us to think the way they want us to think.
    They are forcing us believe the way they want us to believe, to live how they think we should live.

    Now they want us to be silent about what they are doing wrong and the things we disagree with.

    On every turn they try to pass laws to control us to do what they want us to do.

    If the fathers of our country were here today, they would be arming themselves.

    That's why the second amendment was written, they knew it could happen again!

  • An Empirical Question

    We should not accept the idea that the Second Amendment protects citizens from a tyrannical government until we find empirical reasons for such a belief.

    Functionally, the second amendment serves to enshrine the individual's right to gun ownership. The question, then, is whether individual gun ownership deters tyranny. We should attempt to answer this question empirically--where guns are plentiful, do we see more or less liberty, democracy, and due process? On the other hand, do we find tyranny where guns are subject to regulation?

    I have chosen the 'no' position based on ready-to-hand information. Countries that regulate guns--countries like Japan, Germany, the UK, Australia, and so on--do not seem to have suffered much loss of democratic integrity for their regulations. On the other hand, many countries where armed rebellion against the government is a daily fact of life seem no closer to liberty for their efforts. Really, military uprising has a poor record for achieving liberty.

    However, these are tentative conclusions based less on rigorous data collection and analysis than on the first examples that come to my mind. My point here is less to make an iron-clad argument against the second amendment than to suggest the lines along which such an argument should proceed. You can't really logic through this question a priori--you need -data-.

  • And Then A Tank Rolled In...

    So let's say that the government decided one day that they REALLY wanted do take your guns, and they decided to do so by force, you couldn't stop them if you tried. Even if everybody in your community had an assault rifle, ask yourself this: are you a trained or cohesive unit? NO. Are you even prepared to deal with anything with armor too thick to be pierced by rifle rounds? NO. So the second that a helicopter three miles away starts bombing you, or a tank rolls down the street, the battle is lost for your so-called "militia". Even if the government restricted itself to infantry units, these too are equipped with armored personnel carriers, which are bulletproof. AND EVEN WITHOUT THAT, SOLDIERS ARE ACTUALLY TRAINED AND ORGANIZED THAN YOU COULD EVER MATCH. And even a force totally composed of nothing but infantry would still outgun you with HMGs, grenades, flashbangs and more. I'm sorry, but if the government were trying to take your guns or your rights, you wouldn't be able to fight them off anymore than an ant could fight off a boot. My condolences.

  • The founding fathers themselves said this is not the intent of the 2nd Amendment

    The 2nd Amendment was not intended as a check on government tyranny. First, many who think so like to point to the Revolutionary War. However, the Minutemen were not going to war against their own government. They viewed the British Army as a foreign army of occupation.

    Second - what did the founding fathers do when some rose up against a "tyrannical government":

    1. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston. Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

    2. In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey. George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

    The above is proof the 2nd Amendment was not intended as a defense against a "tyrannical government."

  • When it was written yes, but not anymore.

    A group of people with muskets is a good defense against a group of people with muskets. It may have originally been written for this purpose, but if you honestly think privately owned guns will still protect you from the most powerful and advanced military on earth, you are delusional. If the government wanted to take your guns, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop them. 100 people with AR15s vs a single fully loaded Apache Gunship hovering 3 miles away, who wins? I'm pro gun, but this particular argument is absurd.


    You can't buy a tank, you cant buy a fighter jet, you can't buy a drone, you can't even easily buy automatic weapons. What makes you think you could defend yourself against the government if it came to that?

  • Then why is it not the 1st?

    As the framers were weary of having a standing Army, a citizen militia was necessary to put down uprisings, quell unrest, and help repell foreign invaders. Thus, maintaining the supremacy of the, relatively weak, central government---security of a free state....

    It was never intended as a check/balance against tyranny....The musings of both Federalists and Anti-federalists are opinions, not law, so one can quote the writings until the cows come home....Does not change the words or true founders intent of the 2A

  • Who defines Tyrannical and when can citizens actually use guns as force to protect?

    The question is whether the 2nd Amendment enables people people to own guns to protect themselves FROM the government. OK - let's work with that premise. The rationale is that we are to protect ourselves from a tyrannical, unjust, oppressive government, even if its our own government, a's you read on many pro-gun sites. Who defines when a government is oppressive? You? A collective group of people? Because, if I'm a 22 year old black man in this country, I'm feeling pretty damned oppressed and that local law enforcement is tyrannical. And very justifiably so. Using this rationale, Rene, I guess you're in favor of them taking up arms against local governments? You should be. There are way too many black people, males, young, old, female and otherwise, that are on the receiving end of a tyrannical government, Good thing for us that they don't invoke their 2nd Amendment right to use arms to rise against their tyrannical governments. They have, for the very large most part, been peaceful protesters, and even when they offer civil disobedience, they aren't taking to the streets with guns. I guess you'd have them do that, you that view the ownership of guns as a right to protect from government. OR, do YOU decide when it's tyrannical? Who does? The bottom line is that people like owning guns, as one person posted on a past thread. You like em, you want em, you don't ever envision using them to protect yourselves from government, and you use a distorted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to justify it.

  • You have guns and you live under Tyranny - You have Completely Missed it

    The beloved Constitution made no provisions to maintain Democracy and the Republic. Capitalism has created huge Wealth unbalance and as a result a Plutocracy (a form of Despotism). Basically the same form of Government that Americans originally rebelled against. Ask Trump if he believes in Plutocracy?

    I see the liberal gun laws as mostly a threat to myself and my family since every idiot and criminal with half a brain gets one.

    These two things mentioned above I consider significant defects in the American way of life.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.