Is it an option?

[Tony k]

Would it ever be an option to take up personal arms to fight a tyrant ruler who gains control... ?

The answer is yes, but it is an extreme situation when people actually do it. I'd venture to say it would take quite a bit for me to risk absolutely everything. And I'd exhaust all other options before I'd be willing to resort to armed resistance. I have a lot to lose before I'd be willing to take up arms in a conflict with a very uncertain outcome. Sadly, people have always been forced to do it from time to time, and people are doing it right now as I sit comfortably typing this.

I think people are already suffering under tyrants in this country. We call these tyrants street gangs. They claim rule over territories and control certain economic activities. They use violence to control the population in their territories. Have people taken up arms to throw off that yoke? In some instances, yes, but often only to replace it with another even more violent gang/ tyranical ruler.

Not to quibble, but the government does not give us the right to bear arms; it is an inalienable right reserved by and enshrined in the 2A.

Good luck with your schoolwork!

 

[buck460XVR]

There's so much wrong here, I don't know where to start. In most polite terms, that is an oversimplified revisionist version through rose colored glasses.

Wanna know what both of those fights were really about? Here's a clue; Starts with m, ends in y, has one in the middle.

In his Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln made ending slavery a war goal. Borders during the war for the most part, were between states that were for Slavery and those that were not. Claiming Slavery was not a major issue during the civil is just plain denial. The Confederate states believed the state should have more power and control over their inhabitants than the Federal Government and that the Federal Government already had too much power. Sound familiar? Well, except for California.

Did money have something to do with it? Of course. Slavery has always been about greed....and control. The abolishment of Slavery meant a major change in the financial structure of those states that declared their secession.

But the cause of the Civil War was not why I gave it as an example. It was the similarity of it to what would happen if our 2nd Amendment rights would be repealed or drastically changed and folks would take up arms about it. Much more so than the Revolutionary War.

Still don't get the part about money and the Kent State shootings tho.

 

[Sam1911]

OK, this is closed until BigShep replies to some of the comments herein. As it stands, his poll is at 135:1 "for" -- which is an absurdly skewed result which wouldn't be useable in any academic context, so he's either going to have to start again or heavily modify his question.