nodoginnafight
No Party Affiliation
The 2nd was certainly not written so that a minority could overthrow a majority-elected government. The suggestion is as foolish a contention as I have seen on these boards (and that is saying something).
Agreed. Only wingers are suggesting that this or any government we've ever seen in the U.S. be overthrown.
The people have protections against tyranny already built into the Constitution. It's called voting them out of office. And while in the minority, the Constitution offers protections.
Armed insurection a Constitutional right???????
No, the constitution doesn't advocate or even allow for it's overthrow because it assumes it's rules are being followed. If they are, the proper checks and balances will be in place and respected and the people will maintain their rights as laid out by the Bill of Rights. One of those rights is the right to bear arms. An armed citizenry is the first deterrent to an oppressive government.
Therefore, if the government attempts to disarm it's citizens, it is not following the rules set by the constitution, thus acting in a tyrannical way (in the founders' opinion anyway) thus no longer representing the people, thus worthy of consideration for an overthrow by the people (or perhaps should be, it's ultimately up to the people to decide).
If there were no protections for citizens to maintain arms while the government is following the rules laid out by the constitution, then it's a simple hop, step and a jump from government for and by the people following the constitution (U.S.) to a tyrannical dictatorship ignoring the constitution engaging in mass murder (Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, etc).
Agreed - armed insurection is not a Constitutional right.
I understand where you are coming from in your assertion that an armed citizenry is a deterent to tyranny. I just disagree. They will wipe you out of their way whether you are armed or not - if that is their intent. It would probably be more simple to kill you than to constantly deal with your dissent.
But that's not a big point. Only the most radical are talking about "disarming" the American people, and only the most radical from the other end are advocating a Constitutional right to rebellion.