Will we ever use our second amendment rights to fight the govt?

Here is the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

OK, so where are these militias? Can they really take on the gov't? Will we be shooting in the streets? Is this enough to allow people to have the Uzi's they really want? Who fights the revolution?

Assault weapons ban! If the time comes to revolt and all we have are handguns and shotguns, the AK-47's and such will make very short work of us. Those damn founding fathers were some insightful sons of bitches!

That's why this whole keep the uzi's to fight the government argument is so stupid. If we haven't done it with Bush in power, we never will.

It is not THAT bad. We still have more rights that 95% of the countries on the planet. People don't react until times get truly bad, like it or not somewhere around 45% will vote for Bush in November. As long as things of the like are true there isn't any reason to revolt. If I start to see people being hauled in as terrorists from the books they borrowed from the library or something of the like then I will be on the streets. Until then, I am unhappy but my rights are at least on the surface still intact.

OK, the 2AM gives us the right to bear arms. Presumably, this is to overthrow the government, should the need arise, as it did under British rule. That experience was fresh in the minds of the founding fathers.

Isn't it a bit anachronistic to assume that the firepower available to an individual is anywhere close to the firepower available to the US Army? More likely, an individual wielding a weapon gives the Army permission to kill, or press more serious charges.

Wasn't it a bit anachronistic to assume that the firepower available to an individual in the American Revolution was anywhere close to the firepower available to the British Army at the time?

The whole courts idea that is exposed above is nonsense, we've seen the treatment and the authority of the courts has been selective. The courts are only one branch, they need the executive branch to carry out its will. If the executive Branch was corrupted completely, why would it ever listen to the courts, it would only listen to the people. If the democratic principles of the nation were corrupted they would only answer to our revolt.

I don't like finding an Uzi on the street, but I don't like seeing a religious nut on the sidewalk preaching either. But I fully support the constitutional right to both, when you start making concessions in one, the door is left open for concessions in others. It is hypocrisy to be selective in your acceptance of the amendments and then cry foul when other liberties are infringed.

tanks rolling through the streets of Boston, the Kevlar-lined red coats, the high-tech spying....

You think the Iraqis don't have guns? How are they doing against our army? They are resorting to suicide bombings (I wonder if thats protected under the 2nd or 1st amendment).

Ahh..but you see if our government was Truly, TRULY, corrupted at least a good 60% of the military would revolt with us.

But then we would have a military government, and you know what those look like.....

The people revolting would be revolting to protect the consitution, same with those from the armed forces that join the cause. When we win the old military government would be removed completely, we would re-install our constitutional democracy, and most likely put some clauses in the constitution to insure that it never happens again.

Of course not, most of the Iraqi army fled and was never heard from again. You also seem to think that the whole US military would take aim at the American people, I sincerely doubt it. I'm not saying we would win in this given scenario, but I think it would be better than merely getting shot with my hands up. Seems like you would want to be the one hiding in your house "knowing" we would loose, waiting for your time to come. They call it a self fulfilling prophesy for a reason.

They would be full of bullets instead of gas.

Instead of being lead like sheep into gas chambers!

which, of course, would be called up to put down any uprising of the general public.
Consider this:
If you actually think that a loosely knit, ragtag, undisciplined group of folks with guns, be they Uzi's, shotguns or Deer Rifles (or what ever) would stand ANY chance against a well trained, well armed, disciplined, ordered and motivated regular Army led by competent leaders knowledgeable of tactics then you are living in a dream world.

ANY armed revolt by any segment of the population of this country against the government would be put down so swiftly and so harshly it would make Tienanmen Square look like a bake sale.
The only way a revolution could possibly be successful is WITHOUT arms and with literally millions willing to die for the cause.

The national guard has become an extension of the full time military, and is not the well regulated militia the founding fathers envisioned. The well regulated militia would necessarily be independent from the national government. I support the ideals of Gandhi and MLK for peaceful protest and revolt, but these means do not always work and there must be safeguards for the people. Can you see Nazi Germany listening to a peaceful revolt by the citizens? I couldn't, the SS would most likely gather them up in the middle of the night to never be seen again.

See the posts above about "standing any chance" against the military

An armed revolution would never work! Thus, we should just forget this futile idea of usurping a tyrannical government through armed revolt! Who cares if all our freedoms would be curtailed under a totalitarian regime? Let's just give up now since we wouldn't be able to stop it anyway! Why fight and make it harder for hopeful tyrants to gain power and control when we can just give it to them willingly? Yup, you sold me, HERETIC! I'm going to melt down all my guns right now and forge them into handcuffs since we'll be needing a lot more of those when we dissidents are rounded up!

/sarcasm

The ONLY point i was making was in response to the original poster's point regarding using the 2nd Amendment in a revolution.

Let me put it another way.

Unless this idea is held by THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Americans, it COULD NOT SUCCEED. I never inferred or even implied that you should melt down your guns. But unless you are backed up by MOST of the population, any armed revolt by any group of citizens would be put down.
You might not like that idea, but i think there is precedent in this country and there is CERTAINLY precedent in other countries. Those in charge do things to KEEP themselves in charge and there isn't any way they are going to let a bunch of pesky citizens change that by means of armed rebellion. Not as long as they have an army at their disposal. It would be suicide, plain and simple

Keep your guns. They might come in handy.

BTW, i have a .38 Smith and Wesson Revolver and a Semi-Auto .30 Carbine with two 30 round banana clips and at least 100 rounds on hand so please don't think i am radically anti-gun. I just don't think contemplating using them to change a political situation would be anything NEAR the smart way to go about it.

The last civil war. If there were an armed revolt in this country, which there won't be, it's not going to be fought out in some field somewhere with the army lining up on one side and the citizen militia lining up on the other.

I'm not an expert, but bear with me here.

The militia system was long perceived by Americans as the preferable means of defense in a free nation because it eliminated the need for standing armies except in extraordinary circumstances. Over time that’s been turned around: now a standing army is the preferred means of defense, and a militia would be called out - if at all - only in extraordinary circumstances. I bet it is tied to US “defense” policy of policing the world, maintaining an empire of over 750 bases in more than 100 countries around the world. See _The Sorrows of Empire : Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic_ by Chalmers Johnson.

To ensure the existence of an adequate number of militiamen when the need arose, every male of military age and capacity was required by law to be enrolled for military service.48 Furthermore, because colonial treasuries were sparse, every militiaman was also required by law to provide at his own expense specified weapons and related equipment.49 Therefore, the colonists believed that individual ownership and possession of weapons was of the utmost importance in order to maintain the militia as a strong and viable means of defense.

>OK, the 2AM gives us the right to bear arms. Presumably, this is to overthrow the government, should the need arise, as it did under British rule. That experience was fresh in the minds of the founding fathers.

When I read Federalist Papers No. 36, “Concerning the Militia,” I don’t get the sense that Alexander Hamilton articulates the necessity of a militia in terms of overthrowing the government, but in terms of suppressing insurrections and protecting the republic. http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_29.html When we turn to Federalist papers No. 46, “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared,” we encounter James Madison speculating on “the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition.” http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html Assume that the federal government constructs a large, standing military and attempts to impose tyranny on the people. “Extravagant as the supposition is,” writes Madison, “let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.” On the side of the militia, envisions Madison, would also belong the state governments. If there were such a stand-off, the people (in the form of their state and local governments and militia) would be able to prevail over a tyrannical federal government, according to Madison. Is he right? Let’s all hope we never find out.

>Isn't it a bit anachronistic to assume that the firepower available to an individual is anywhere close to the firepower available to the US Army?

Such a question was also asked during the founding of the country. Perhaps the words of Tench Coxe shed light here.

“The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/hk-coxe.htm

>I remember the British use of air power, tanks rolling through the streets of Boston…

The British Navy with its big guns were that period’s equivalent of tanks and air power. Assume a modern day version of Madison’s “visionary supposition.” The use of tanks would be of limited value within the context of an urban guerilla war. Daring to send F-16s to bomb cities would probably incite more anti-federal sentiment among the people. In either case, tanks and planes have their costs and vulnerabilities, and can be disabled with weapon that mechanically-inclined guerillas can build in their garages. http://tinyurl.com/35npq For one example, see _Build Your Own Bazooka_ by Anthony Lewis.

>the Holocost would have happened if they had been armed?

An excellent question. The problem in the 1930 was that Hitler’s opponents both inside and outside Germany were too intimidated, disunited, dispirited, or politically outfoxed by Hitler to offer coordinated resistance until it was too late. One country that did face down the German Army and kept its independence was Switzerland, a little country of four million that ended up completely surrounded by the fascists. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/swiss.htm Target See _Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II_ by Stephen Halbrook. "Since the origins of the Swiss Confederation in 1291, it has been the duty of every male Swiss citizen to be armed and to serve in the militia.” Today, that arm is an 'assault rifle,' which is issued to every Swiss male and which must be kept in the home. During Germany's Third Reich (1933-1945), that arm was a bolt-action repeating rifle, which was highly effective in the hands of Switzerland's many sharpshooters.” One-fifth of Swiss citizens were armed and capable of offering stiff resistance against a conventional invasion and against a prolonged occupation. “There was no holocaust on Swiss soil," Mr. Halbrook concludes. "Swiss Jews served in the militia side by side with their fellow citizens, and kept rifles in their homes just like everyone else.”

>The "Well Regulated Militia" has become the National Guard........

I beg to differ. The militia and the National Guard are legally two completely different entities with different missions. "The Militia of the United States consist of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age ... " Title 10, Section 311 of the United States Code.

May I suggest that you read _The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction_ by leading constitutional scholar at Yale, Akhil Reed Amar. I have read his book, and I think it is fair to describe Amar’s politics as a bit to the left. "Several modern scholars have read the (second) amendment as protecting only arms bearing in organized 'state militias,' like SWAT teams and National Guard units. ...
"This reading doesn't quite work. The states'-rights reading puts great weight on the word militia, but the word appears only in the amendment's subordinate clause. The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to 'the people,' not the states. As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical: when the Constitution means 'states,' it says so.
"Thus, as noted above, 'the people' at the core of the Second Amendment are the same people at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment. Elbridge Gerry put the point nicely in the First Congress, in language that closely tracked the populist concern about governmental self-dealing at the root of earlier amendments: 'This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government.'
"What's more, the 'militia,' as used in the amendment and in clause 16, had a very different meaning two hundred years ago than in ordinary conversation today. Nowadays, it is quite common to speak loosely of the National Guard as the 'state militia,' but two hundred years ago, any band of paid, semiprofessional, part-time volunteers, like today's Guard, would have been called 'a select corps' or 'select militia' -- and viewed in many quarters as little better than a standing army.
"In 1789, when used without any qualifying adjective, 'the militia' referred to all citizens capable of bearing arms. The seeming tension between the dependent and the main clauses of the Second Amendment thus evaporates on closer inspection -- the 'militia' is identical to 'the people' in the core sense described above. ... This is clearly the sense in which 'the militia' is used in clause 16 and throughout The Federalist, in keeping with standard usage confirmed by contemporaneous dictionaries, legal and otherwise. As Tench Coxe wrote in a 1788 Pennsylvania essay, 'Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?' "
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2000/Jul-09-Sun-2000/opinion/13914842.html

>ANY armed revolt by any segment of the population of this country against the government would be put down so swiftly and so harshly it would make Tienanmen Square look like a bake sale.

An armed confrontation between the people and some tyrannical federal government would indeed be bloody beyond imagination, but let's turn it around. When the Chinese Army fired on the demonstrators at Tiananmen Square, they *knew* that there would be no return fire. Would the Chinese political leadership had been so ready to order a massacre if, say, 42% of the Chinese households owned guns? Any would-be American tyrants who would plan a coup would have to figure into their equations the fact that there are somewhere between 60 and 80 million American gun owners.

has always been the mantra of totalitarians.

Both the regulated militia (i.e. National Guard) and the unregulated militia (the population at large) get mustered mostly for natural disasters, and in that role both serve vital functions. Arms come into play only to suppress looting and lawlessness in the aftermath of a flood, hurricane, earthquake, fire, etc., and that alone is plenty of reason to nurture and protect the right to keep and bear arms in the "well-regulated Militia" context. I'd like to make it clear that for me there are other valid reasons for people in general to have the option of owning and using weapons, but since this is a militia thread I'm answering in that context.

I would not want to be caught unarmed in a situation where the normal civil order has broken down, however briefly. If my neighborhood was cut off from the rest of the city by an earthquake (a scenario that seems to me unlikely but possible), I'm confident that the people here would band together immediately to protect each other and our common interests.

Is this enough to allow people to have the Uzi's they really want?

The only reason I'd want an Uzi would be for amusement. I consider my M1 Garand to be my primary "militia" weapon. It also makes a nice home-defense piece. And since neither the state nor the federal government consider it to be an "assault weapon", I oppose HR 2038 which would likely tar it with that stigma.

"Who are the Militia? They are the whole of the people, except for a few public servants"..George Mason, 1788

"Policy is not made with speeches, songs or festivals. Policy is made with blood and steel.." von Bismarck.

Wisdom from 225 years ago: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book"

see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x41313