Defense against tyranny and the RKBA

[LogicMan]

The people can never match the government's military forces in levels of training and weaponry, but where they do match the government is in their sheer numbers, which the government cannot match. The people being armed serves as a counterweight to the government's otherwise having a monopoly on force. It changes the calculus of the situation.

Those who sneer at the idea of resistance to tyranny in modern times generally haven't thought it through much IMO.

[Aspirant]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

The people can never match the government's military forces in levels of training and weaponry, but where they do match the government is in their sheer numbers, which the government cannot match. The people being armed serves as a counterweight to the government's otherwise having a monopoly on force. It changes the calculus of the situation.

Those who sneer at the idea of resistance to tyranny in modern times generally haven't thought it through much IMO.

Hopefully there's something to add even if I do come from Singapore, a country without firearms freedom. What we do have is conscription.

That means that at any given time, nearly half our population of 5-6 million knows one end of a rifle from the other, even if we've no means of using it outside of when the military decides we should. (How well each person is trained, though, is another matter.) We're also a key US ally and the most technologically advanced, well funded military in our part of the world.

In other words, conscripts like myself vary in ability, but there's a solid core of career soldiers, airmen and sailors as well.

Now obviously, in a war the numbers aren't on our side -- our neighbours can muster forces that vastly outnumber ours, should they go nuts and decide to try. What our military does is make the cost of an invasion so high that it will not be worth mounting in the first place. The word we use is deterrence; we aim to prevent an armed conflict, though if that fails we can push back pretty hard.

In a sense, that's what I feel the 2A does on one hand -- any government that tries anything close to genocide, or even using the military to enforce its demands, is going to find it (excuse the understatement) extremely difficult. The cost of doing so makes such tyrannical action not worth pursuing in the first place.

It's not going to be worth the effort needed, and as has already been said, large portions of the American military already support the right to keep and bear arms.

To add some more relevance -- it's both the skill level of individuals and groups that matters in this case, AND the fact everyone will have self-interest at heart, even potential tyrants who know an armed population is a deterrent force in itself. The 2A decentralises US arms so that the result makes tyranny and the bloodshed we see around the world much more unlikely.

There's another discussion on public safety, but that's for another forum. Keep your freedoms well, those of you who still have it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Don P]

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

I agree with us/we not knowing what the military response would be, and disagree with the second part of the statement. Just look at what our founders accomplished when the British attempted to shut down the resistance to the Crowns policies. A band of radicals together defeated what at the time was known as the most powerful military the world.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

The people can never match the government's military forces in levels of training and weaponry, but where they do match the government is in their sheer numbers, which the government cannot match. The people being armed serves as a counterweight to the government's otherwise having a monopoly on force. It changes the calculus of the situation.

Additionally, I'd argue that the common "you can't possibly win against tanks and bombers" argument is premised on the very stereotypically American viewpoint that wars are won by vanquishing the foe in open pitched battle.

It is clear from history that this is not always the case. The ability to utterly pulverize the enemy with technically superior firepower and equipment didn't win it for the Soviets in Finland in 1940 and in Afghanistan in the 1980s, nor for the Nazis fighting Yugoslav and French partisans in WWII, nor for France and the USA in Vietnam. Each of those conflicts has a common element: ever-present and indefatigable armed paramilitaries operating in the shadows behind the front lines, supported by the populace.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Aspirant

In a sense, that's what I feel the 2A does on one hand -- any government that tries anything close to genocide, or even using the military to enforce its demands, is going to find it (excuse the understatement) extremely difficult. The cost of doing so makes such tyrannical action not worth pursuing in the first place.

Welcome to TFL.

I believe you've stated the role of the 2d Am. well. If things go so poorly that people are shooting at soldiers inside the country, the damage is already done.

The other way your sentiment has been stated is that we shouldn't trust a government that wouldn't trust us with arms. It isn't that anyone is looking forward to an insurrection, but the state shouldn't be pushing a population so hard that they are worrying about an insurrection.

At a practical level, Pakistan achieves something similar with its ungoverned tribal areas. If Islamabad were to move against the tribes to disarm and govern them, they would get a war in return, so they don't.

[TXAZ]

Zuke noted:

I believe you've stated the role of the 2d Am. well. If things go so poorly that people are shooting at soldiers inside the country, the damage is already done.

The other way your sentiment has been stated is that we shouldn't trust a government that wouldn't trust us with arms. It isn't that anyone is looking forward to an insurrection, but the state shouldn't be pushing a population so hard that they are worrying about an insurrection.

Shooting at / attacking a well trained force is historically a losing proposition. Removing the civil command and control (executive and legislative branches) then taking political control to redirect the trained force has been shown numerous times to be historically successful approach.
I don't see insurrection in the US, yes we have some 'spirited diatribes' and some nut cases, but I also believe most politicians believe that stepping way out of line trying to restrict rights could be hazardous.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Just to cut to the chase:

Would some folks like to state clearly that, for them, defense against tyranny is not a purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

Don't babble about fighting M-1 tanks or B-2s and/or why you would be useless personally. If you think the 2nd is just for you to shoot a B-27s at 3 yards at the range or Bambi, say so.

Support or don't support the theoretical view.

[zukiphile]

Would some folks like to state clearly that, for them, defense against tyranny is not a purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

Don't babble about fighting M-1 tanks or B-2s and/or why you would be useless personally. If you think the 2nd is just for you to shoot a B-27s at 3 yards at the range or Bambi, say so.

Glenn, are you using the bolded term as a reference strictly to insurrectionist theory? Or are you asking whether anyone thinks the right is for self-defense and hunting only?

Just trying to clarify.

[44 AMP]

"you can't possibly win against tanks and bombers"

Not if you are fool enough to fight them head on, you won't.

Remember that famous picture of the guy facing down the tank in that square in China? That fellow, while brave, didn't stop that tank. The tank driver did.

The tanks, bombers, and everything else that we "can't possibly win against" are crewed by men (and some women). The support for those tanks and bombers are done by men and women. They are our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.

Some will blindly obey tyrannical orders, but some will NOT.

This isn't the same thing as operating in some 3rd world pesthole where the entire populace doesn't speak our language, doesn't share our common values, and pretty much hates us.

Even the Waffen SS (who took an oath of personal loyalty to Adolf Hitler) was not monolithically obedient to all Hitler's orders. Our sons and daughters in the military are a long way from that, and I believe many of them would work to thwart the orders of a tyrant, once the situation becomes clear to them.

There are a million and one things they could do to hamper or even foil operations while appearing to comply and follow orders. The Bomber that doesn't take off because of a mechanical fault, the tank which stops because some private in the motor pool didn't tighten certain bolts, these don't blow up/run over Grandma's house. They are as effectively removed from the dictator's hands as they would be if they were destroyed on the field of battle.
(just a couple of examples)

If it comes to a fight, tis not going to be unthinking, uncaring robots with perfectly working equipment gunning down a bunch of rednecks lined up with their "squirrel guns". It will be MUCH, much more complicated and complex than that.

And. remember, our side does not have to defeat theirs, IN BATTLE, in order to win. Anyone who thinks that individual arms will have no utility in that kind of fight is simply, delusional.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

OK, good question.

I was just posing that folks may have many reasons for supporting the 2nd Amend. After all, some folks want to eliminate it.

Of all the possible reasons, I wanted know if someone thinks that defense against tyranny is not a reason for us to have the 2nd.

I really don't like the term 'insurrectionist theory'. It is too neutral as to reason for the insurrection. Maybe you want to lead a rebellion to make the turkey the national bird? To be silly.

So I prefer defense against tyranny. I know that some assume IT is based on preventing tyranny but I don't like it.

[zukiphile]

OK, good question.

I was just posing that folks may have many reasons for supporting the 2nd Amend. After all, some folks want to eliminate it.

Of all the possible reasons, I wanted know if someone thinks that defense against tyranny is not a reason for us to have the 2nd.

I really don't like the term 'insurrectionist theory'. It is too neutral as to reason for the insurrection. Maybe you want to lead a rebellion to make the turkey the national bird? To be silly.

So I prefer defense against tyranny. I know that some assume IT is based on preventing tyranny but I don't like it.

Let me offer a reason not to exclude reasons you would consider silly. In a representative government in which individuals have a large zone of freedom and many rights to assert against the state, a silly cause taken seriously will be as good a reason as any other. If you demand a non-silly reason, you've introduced a value judgement and complication to the issue.

We wouldn't say that freedom of speech is only for non-silly speech because we suppose a real right involves the speaker's discretion on that.


I'd compare a right to take up arms against the state to another right, the right to vote. I don't have to actually vote in order for my prospective vote to be a threat to a candidate. Just the prospect that I might vote a fellow out of office might make him more gentle where my interests are involved. If he and others like him do their jobs really well, voter turnout might plummet just because people aren't motivated by dissatisfaction.

Of course, the implicit threat that I will vote if he gives me reason to vote doesn't work if I don't have a right to vote.

I can think of one episode in our history in which taking up arms (along with subsequent voting) against the government ultimately changed policy for the better - prohibition. It was a poor idea that made ordinary people into criminals, criminals wealthy, and endangered state agents. Even "revenuers" may not have been assured of their safety. That scenario isn't very "Red Dawn", but it does illustrate some things the state can't do well where a population refuses to comply and has the means not to comply.

IT sounds crazy and anarchic in the abstract, but if it is understood as an implicit threat to use one's rights, like the right to vote, it's part of a larger and seamless fabric of rights that keep the state from being our master rather than our servant.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Back to Iran.

This is a quote from the NY Times (a notoriously anti 2nd Amend. paper). I wonder if the writer understands the implications. You have a population that seems to want some semblance of freedom but:

The monopoly of force will probably be enough to sustain the Islamic republic. A crackdown is probable at some point. The real crisis of the regime will likely come at the moment of Khamenei’s succession. Still, the courage of Iranians should never be underestimated, nor the deep roots of their quest for freedom, and anything is possible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/o...ion-columnists

Of course, overturning tyranny is complex and risky but ...

[Aspirant]

Defence takes many forms. Deterrence (prevention) is as much defence as reaction (cure), and much more preferable.

So to get to the point, yes, the 2A is a defence against tyranny because it makes the cost of implementing it too high to be worthwhile. That's the way I've come to see it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[briandg]

the best I can say for you is that I believe that the second amendment has become somewhat irrelevant for defense against a dictatorship. The first amendment and the other rights that give us the means of voting are the most important tools we have to combat abusive governments. that, however, depends on an educated and non-moronic electorate. it can easily be seen that our people are less capable of self government and/or choosing political representatives than would be hoped.

the following picture is posted only to illustrate how seriously we take our electoral responsibilities.


Fort Worth Star-Telegram

[briandg]

glen, maybe khomeini and his eventual takeover are a fair parallel to what the future holds. a change by political action seems unlikely.

[briandg]

I was just posing that folks may have many reasons for supporting the 2nd Amend. After all, some folks want to eliminate it.

i doubt that the defense against tyranny has anything to do with the demand to repeal the second anymore. it is all about disarming the public. that, to me, isn't meant to save our govt from crackpots, that is, imo, to keep guns out of the hands of the public. motivations vary.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you actually follow the more technical debate, the antigun folk understand the defense against tyranny / insurrectionist theory and specifically discount it.

In the popular press, the argument seems to be about saving lives but some folks think deeper than that.

So Brian, you weren't clear - Do you think that defense against tyranny is not a valid reason for the 2nd Amend.?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by briandg

i doubt that the defense against tyranny has anything to do with the demand to repeal the second anymore. it is all about disarming the public. that, to me, isn't meant to save our govt from crackpots, that is, imo, to keep guns out of the hands of the public. motivations vary.

If you understand the constitution to be a grant of government power, but a grant of limited power, I don't believe the motivations are separable.

People who entertain a sneering dismissal of limited government (often because they wold like to redirect government power to support their own goals) generally don't generally seem impressed by the limitation set forth in the 2d Am.

Of course, people aren't always ideologically consistent, but the whole "No one needs X" argument makes some assumptions about one's legitimate needs.

[5whiskey]

the best I can say for you is that I believe that the second amendment has become somewhat irrelevant for defense against a dictatorship.

I understand your perspective, I believe Brian. You certainly are not entirely wrong. It is a fanciful notion to believe that some point in the near future we will square up against a dictator with complete control of the military with our pea-shooters and stop said dictator. That actually was what was described by James Madison in his support of the RKBA, but that EXACT description used is somewhat irrelevant today. It is too simplistic though. The mere presence of the 2A goes a long way to ensure that we never will have the need to face off against tanks.

The tanks, bombers, and everything else that we "can't possibly win against" are crewed by men (and some women). The support for those tanks and bombers are done by men and women. They are our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.

Precisely why the military will never be able to effectively be utilized against it's citizens in the first place in our culture. Autocratic dictatorships frequently place the leader much closer in the command structure of the military, and general officers are often given wealth, land, and power greater than anyone else in the country. Private citizens possess much more wealth in America than military officers do. In countries like Iraq (under Saddam), Iran, Egypt, and Syria... well General Officers are some of the wealthiest individuals in the country. In essence, the dictator "buys" their loyalty to a degree.

The first amendment and the other rights that give us the means of voting are the most important tools we have to combat abusive governments. that, however, depends on an educated and non-moronic electorate. it can easily be seen that our people are less capable of self government and/or choosing political representatives than would be hoped.

Completely agree with you on all counts, with a caveat that it is the most important so long as those rights are respected and continue to be protected. The best revolution is one that never happened because it was never needed in the first place. Even non-violent (relatively so, at least) revolutions disrupt order, commerce, and many other aspects of day-to-day life before things are settled. Don't believe that the Government won't do it's best to silence critics despite 1A rights. Trump is very critical of the media. It would not be a stretch to see "leakers" prosecuted similar to how Obama did. How much of it would be to protect state secrets, and how much of it would be just out of spite and disdain? What about the prosecutions under Obama and Eric Holder? Was that just to send the message that leaks won't be tolerated? Or was there an ulterior motive? I don't have the answer to that. So... the point is that even in a civilized society you can expect our constitutional rights, all of them, infringed upon as much as the government believes is can get away with.

[briandg]

Glenn, that isn't my specific meaning. ThAt is the keystone. We were granted these rights by God, by being born, by living, thAt is the specific reason behind'rights'. Natural rights that men are born to possess.

Tyranny does not mean our government alone, that Bill was specifically written in time of ongoing conflict with a despot. Irregular troops were used and Joe the farmer had to defend himself against the same enemy with weapons. Tyranny has never been our problem regarding our govt, in a way that the second was relevant, UNLESS you count the armed insurrection by the south.
Does tyranny include repression and or attack by non-govt agents? of course it does. It's not often approached in this manner, but don't we have a right, given by God, to put an end to illegal oppression by means of arms? Of course, isn't that what all of the defensive weaponry involves?

I believe that weapons are no longer a tool to end oppression. The second now belongs to other causes, but it is valid for everything that could be oppression, up to and including shooting at those tinfoil tanks.

[TXAZ]

I’ll cut to your chase:
The founders didn’t include the 2nd for the purpose of furs and meat. They did include it for the purpose of violently removing tyrants in a very graphic manner.

[briandg]

Zuni, you appear to have that reversed. Our bill of rights denies power to the government. 9 and 10 state that rights and power belong to the people EXCEPT when constitutional restrictions are applied. Unless the federal government has created restrictions, the state has the right to create restrictions. Absent any specific restrictions, all men are free to do as they choose.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This bunch of yahoos want to gut the second because we don't need it. that's not the point. Our founders simply recognized the colt axiom. A gun is the difference between freedom and slavery to villains of any sort, and they declared that we could never be denied that right. But it didn't specify that we are free to own any kind of weapons, so restrictions are constitutional, but they are wrong. The amendment was imprecise and it left those specific items for future 'wise leader's' to sort out.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by briandg

Zuni, you appear to have that reversed. Our bill of rights denies power to the government.

No, you have it wrong. The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. The Constitution defines what the powers of the government are, not what they aren't. The Bill of Rights doesn't "deny" anything to anyone, it simply helps to refine the limitations on the powers granted to the government by the Constitution.

[briandg]

Whiskey, as I said before, they wrote a single line intending to settle it at such a fundamental level that it couldn't be abridged. Adding specific items would have complicated the issue. It would have left holes in the coverage. What we have done to enhance the second is to make doing bad stuff with guns illegal. Although the bill was written partly with insurgency in mind, with those very same mouths the created treason laws.

Regarding the infringement of speech, I can't think of anything that has been so completely abused. I can't go there. Sufficient to say that the only accepted limitations seem to be for the other guy.

The constitution and our laws mean nothing to most people. For example, a California goofball declared that they should have ten times as many senators, because they have more people. A person who was weeping bitterly about gun laws used the following excerpt in his article..

while it is TECHNICALLY LEGAL to own guns...

Are you kidding me? Technically legal?

Our world is absolutely owned by idiots. In fact, speaking statistically, 60% of Americans are of only average to sub-average intelligence, and one in five qualify as STUPID. Those stupid people still have a constitutional right to go hunting for Bigfoot with a rifle and blog about it.

Again, not trying to politicize this unduly, consider this.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

We don't need it anymore, some people are saying. Nobody's right to vote is being abridged and the rights of non-citizens are being trampled.

[zukiphile]

In fact, speaking statistically, 60% of Americans are of only average to sub-average intelligence, and one in five qualify as STUPID.

One study found that 49% of all people are below average.