Defense against tyranny and the RKBA

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This factor is brought up in discussions of why the 2nd Amend. is necessary. So the following is a quote from an article on the current unrest in Iran and the goverment's possible response:

What happens now?

The Iranian government has the highest per capita execution rate in the world, treats women as second class citizens, persecutes gays and religious minorities, and stifles free speech. While there is a natural inclination among decent people everywhere to want a peaceful civil rights movement to succeed in Iran, there are ample reasons to believe it will not. The regime’s coercive apparatus—the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Bassij milita—are organized, armed, and abundant, and well-practiced in the brutal science of repression. Opponents of the government, in contrast, are unarmed, leaderless, and rudderless. In addition, Iran has at its disposal tens of thousands of Shia militiamen—including Lebanese Hezbollah—it has been cultivating for years and in some cases decades. For these battle-hardened forces, crushing unarmed Iranian protesters is a much easier task than fighting Syrian rebels or Sunni jihadists.

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...r-iran/549446/

I think it speaks for itself. Would the USA ever be in that situation? No one can tell. Countries become tyrannies under stress quite easily.

[K_Mac]

Excellent post Glenn. I am a believer that armed citizens are "necessary to a free state." There's a huge number of Americans that believe the role of government is to keep us safe by placing all guns in the hands of government. We know that would make us neither safe nor free. The idea of revolt against tyranny is horrifying, but it is preferable to living in chains.

[briandg]

I have almost nothing that i could say that could be helpful in this discussion, except to repeat the same thing I do in all debates like this.

There are no similarities whatsoever between our peoples and governments and civilizations. You can't hope to compare them.

When we start up our own death squads, will the 'progressives' do anything but fight back with words and lawsuits? will the others, the law and order hardnosed republican types just sit back and say 'cool, one more dead punk'?

How long will it take us to mount a serious defensive measure against the men with guns who are our friends and neighbors and families, our facebook contacts and school alumni? When, where, how, will the first stone be thrown in the actual armed warfare against the public, how long will it take to escalate to open warfare? Obviously, there will never be open warfare against national guard and special police forces.

So, I believe that maybe the best place to look is at the resistance fighters themselves, rather than the meek and fearful sheep who are up against a leviathan of crazed murderers who are doing their 'godly duty.'

the french resorted to ambushes and assassinations, and the germans resorted to massacres and war crimes. Still not anything that we can compare 21st century america to. Mexico has a civilian militia of vigilantes that are killing off bad guys all around, and the police have been instructed to leave them alone. Is that something that may happen here someday?

[OzeanJaeger]

There are no similarities, yet the same thing replays over and over across cultures. I think we have a lot more in common as humans than you give us credit for...for good and ill.

[K_Mac]

Briandg, I am not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that we twenty-first century Americans are no longer capable of armed resistance to tyranny? Are you saying that armed freedom fighters in the face of long odds can't prevail? Are you saying that all is lost? What does your post have to do with Glenn's point that tyrannies happen in all cultures and having firearms is better than farm implements?

[mehavey]

Like K_Mac, I am struggling to understand Briandg's point.

Is it that "...it can't happen here" ?

Or...that "...if it does happen, nothing We the People can do will effectively counter it" ?

[johnwilliamson062]

As I understand it;
IRGC and Bassij forces combined numbers ~500,000.
~500,000 normal military who's loyalty to regime is suspect/split.
~80 million people in Iran.
Not close to enough to hold power over an initially unarmed populace by historic models.
Tens of thousands of foreign Hezbollah won't make a difference.

[briandg]

I thought that I was pretty clear. I tried to make point that we are a divided, lazy,incompetent, and indecisive lot.

I look at the Balkans, not France or Iran.

I see anarchy as a probability here, and I don't see a massive number of people effectively rising up against the government. Catalan failed, how many southern hemisphere countries fail, and we, we people of Wal-Mart, can we rise up against the accelerating engine of these things?

Not my president.
Black lives matter.
Vote for Hilary because she is a woman.
'i won't be happy until women hold at least half of the congressional seats and positions of leadership across America'. (Was that Barbara boxer?)

Will Washington, la, New York take up arms against military occupation except as random assassinations, pretty much like we have now?

The average shooter or defender owns a basement full of ammo that far too many people know about, an nra sticker and camo, do we have the element of surprise, mobility, cover, organization, for that matter, what advantages do we have at all, except for our investments in equipment, training, and anger?

Would the USA ever be in that situation? No one can tell. Countries become tyrannies under stress quite easily.

Glen asked a very simple question, I asked others, I don't believe I can say it any more plainly than to say this. We, as a country and a society, as the millions of citizens cannot be predicted by models or comparisons. Our huge investment in modern weapons doesn't mean what we think it means.

You can't predict what our police and military will do in the face of anarchy and breakdown, but I do predict that an armed uprising against the government that they swore to protect won't win.

Most of our population has already handed over their cards and they have no intention of resisting anything else except randomly murdering "bad guys". We are mostly a self centered bunch, and as long as we can maintain a comfortable level of our own personal freedom, we don't care too much h about big pictures, just personal interests.

I don't think that there will ever be an uprising that has even a fools chance, it won't happen for decades, and it will probably involve a near catastrophic breakdown that will require so much effort just to survive that we won't have resources to devote to overthrowing our president.

Red dawn was a fantasy, soylent green?

CHAOS WINS EVERY TIME. The existing power base will probably slowly resolve itself to use whatever means necessary, and the poorly organized resistance will fall prey to chaos.

I guess I've said everything, I probably won't post again.

None of this is in any way related to any sort of political actions or thoughts, it relates only to my concerns regarding the breakdown of society that will involve an armed uprising against' The government'.

[mehavey]

You can't predict what our police and military will do in the face of anarchy and breakdown, but I do
predict that an armed uprising against the government that they swore to protect won't win.

The bolded phrase in the above is the fatal flaw in your argument. The military in particular is not sworn to protect the government. Far from it.
Read the oath again.

BTW: This subject has been discussed at significant length on the forums of the professional military.

[raimius]

Generally, successful revolts need a parallel system of government or a "shadow government" that already has a good amount of loyalty or cooperation from the population. That is a large part of the American Revolution's success, why the Kurds were able to do as well as they did against ISIS, and why the Taliban is still a problem in Afghanistan. If the Iranian resistance cannot offer a tolerable alternative to the current government (more than just words and ideals), I doubt they will survive as a major group.
Being armed brings power, but without a system to order power, you wind up with failed states like Somalia in the 1990s.

[K_Mac]

Briandg I understand your cynicism. I think "divided, lazy, incompetent and indecisive" is a fair description of we the people at this time. With proper motivation and leadership, we the people are still a powerful force though. Tyrannies throughout history have underestimated the power of the unwashed masses.

Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." To that end, the 2A gave us the constitutional right to arms. No thinking person believes that armed revolution is a desirable goal, or a friendly process. What thinking people do understand is that arms are essential tools if revolution is inescapable.

[jdc1244]

Red dawn was a fantasy…

Correct.

The notion that untrained private citizens equipped only with small arms can ‘overthrow’ a government perceived to be ‘oppressive’ and ‘tyrannical’ is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Had the Iranian people ample access to firearms the result would be hundreds – perhaps thousands – of dead protesters, and an oppressive Iranian regime still in power.

The Second Amendment is important because it safeguards citizens’ rights to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to ‘guard against’ tyranny – that’s the role of the First Amendment.

[briandg]

Mehavey.

The oath they take is to uphold principles, law, constitution, God, every personal and official oath that they take is to protect the base principles that uphold the government of the United States and her people. People don't cut that fine a hair of distinction. Darned few have even read it, even fewer understand it or care.

At what point will the individual and groups of government forces turn against their leaders, when will they decide as a significant mass that the government and their leaders are to be removed from power? Can they do it, or will they fail, and the forces of evil take over and pervert the government, maybe even tear apart the constitution?

What we are talking about here is whether an armed uprising against a corrupt government at a national scale can happen, and succeed. Any uprising in Newton county, or saint Louis is a waste of angry energy.

When, at what time, will the people of our government become involved in open, armed warfare against their own, fighting alongside the partisans to remove their peers from power? What trigger will they need? Each one has his own trigger, I suspect.

Don't look at Iran to be a model of how the people of the United States will act when the government becomes 'unbearable'. Other countries accept a lot.

Don't look at internet message boards and use that small snapshot of people who speak their mind as a proven state, and assume that what you are taking away from those discussions is exactly what will happen when the chaos of actual dissolution begins and the more cohesive mass of military and le organizations must move, to do their duty, to protect the United States.

But, disagree if that is what you need to do.

[mehavey]

The oath they take is to uphold principles, law, constitution, God, every personal and official oath that they take is to protect the base principles that uphold the government

I have rather extensive experience and breadth in that military community and its communication channels, Brian, not just internet blogs. That professional conclave taken their oath to one thing & one thing only. The conflict of interests you speak of has been thoroughly grounded.

The country may appear fractionated -- increasingly so -- but do not throw the military into that mix.

[K_Mac]

jdc1244 it is the 2A that gives teeth to the first. Talk is cheap. The Founding Fathers understood that the ideals of a constitutional republic and liberty must be protected by more than words.

I reject the notion that armed resistance to tyranny is ridiculous or wrong. We are not all sheep, and great change often happens as a result of the actions of a few who are willing to stand and and fight. An armed citizenship is necessary to a free state. That is as true today, even with modern military armament, as it was when written.

[jimbob86]

The idea of revolt against tyranny is horrifying,

As it should be, to all sides. War is hell. Were it not, we'd have them around here all the time.

I know how fragile our vertically integrated, electricity dependent civilization is.... what Government would want to preside over a Lord of the Flies situation? Where's the profit or advantage in that? Were some faction try to start acting like autocrats and abrogating the Constitution and using force to make it happen, bullets would start flying and the thin veneer of civilization would disintegrate in short order. So it should horrify anyone thinking of doing something stupid.

As for folks in the military, I know a few ....past and present. We took those Oaths seriously .... and mine was to "Support and Defend The Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic....", first and foremost..... I doubt that the US military could be effectively used against Americans ....

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Obviously, the British put down the colonists and I'm dreaming that I'm an American citizen as compared to being one of the Crown. Now, it is true that the organized state militias were the original backbone of the Revolutionary war but they were not the organized forces of the Crown.

Second, I am always amazed how some gun owners undercut the RKBA.

1. It is useless to use firearms against tyranny.

Well, ignorance is bliss. Many might be unaware personally owned firearms were significant in supporting the Civil Rights movement against state sponsored or ignored night rider terrorists in that era.

References:

We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement Akinyele Omowale Umoja
Negroes with Guns Robert F. Williams and Martin Luther Jr. King
This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible Charles E. Cobb Jr.
The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement Lance Hill

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-an-...tion-of/236133

Recall how conservatives flipped out over blacks with guns: http://blog.independent.org/2013/09/...n-gun-control/

As an aside, the gay Civil Rights movement got its start with the use of force against oppressive government:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

Thus, if you buy into the uselessness of personal firearms, you negate a major reason for it.

However, a liberal politician of the past felt differently:

"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minnesota)"

I find those who do not support this reason as rather sad. If you like to play gun boy, so what.

2. A second undercutting of the 2nd Amendment is related. It is the folks who proclaim 5 is enough and those who have higher capacity guns are nuts or incompetent (if you can't do your job in one - blah, blah, tough guy). Or you shouldn't have an AR as you don't need them to hunt down Bambi or shoot Tweety Birds.

Diane and Chuck would buy you a kombucha at Whole Foods (who bans carry). Enjoy.

It is also the case, if you know history, that one characteristic of genocides is that the target population is unarmed. There are examples beyond the Holocaust if you study up. You may get a civil war but not the total elimination of a group.

Can it happen here? Humphrey said it was unlikely but possible. We know from history and social psychological research that folks are easily led to atrocity and tyranny. I'll spare you that lecture as I'm retired.

One example. Germany in 1913 was an extremely civilized country. Jews were seen as integral to its population. Jews served in the Military. In fact, I've seen Allied propaganda photos of "Jewish German Soldiers Loot Belgian Synagogues". Historians were asked to pretend that they did not know about the Holocaust and pretend it was 1913 and predict what European country might go genocidal. The modal answer was France. Germany was not high on the list. However, by 1936, Germany was a monster.

The underlying psychological and social processes of people are not that different. The right circumstances and we could be right there now.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by jdc1244

Correct.

The notion that untrained private citizens equipped only with small arms can ‘overthrow’ a government perceived to be ‘oppressive’ and ‘tyrannical’ is as ridiculous as it is wrong.

Had the Iranian people ample access to firearms the result would be hundreds – perhaps thousands – of dead protesters, and an oppressive Iranian regime still in power.

It is neither ridiculous or wrong. Dead protesters is what brought down the South Korean dictatorship (South Korea was originally a dictatorship before it became a democratic system). Long story short, a city in South Korea took over an armory and armed themselves to fight back against the government's forces. The government send in the whole shebang and beat them down, but the result from the bloodshed was that the entire country rose up in mass protest. At that point, the regime knew it had to give up power became while one city can be put down, there was no way they had the resources to put down the whole country.

If the people of Iran were armed like Americans are, chances are the regime might have already abdicated power. And if the regime created hundreds or thousands of dead protesters, that could start a full-on civil war. It is something both sides must be careful about in such a situation, because the protesters don't want to give the regime ammunition to claim that they are terrorists who must be put down but at the same time, the regime doesn't want to start a major conflict that they can't win either.

Remember, there are only so many places that you can send tanks and troops and aircraft, and a country like the United States would in particular be difficult to put down a resistance in this sense as we aren't even a country per se, but a federation of semi-sovereign states. We also are 311 million people.

The Second Amendment is important because it safeguards citizens’ rights to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to ‘guard against’ tyranny – that’s the role of the First Amendment.

!!!!!!

One of the PRIMARY purposes of the Second Amendment is for protection against tyranny. Read the Federalist Papers. Read Tench Coxe. Read John Locke. Read Aristotle. All speak of the importance of the possession of arms by the people to check a tyranny, not the right to free speech. Free speech doesn't mean squat once the government shuts it down.

One of the main influencers of the Founders was Aristotle, whose book "Politics" outlines his ideal of a city-state society, a constitutional democracy in which the people possess arms both for individual self-defense but also to check the government. He wrote that a system in which the governing were the only ones who possessed arms was a formula for tyranny. He broke with his teacher, Plato, whose ideal city-state consisted of a professional ruling class of "philosopher-kings" and in which the arms were centrally-controlled.

[LogicMan]

Whether this could happen in the United States would first require a few major things to go seriously wrong:

1) A tyrant to manage to take control of the government

2) The military to be on the side of the tyrant

Our system being a federation of semi-sovereign states makes it difficult for a tyrant to take control and even if one did, they'd need the help of the military, which would have to be completely changed culturally from what it currently is to support such a person. But **IF** such a thing even did happen, then the people have a right, if required, to use force of arms to resist the tyranny. First, peaceful resistance should be attempted, as that has a record of working, and given the tendency of armed resistances to descend into chaos and destroy the society, you always want to try peaceful means first. But if peaceful resistance can't work, resistance by arms can be required.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

BTW, a pure home owner SD rationale is perfect for a Joe Biden argument. Have double-barreled shotgun and that's it. If you have a handgun, a SW Model 10 will suffice.

A tyranny shuts down the press, the internet, the media - and that's the end of your 1st Amendment. What do you do then?

[LogicMan]

Second, I am always amazed how some gun owners undercut the RKBA.

1. It is useless to use firearms against tyranny.

Well, ignorance is bliss. Many might be unaware personally owned firearms were significant in supporting the Civil Rights movement against state sponsored or ignored night rider terrorists in that era.

Those who claim firearms are useless against a tyranny are the same ones who claim it would be nuts to try invading a country such as Iran based on the sole fact that it is 80 million people. But yet we're then told that a nation of 311 million people in possession of lots of arms would have any resistance crushed easily by a professional military force. If you have 1% of the population rise up, it would be 3 million people with arms. That's a hell of a lot to put down.

There are only so many places you can send tanks and troops and aircraft, and those require sustained logistics. Look up what Max Manus did to the Nazis in Europe during WWII. Blew up a supply ship, sabotaged rail lines, etc...tanks and aircraft don't move without fuel, infantry soldiers can't do anything without food and ammunition, etc...and unless you have a LOT of soldiers, maintaining a tyranny with an armed population is difficult.

If the government troops come with rifles primarily and the odd crew-served weapon or so and are rounding people up into trucks and so forth, it is hard to resist. But if the whole city or town is armed with rifles as well, then it gets a lot more difficult. You can't just knock on the door and say, "Get in the truck or else," because the person in the home can say, "Get lost, or else." So then you need to come in with the heavy-duty stuff, but that's then where you run up into the limits of numbers, logistics, etc...

2. A second undercutting of the 2nd Amendment is related. It is the folks who proclaim 5 is enough and those who have higher capacity guns are nuts or incompetent (if you can't do your job in one - blah, blah, tough guy). Or you shouldn't have an AR as you don't need them to hunt down Bambi or shoot Tweety Birds.

How you shoot when in an adrenaline-pumping situation is very different than how you shoot when relaxed, so such arguments about how much ammunition one "needs" is irrelevant. And then there's the whole fighting tyranny thing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Logistics is never a strong point in some arguments. Folks need to study military history. As you point out a country with 300 million firearms in 40 percent of the households is a tough nut to crack.

But some people are rather defeatist, I suppose.

[jimbob86]

Logistics is never a strong point in some arguments. Folks need to study military history.

Logistics are what makes the Military possible..... it is also what makes modern America possible.

[johnwilliamson062]

Most of the government workers I know, to include the military ones, strongest oath is to their pension.
Not all, but it sure seems like the majority.

[rwilson452]

Logistics is never a strong point in some arguments. Folks need to study military history. As you point out a country with 300 million firearms in 40 percent of the households is a tough nut to crack.

"Tacticians study battles, Strategist study logistics."