Thanis

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.

Tangle

That's the way I understand it - it sure isn't about hunting and sports.

__________________
"Plans fail, things fail, people fail; but, fear never fails - it must be defeated." - by Tangle, a long time ago.

kohburn

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

__________________
"An armed society is a polite society" - Robert A. Heinlein

SixBravo

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:
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.

__________________
The Gunsite Blog
ITFT / Quick Kill Review

agentmel

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

__________________
"There's nothing special about 50% plus one." - David Heleniak

"Any government that employs three million people, most of them armed to the teeth, ought to be distrusted to an enormous degree." - Lew Rockwell

Kerbouchard

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.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

Hopyard

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.

Paco

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?

__________________
"Don't hit at all if you can help it; don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt

If you are not willing to stand behind our Troops, feel free to stand in front of them!

-Paco

farronwolf

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.

__________________
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.

havegunjoe

It is for self-defense, up to and even against a tyrannical government.

__________________
DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONTESTING THE VOTE.

Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
Utah Permit Certified Instructor