If the 2nd Amendment was to enable the overthrow of a tyrannical government...

[legaleagle_45]

The right of revolution is an extra constitutional remedy and is justified---

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-
​

On the otherhand the 2nd was indeed conceived as a check on usurpations of federal power... such as a military coup or a president who did not like the results of an election. Madison covers that possibility pretty well in Federalist 46

 

[prison/con.net]

well, our Supremes have RULED that the 2nd (NOW) protects an individual right to own firearms.

 

[legaleagle_45]

well, our Supremes have RULED that the 2nd (NOW) protects an individual right to own firearms.

And I said nothing to dispute that assertion..

 

[prison/con.net]

the Heller ruling, which says that guns are an individual right, howeverr, is a LOT more pertinent to current debate about gun ownership than stuff that's 200+ years old.

 

[Sidekick]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

Assuming that the Constitution, itself, is not a form of tyranny... there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes any government in the United States to defend itself from the will of the people to abolish it if necessary, certainly nothing in there to grant a government the right to deny the reality of their constituents. Basically, if a million people showed up at the capital with guillotines and an itch, meh, what can you really do to stop them? The Confederate States already tried this and lost, but the premise of legality comes from the states, where the legitimate means to overthrow a tyranny happens when the people of one or more states effectively nullifies the federal republic within their respective realm and thus commits to revolution or civil war until such time that the federal republic is vanquished. Good luck with that.

 

[legaleagle_45]

the Heller ruling, which says that guns are an individual right, howeverr, is a LOT more pertinent to current debate about gun ownership than stuff that's 200+ years old.

The Heller ruling relied upon and cited as authority a bunch of stuff that was 200+ years old...

 

[legaleagle_45]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

Assuming that the Constitution, itself, is not a form of tyranny... there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes any government in the United States to defend itself from the will of the people to abolish it if necessary, certainly nothing in there to grant a government the right to deny the reality of their constituents. Basically, if a million people showed up at the capital with guillotines and an itch, meh, what can you really do to stop them? The Confederate States already tried this and lost, but the premise of legality comes from the states, where the legitimate means to overthrow a tyranny happens when the people of one or more states effectively nullifies the federal republic within their respective realm and thus commits to revolution or civil war until such time that the federal republic is vanquished. Good luck with that.

Well except for the express provision in Article I, Sec 8, Cl 15 which authorizes them to supress insurrections...

 

[Sidekick]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

Assuming that the Constitution, itself, is not a form of tyranny... there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes any government in the United States to defend itself from the will of the people to abolish it if necessary, certainly nothing in there to grant a government the right to deny the reality of their constituents. Basically, if a million people showed up at the capital with guillotines and an itch, meh, what can you really do to stop them? The Confederate States already tried this and lost, but the premise of legality comes from the states, where the legitimate means to overthrow a tyranny happens when the people of one or more states effectively nullifies the federal republic within their respective realm and thus commits to revolution or civil war until such time that the federal republic is vanquished. Good luck with that.

Well except for the express provision in Article I, Sec 8, Cl 15 which authorizes them to supress insurrections...

Of course, that would be the argument. That's why I am careful to qualify my comment by starting with "Assuming the Constitution, itself, is not a form of tyranny..." I think that a process of devolution is possible but I doubt anyone wants it.

 

[Christophera]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

Yes, I believe that the priority of rights in the Bil of Rights is correct and indicates the sequence of legitimacy which the people might lawfully employ for revolution.

Or, after a lawful peaceful revolution fails, then a violent one is justified legally. HOWEVER, there is a catch in this as the infiltration of government is working to exploit to the lawful peaceful revolutions demise. They even created a few generations of Americans resistant to natural law understanding by corrupting them spiritually.

Covert, cgnitive infiltrations into social activist groups is attempting to prevent the unity required to actually, effectively enable a lawful peaceful revolution, which means it may not actually be tried if the covert infiltrations are successful and the people fail to agree upon prime constitutional intent which empowers the lawful aspect by proper amendment putting the infiltration out of business. Instead the effort is abandoned after a time and the covert infiltration works to initiate violent revolution.

Because the unity for a lawful, peaceful revolution never existed, the unity required for a successful violent revolution is not present, which the infiltrators well know, so the effort instead turns into an excuse, by the infiltration of government, for slaughter of violent citizens that cannot or will not understand lawful and peaceful and the imposition of total tyranny after it fails. Whereupon all premise of law is disposed of.

If the lawful, peaceful revolution had been sincerely embraced, there would be substantial, rightful unity after its failure (unlikely), and even those not able to understand the framers intent that Americans be able to overthrow the infiltrations working to pervert the constitution by using their unity, would realize that the effort for a lawful and peaceful revolution WAS the right way to proceed, would join those that had tried for the lawful and peaceful unified into a successful violent revolution.

The reason for the success would be the proper articulation of the basics of the failed lawful, peaceful revolution which would gain far more support than pure violent intent not having lawful basis in the restoration of original intents of the constitution.

Accordingly, if the above is understood and accepted by any American reading, visit the "Lawful and Peaceful" revolution thread,

CDZ - A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

and express your understanding with acceptance of the basis of unity of the Lawful and peaceful revolution proposed, two prime rights; 1= the right to alter or abolish, 2= the purpose of free speech enabling the right to alter or abolish, and kick josf in the head to determine if he is real or not. I think not. Too much obfusucation, selectivity, intentional misinterpreting, reinterpreting for that.

 

[Christophera]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

Assuming that the Constitution, itself, is not a form of tyranny... there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes any government in the United States to defend itself from the will of the people to abolish it if necessary, certainly nothing in there to grant a government the right to deny the reality of their constituents. Basically, if a million people showed up at the capital with guillotines and an itch, meh, what can you really do to stop them? The Confederate States already tried this and lost, but the premise of legality comes from the states, where the legitimate means to overthrow a tyranny happens when the people of one or more states effectively nullifies the federal republic within their respective realm and thus commits to revolution or civil war until such time that the federal republic is vanquished. Good luck with that.

Well except for the express provision in Article I, Sec 8, Cl 15 which authorizes them to supress insurrections...

Which is why a lawful and peaceful
Revolution will work so well if based in prime constitutional intent.

 

[AJT]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

Actually, there is no contradiction there. The mere possession of firearms by the people would deter tyranny.
The 2nd amendment discusses the existence of the militia, which is a group of citizens organized and armed to resist tyranny. The militias were instrumental in our victory in the Revolutionary war.

 

[AJT]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point. The main idea behind it, is that the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government, nor a government that doesn't stand for and promote freedom, justice, and civil rights. "No taxation without representation" would be a starting point. In other words, this nation was founded on the principle of a representative government. Should the government become anything less than that, then whether one would consider a revolt legal or not, becomes a moot point.

Is there such a thing as a "legal" revolt against the government? And, exactly how would the word "legal" be associated with a citizens' revolt against the government? Are non-violent protests legal? Is the right to peacefully assemble legal? Is it legal to own and bear arms? Why are those things legal? Could it be because we were given certain safeguards against absolute control and authority? If there should ever come a time when our government no longer gives a voice to the people, imposes taxation without representation, and abandons freedom and justice, then the people have the right and obligation to revolt against tyranny. There's no "legal" or "illegal" about it, it's a duty and a responsibility we share one to another as American citizens.

Is the government still 'representative' of the governed? Avg congressperson's a multimillionaire. Avg citizen is lower middle class.

Representation does not require that Congress be in the same economic circumstances as the voters.
It requires only that the members of Congress, when they vote on legislation, support the wishes of their constituents. You don't have to be poor to help the poor.

 

[AJT]

To put that another way, the USA is an aprtheid-like nation where a minority of very rich people rule a majority of very poor ones.

They don't rule us at all. They know that we can remove them from office anytime we are displeased with their actions.

 

[PratchettFan]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

"LEGAL" doesn't come into play. If there's a reason, and enough citizens consider it necessary, the question of whether it's "legal" or "illegal" becomes a moot point. The main idea behind it, is that the "people" shouldn't bow down and submit to a government that's not a representative government, nor a government that doesn't stand for and promote freedom, justice, and civil rights. "No taxation without representation" would be a starting point. In other words, this nation was founded on the principle of a representative government. Should the government become anything less than that, then whether one would consider a revolt legal or not, becomes a moot point.

Is there such a thing as a "legal" revolt against the government? And, exactly how would the word "legal" be associated with a citizens' revolt against the government? Are non-violent protests legal? Is the right to peacefully assemble legal? Is it legal to own and bear arms? Why are those things legal? Could it be because we were given certain safeguards against absolute control and authority? If there should ever come a time when our government no longer gives a voice to the people, imposes taxation without representation, and abandons freedom and justice, then the people have the right and obligation to revolt against tyranny. There's no "legal" or "illegal" about it, it's a duty and a responsibility we share one to another as American citizens.

Is the government still 'representative' of the governed? Avg congressperson's a multimillionaire. Avg citizen is lower middle class.

Representation does not require that Congress be in the same economic circumstances as the voters.
It requires only that the members of Congress, when they vote on legislation, support the wishes of their constituents. You don't have to be poor to help the poor.

Where in the Constitution does it say the members of Congress are required to support the wishes of their constituents?

 

[Christophera]

...Why is attempting to overthrow a tyrannical government illegal? Is there a set definition in which taking up arms and trying to overthrow the government would become legal?

Absolutely. When the rebellion succeeds.

When the revolution is lawful and peaceful but fails because of subversion of rights, then the grounds for violent revolution are present.

But not until that lawful and peaceful revolution is sincerely tried.

The 2nd amendment is the 2nd for a reason. The 1st amendment has the purpose of enabling the unity required to peacefully alter of abolish. Which is effectively a form of revolution.

If the people are so mislead, and the systems of sharing information which serve the purpose of enabling unity are so separate from the peoples control, the unity required for either revolution will not be present and the people will become enslaved or die trying to preserve their rights and freedoms.

If the lawful peaceful revolution is underway, our soldiers may recognize that their service is based upon a constitutional government creating the lawful military authority in command of them. If their efforts to lawfully and peacefully support altering of abolishing the unconstitutional government which cannot bestow lawfulness upon the command over them are not accepted, the lawful basis for violent revolution is established and the military is faced with discovering a covert political insurrection that they have the duty of stopping however they might.

SOLDIERS APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF INQUIRY INTO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CIVIL AUTHORITY STATUS ESTABLISHMENT OF LAWFUL MILITARY AUTHORITY.