Has the Second Amendment ever protected us from tyranny?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jamesbeat

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
615
Would we even know?

I bet it has.
We're always talking about how, even if you don't have a gun in your home, firearms ownership still protects you because the criminals don't know which homes have guns.
This is obvious, but it's difficult to come up with hard data to support it.

How about a tyrannical government?

How much has our government been kept in check simply by acknowledging that there are too many firearms in private hands for a particular plan to work?

Difficult to prove, but I'd bet it has happened...

Downplaying the importance of the Second Amendment is a favorite tactic of the antis, so this is worth thinking about.


Thoughts?
 
You can look up the "Battle of Athens" for one rather startling example of how it once did. Rather an amazing story.
 
it protects us every single day. these demons in office are relentless in their pursuit to control the public. the only thing that keeps them from not even pretending that this is what they want is the constant reminder of the potential rousing of tens of millions of armed citizens.
 
It definitely did in WWII from Japan. They chose not to invade under the belief that every American had a gun in their home and would use it to defend the homeland.
 
I would argue that all the Amendments have been protecting us from tyranny since they were enumerated.
 
That's what I'm trying to point out.
Even if one politician says to another, even jokingly, 'we couldn't do that, there'd be an armed revolt!' then the Second Amendment has done its job.
I think about all of the crap that has happened in the UK that would never happen in America, and can only come to the conclusion that the government is a tiny bit afraid of the people.
Just a tiny bit, but enough to stop anything really stupid.

It's a shame that these things are so hard to prove with solid facts.
The Constitution must protect us every day, but the beauty of it is that it does it silently.
Unfortunately, that also makes it hard to demonstrate to people who don't get it.
 
Lack of a positive certainly does not equal a negative.

Also

It's simple human nature to grab and hold power whenever possible. We're not so special as to ignore the threat and need the protection.
 
Ask the black activists who armed themselves during the civil rights era.
Ask the miners from Harlan county, KY, Ludlow, CO and West Virginia.
Ask Abraham Lincoln about drinking from the Ohio river or making a track on the Blue Ridge.
 
If not knowing how many guns or armed Texans there are in Texas gives anti-gun, pro-confiscation politicians in DC pause, a moment of doubt, or a bit of sweat, I'd say the 2A is doing its job right now.
 
FitGunner said:
It definitely did in WWII from Japan. They chose not to invade under the belief that every American had a gun in their home and would use it to defend the homeland.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is false. The reason the Japanese did not invade the mainland United States is the same reason we would not have been able to invade Japan until 1946: no way to support the invasion. We are too far away from Japan. For Japan to invade, they would have first had to conquer Midway in 1942, then Hawaii in 1943, then dominate us with air power on the west coast.

Keep in mind that with a large force in England by 1942, it still took us 3 years to invade France at the absolute closest point across a shallow body of water. Japan took no stock whatsoever of private firearms in America.
 
To answer the question: I believe that private ownership of firearms helped the Confederacy stave off the Union for 4 years. The Confederacy DID regard the Union as a tyranny, though most of us would disagree. In any case, eventually the overwhelmiing power of the North destroyed the South. That's the only example I can think of, though.
 
I'll expand on the "Battle of Athens" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

A county in Tennessee had long been held by a very corrupt local political machine which controlled and rigged all the voting and used intimidation to keep themselves in power.

A group of citizens (including a number of returned WWII vets) decided to ensure that the upcoming election was free and fair. When they insisted, the political "boss" and his men holed up in the local jail with the ballot boxes and engaged in a lengthy fire-fight with the citizens, culminating in the vets dynamiting the jail open. The citizens eventually prevailed and the ballots did prove to be in favor of turning out the prior administration.

The violent action of the citizens was upheld and they were not prosecuted for their actions.
 
The only way for a foreign nation to successfully occupy a nation such as ours is with the help of an already existing centralized government. In a free country, there'd be no way to control the masses, but with everyone existing for, and existing with the support of, an all-powerful government, it's a lot easier to keep those people in line, so long as their gravy is still ladled out.
 
This stuff is great!

See, a post earlier by someone who may have been genuine or may have just been a troll asked the question on the lips of many antis- why do we 'cling' to the Second Amendment? Why do we keep banging on about the Second Amendment, which seems so intangible when compared with the horrors that are (in their eyes) caused by guns?

I am of the opinion that the Second Amendment protects us from unspeakable horrors every day, but it's difficult to articulate exactly why without some solid examples.

It seems obvious to us even as a theoretical philosophy, but it's even better to have some real world examples.
Would the antis be living in a country they would be proud of if these things had never taken place?

That's what we've had so far in this thread, so if you have more, keep 'em coming!
 
Sam1911 said:
A county in Illinois had long been held by a very corrupt local political machine which controlled and rigged all the voting and used intimidation to keep themselves in power.
Click to expand...

Wow, change one word, and you pretty much describe modern day Crook County, Illinois.
 
jamesbeat said:
This stuff is great!

See, a post earlier by someone who may have been genuine or may have just been a troll asked the question on the lips of many antis- why do we 'cling' to the Second Amendment? Why do we keep banging on about the Second Amendment, which seems so intangible when compared with the horrors that are (in their eyes) caused by guns?

I am of the opinion that the Second Amendment protects us from unspeakable horrors every day, but it's difficult to articulate exactly why without some solid examples.

It seems obvious to us even as a theoretical philosophy, but it's even better to have some real world examples.
Would the antis be living in a country they would be proud of if these things had never taken place?

That's what we've had so far in this thread, so if you have more, keep 'em coming!
Click to expand...
That question was asked by me, and I am not a troll. And I did not ask why people "cling" to the 2nd Amendment, but why most of you think it applies to modest gun control proposals such as removing the private sales loophole and a ban on high capacity magazines. I have no problem with the 2nd Amendment, but I don't believe it applies to those issues.

As a separate issue, I don't believe that private gun ownership protects the populace against a tyrannical government. I have a pretty good knowledge of modern history, and I don't think this has ever happened.

I'm open to discussion on these issues; respectfully I appreciate good argument and give and take back and forth. That's why I am NOT a troll.
 
This is an opportunity to teach and debate but my gut tells the OP is here to simply oppose, not to learn. I am detecting a hint of condescension and smoke blowing...but then I have spent days on a local liberal blogs trying to change hearts and minds to no avail. It's the same arguments over and over.

"2A is outdated"
"gunnuts"
"for the children"
"babykillers"
"ASSAULT Weapons"
blah blah blah

Some people just demand to be ruled. It cuts down on having to think and keeps the gravy train running on time boss.
This thread and his other smell like fish. This subject will never question his King. He is happy with his head in the sand and his "flank" exposed.
 
Last edited:
Sam Cade said:
There are examples posted in this thread.


History is rife with examples of how force disparity between those that govern and those that are governed enables mass murder.

to wit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coniston_massacre
Click to expand...
The destruction of indigenous peoples in Australia (and here for that matter) would not have been prevented if said peoples had private ownership of firearms. In the case of both the aborigines and native Americans, it's an especially ironic argument, since these groups didn't believe in private ownership.

In the case of Native Americans, plenty of them DID have firearms, but the US government had more firearms and better ones. Please read "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown to learn while the Native American uprisings failed.
 
I've read it, maybe you should re-read it. The problem was lack of organization, not lack of arms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LiveLife
  • Locked
Mark Cuban wants to change the Second Amendment to protect the rights of gun owners?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
A
  • Locked
The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own Weapons of War, no?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
5K
Tommygunn
Tommygunn
2
  • Locked
The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to get arms, true or false? (Moved from Legal)
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
S
  • Locked
Putting the Second Amendment Second
Replies
4
Views
565
myrockfight
M
F
  • Locked
Gun owners warn arguments endanger Second Amendment
Replies
1
Views
481
jakemccoy
J
Back
Top