Defensive Carry banner

The _______________ for 2A is to protect against tyranny in Government.

Is the strongest reason for 2A is to protect against tyranny in Government?

10K views 94 replies 46 participants last post by  micahsrad 
#1 ·
I have often heard it said that the authors of 2A believed 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.
 
#3 ·
my take is that is for defense of our rights (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness) from any who would take them away from us - be them burgler, mugger, invading force, or government

so the "tyrannical government" is only PART of the same and strongest reason
 
#4 ·
US Constitution Preamble said:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Bill of Rights are Amendments to the US Constitution. The First was written to make sure that certain rights were enumerated right off the bat. The Second Amendment was written as a 'Do-not-screw-with-our-rights' Fail-Safe. Now, having said that, I believe that it was written with the intent to prevent a tyrannical government from taking power. However, I also believe that it applies to any law-abiding American in the way that it provides, as stated in the Preamble of the US Constitution (above) that it is all provided for the common defense (among other reasons). To me? In my opinion? That means that any jerk or thug who thinks he can deprive another of their rights on their own whims may have to meet a citizen who staunchly supports the Second Amendment.

Merriam-Webster's primary definition of 'government' is the following:
1: the act or process of governing ; specifically : authoritative direction or control
That means that anyone removing a persons ability to operate under the Rights granted by God (and some say the Federal Government) is supposing themselves on an individual as a governing force. IE: a tyrannical government.

Right there, to me.. that is a legal justification for the Castle Doctrine as well as every other pro-self defense cause we fight for. Does it mean that we take arms against every person who might violate our Rights as Americans? That, my friends, is a totally different question. And I won't even try to tackle that one.
 
#5 ·
Another commonly accepted (by historians and economists) definition of government is that entity which exercises a territorial monopoly over the functions of ultimate jurisdiction and taxation. Both of these have far exceeded the Founders' limits on what the government was supposed to be able to do.

So, while I have not yet ever been robbed by a common street criminal, I have been paying income taxes (unconstitutional) for many years now. Thus far the government has been the greatest threat to my liberty.

Mel
 
#6 ·
It used to be, but those were in the days when the civilians had the same armament as the military, heck, they were the military.

Those were also the days when our founding fathers warned about the danger of a standing army.

We're way passed the way things were supposed to be.
 
#7 ·
I think that at the founding, it may have been the strongest reason. Today, it is the weakest reason. There is simply no way in our present world that individuals with civilian weapons could prevent tyranny.

OTOH, individual with civilian weapons can protect themselves from street thugs.
 
#51 ·
There is simply no way in our present world that individuals with civilian weapons could prevent tyranny.
Really so the option would be? The entire Russian army could not defeat Afghanistan whose weapon are far more antiquated than ours. People fighting their freedom are more determined committed than paid soldier
 
#8 ·
The founding fathers wrote it for that reason, but in this day and age I think we have a better possibility of being affected by BG. Not to mention there is no way we could prevent a tyrannical government from forming here, not enough people get off their butts to vote, who all would stand up and accept the death sentence of standing in front of the US Military when called to squash a domestic uprising?
 
#9 ·
When the language was written and placed into the Bill of rights, it was the strongest reason. We had just won a war against an empire that simply used the resources of the colonies without much regard for their standing.

However today, you don't really stand much of a chance in using your weapons to overthrow the government if it becomes tyranical. You stand a much better chance of having the people whom would be called on to surpress the masses getting a case of reality and telling their superiors to stick it.

Honestly if they country goes to hell in a hand basket, and they call for martial law nation wide or whatever. Tanks and personel carriers start rolling down the streets, which is more likely to prevail your personal arms, or the fact that the kid in the tank or manning the machine gun isn't going to shoot someone who looks like their mom, dad or sibling?

I am betting on the latter of the two. God forbid if I am wrong. Other than that, we will be using them for the thug that tries to rape, rob or kill us or someone around us.
 
#10 ·
It is for self-defense, up to and even against a tyrannical government.
 
#12 · (Edited)
Bingo.

The right to bear arms for what ever purpose be it to:

* Hunt for purpose to clothe, feed, and provide means of shelter (animal skins, parts, and oils) for ones self and family;

* Or to defend against tyranny ones self or family from physical harm;

* Or to protect against tyranny ones residence/cave;

* Or to protect & defend against tyranny ones property and/or livestock;

* And/or to as is commonly stated but defintiely _not_ most importantly to defend ones self against a tyrannical government.

All of the above are not rights afforded to us by the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment in specific.
These are all basic human rights. Rights that all human beings are born with to enjoy, and that are recognized as such by the Bill of Rights and specifically the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately and very sadly many human beings around the globe do not value basic human rights. Or they see them as being dangerous to their own personal, professional, and/or political aspirations and goals. As well many human beings are born into circumstances of societal mores and/or governance that they are from the start programmed to believe they are in deed something less than human and/or not applicable toward the basic rights afforded to other humans because of their gender, creed, race,place of origin, intellect, physical appearance or abilities/inabilities, or quite simply because they are not fortunate enough to be born into wealth, power, prestige or some other artificial means of birth 'right'.

The above basic human rights have been as such and recognized, with exclusion of governmental tyranny, since before there was such a thing as formalized government.
In fact same holds true and continue to do so in nature amongst lower animals too. There is no licensing process for bears to carry their claws. No application process for bees to possess a stinger. No calls by environmentalists to remove the teeth from all biting fish, dogs, or cats for the purpose of 'safety' of all. Such a call would be deemed by most everyone but the insane to be the talk of a mad person. Even primates including apes, baboons, and monkeys of all sort when attempting to defend themselves will and do pickup what is at hand be it a rock, a stick, or dirt to throw and use in defense of themselves or others amongst them and their own. This is normal behavior. It is natural to do so. Even when and where there is no 'government' muchless tyranny of as much.

Tyranny of government is about the last thing on a persons mind toward the right to bear arms even in countries where government is tyrannical. Where there is tyranny there is always prey and predators. Human history to present shows that primary focus amongst tyranny is safety in the immediate. Am I an my family able to survive for the next minute. After that comes concern for government if any and it's actions if applicable.

- Humanity
 
#13 ·
I'm still fairly new to the gun culture, but I don't see our government being efficient enough to try and become tyrannical to the point where my small arms would make a difference. This is the government that doesn't even show up to work half the year and pretty much has no idea what the individual is up to, nor do they care so long as the taxes come in. :scruntiny:


My gun is to keep me safe from bad guys, I'm not too worried about the beaurocrats. Well, I am worried about the beurocrats :aargh4:, but not the point of armed response.
 
#14 ·
wpk,

Don't sleep on the government and what it can do.

Check your American history national and regional and state and at even the town level. American government is nothing more than a group of three people minimum who 'vote' and by tht decide to 'agree' on what's best for you, yours, and me.
Citizens defending themselves against tyranny of American government and it's officers, agents, operations, and policies has occurred a multiple of times through our history dating from 1776 forward though the Trail of Tears to WWII internment camps to the not so long ago Hurricane Katrina ball drop debacle.
Many Americans have suffered and in the process of as much have been disarmed by our government.

Do not underestimate those who you task to represent your interests, and do not forget history.

- Janq
 
#69 ·
#15 ·
1) Don't ever believe that we as a society are outgunned; if our government ever became tyrannical in nature, just remember there are at least 25 million hard core gun owners out there. Our current full-time military strength is less than 1.5 milliion. I am willing to bet that most of those folks would not go along with their governments' plans. Especially if our government turned on its citizens and began shooting them.

2) Also remember that a ragtag army of guys in Afghanistan with WWI era weapons (bolt-action 303 Enfields, etc) and an unshakeable resolve defeated one of the 2 superpowers (The Soviet Union) of the cold war back in the 1980's.......If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere.

And finally, remember that the 2nd amendment isn't just about hunting or even self defense or Liberty's teeth.

It validates and enforces the Bill of Rights. Without it, our rights would have been diluted and legislated away a long time ago.....
 
#16 ·
It's the primary purpose of the 2A, according to quotes from our founding fathers (our defense against Government takeover).
 
#18 ·
Defense of life and liberty is the strongest reason. Whether it be from a criminal or a government gone bad.
 
#19 ·
yes, absolutely! Our founding fathers just overthrew a tryannical government so judging from that and the federalist papers the intent of the 2nd amendment is to secure the right to bear arms against ANY tyranny that we face!
 
#20 ·
I keep hearing the Argument that Civilians can not stand up to today’s military, ther in one thing missing in that argument that is in our oaths.

Officers: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Enlisted: "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I have highlighted the big difference between the Officers Oath and the Enlisted Oath. The Officers are not sworn to Obey orders, they are sworn to uphold the Constitution, Enlisted are sworn to Obey the orders of the Officers and to uphold the Constitution. We in the military are very aware that our first duty is to uphold the constitution, and if a domestic enemy tries to harm the constitution we will defend it. Woe be unto the fool that tries to have the Military disarm the citizens of the United States because we know what side we are on.
 
#29 ·
Support and Defend



Inspector;
BRAVO TO YOU;
As someone who took the first oath you listed,I can only pray that today's officers would protect the constitution as their primary duty.

For those who think we can always vote dictators out of power once elected (even if legally),I suggest reading a bit of German history from the early 1930's.

And for those who think it would be hopeless for citizens with their individual weapons to try to overthrow a dictator,you disrespect the bravery of the many resistance groups in Europe during WW II.You also seem to forget the dictatorship that Patrick Henry was talking about when he said "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death".

If that situation should ever happen again here,I believe that after the initial battles against the forces of the dictator,the people and their military would join together to beat the dictators "henchmen."
 
#21 ·
Another one of these big, bad, tyrannical government threads.

We live in a democratic republic. If you don't like the representatives then you can elect new ones. Our system of government precludes tyranny and the Founders never had any intent that the people should revolt against the American government.

The Second Amendment had one intent and one intent only: To prohibit the Federal government from disarming the state militias, which they had no power to do anyway.
 
#24 ·
Another one of these big, bad, tyrannical government threads.

We live in a democratic republic. If you don't like the representatives then you can elect new ones. Our system of government precludes tyranny and the Founders never had any intent that the people should revolt against the American government.

The Second Amendment had one intent and one intent only: To prohibit the Federal government from disarming the state militias, which they had no power to do anyway.
Yeah, it's all great in theory and mostly in practice, until you realize you're the lone wolf in a nation of sheep that have voted away the minority's rights:boese51:.
 
#23 ·
My weapons protect me and give me a strong chance against the dirtbags roaming the streets and neighborhoods.
My weapon also protects me from the dirtbags who wish to take away 'rights and liberties' through taxation, laws, and regulation.

Stay armed...:boese51:...stay safe!
 
#28 ·
I too think that when the Constitution WAS made, it was THE most important reason for the 2A. Now a days, I think it while it it still very important, it has taken the back burner to self defense. Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of the U.S military (or most of it anyway) from acting on U.S ground. Not that if somebody is bent on tyranny that it would matter. It is hard to imagine a Civil War in today's world, but it's not like we haven't had one before. I don't think that our military has the strength to do what needs to be done effectively. But if they try, well, good luck with that.

Anybody who tries to take our guns away should be looked at as the next big tyrant.
 
#30 ·
Defense against tyranny/keeping the government in check was the reason they put it in the Constitution and are still, IMO, the most important reasons for an armed citizenry. However, from reading many of the writings of the founders, it is obvious that they also considered personal defense, recreation, etc. as valid reasons for gun ownership.
 
#31 ·
Guard against a tyrannical government-all the cases of evil dictators coming into power were preceded by gun registrations, then confiscations, then executions. It's unlikely in our system, with power being spread out across many people, that this would happen to that extreme. We just get over taxed and over regulated.
There's also the citizens fending off a foreign invasion. A foreign army would have to get past our regular army then deal with 100 or so million armed civilians.
Self defense and hunting are also historically accepted uses, although not specifically tied together in the 2A. I guess it was so obvious back then they didn't put it in.
They didn't know that 200 years later, we'd have idiots who couldn't see the obvious.
 
#32 ·
Strongest or weakest is a matter of semantics. Defense of life is the prime purpose, of course. The little "foreign and domestic" clause comes to mind, here. If you come to purposely destroy my life or the lives of my loved ones, then I'll have something to say about it. In that sense, I suppose one could say the 2A's last-ditch purpose is to guard against tyranny.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top