2A question for Americans?

Question

The 2nd Amendment in the American Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, supposedly to ”protect us against a tyrannical government.” This language would suggest that there’s a moment that could arrive that would be deemed appropriate for the citizens to take up arms and use violence against our politicians who collectively comprise “the government.”

Fair enough, but here’s my question: WHO gets final approval on what constitutes “tyrannical?” The left and the right have very different ideas of government tyranny, to start with.

Whether it’s the left if they were to take up arms against Trump’s regime, or the right trying to do something to Biden or whoever, or attempting to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer….. in either case, the incumbent administration isn’t going to say “you’re right, we ARE tyrants, bring it on, it’s war time!”

Instead, they’re going to brand them “radicals” and “rebels” and “terrorists”, and justify their current political dealings and any counter-violence towards anyone who tries to stop it. There’s never going to be an acknowledgement that the government is problematic or an admission of tyranny. It’s not going to be green-lit. And supporters of the incumbent government, right or wrong, will fall in line and ALSO demonize people who may actually be right as rain in their efforts to rebel.

I don’t know, just a thought that crossed my mind. But I’m curious how a civilian uprising against supposed tyranny would go. When is it ok for us to use guns against the government when said government is going to invariably characterize it as an unwarranted insurrection? Who gets to say what’s good and bad? Because if the government is even objectively bad, they’ll still SAY they’re good, and that the people rebelling are the villains. And the incumbent government’s supporters will take up arms against the rebelling citizens, and now you’re basically in a civil war.

Thoughts? It’s like we HAVE the 2nd Amendment, but can it be used when actually needed?

Updates

3 mo

I feel like a few folks are misunderstanding. I’m not debating the general validity of 2A, the nuances of what it means, should we have it or not, or how you go about exercising it.

The question is when you DO exercise it, no one is going to be there to say “This is ok and a legitimate usage of the second amendment.” And if it comes down to a “left vs right”, as it likely would, the incumbent government AND the entire opposing wing of citizens are going to characterize it as an attack on the US

mattthefatbat · Accepted Answer

Trump's team will try and make americans believe things that aren't true to be true.
Like the current ongoing epstein files investigation when there's clearly a there there with trump's signature the whole time yet trump says its a waste of time or made up. Or the left being full of extremists or whatever. But Look If trump can answer a question of "Will he uphold the constitution" with "I don't know he has lawyers for that" and still remain the president..
Just be prepared to say goodbye to any form of a fair america that was governed by the constitution or things that genuinely helped We the people.

As for the forming of a armed militia rising up against a tyrannical government of their own making.. it wouldn't happen with these people. Supporters of trump are locked on the idea of seeing things that support their lives wither away to dust and they would rather be badly affected to the point of someone in their family falling ill or their lives going to absolute Dirt. Long before they realize that what they voted for is whats causing their lives to get worse.

Most of the "armed militia" ready people were the ones that formed together on January 6th just to terrorize our own nation's capital during a completely harmless conclusion to the voting process and most of them would kiss trump's toes and give their guns away to putin if trump asked them to.
Until the time comes of Every American and every united states military member unites and stands up against the current administration to protect the constitution and the American people. We stand a high chance of suffering more everyday and becoming more devided

BadApple69 · Accepted Answer

Very good question.
I don’t have a good answer but I will say this. I feel it’s A deterrent for our government doing something that it shouldn’t against the citizens. Let’s say we had no guns at all. The Biden administration claimed MAGA “a threat to democracy” that MAGA are “extremists” and many other things. If no guns what would have stopped the administration from sending FBI or whomever to gather up as many MAGA as possible, locking us up and throwing away the key. Number one thing… they know the FBI would run into armed resistance and that would be come the number one story around the world. We protect ourselves from a tyrannical government…. We don’t go to war with them. At least not at first.

Now…J6th was a protest against what they believed was an illegally run election. IF that was a real insurrection with the thought of overthrowing the government every one of those people would have been armed and there wouldn’t have been a Democrat in Washington there that day, alive today. 500k people armed would have been a unstoppable force. Our army wouldn’t have been able to mobilize in time to save the democrats. No one was armed that day.

Crimsyjo · Accepted Answer

I'm not American but good question and good answers here.

It's making me think of the 25th amendment that allows a president yo be overthrown if unfit. Who decides this? I'm sure there's deeper explanations and contexts written around this. But as with the 2nd amendment.. there is always a matter of perspective and who's perspective is more legal and more powerful than the others? Who decides this? Only those in power already. So it's only when others become more powerful can they overthrow the one in power.

Agape93 · Accepted Answer

Personally, I have my own limits, but a baseline is when your policy choices start making my loved ones lives demonstrably worse to the point lives are being ruined, put at serious risk, or killed.

Adam_INTJ · Answer

Remember, the second amendment actually reads "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."

So there's no mention of when use of armed uprising is necessary. It just says that it is necessary for a free state. We dont need to deliberate over whether an armed resistance is warranted because the second amendment doesn't deal with that.

But for the sake of satisfying your question, which assumes legitimate uprising are described (an assumption that I take issue with) I'll say this:

Keep on mind that the context of its origin is the tyranny of King George III.

The idea behind it is that the people will be capable of resisting tyranny, so it will therefore not occur. The founders may have had an eye to popular opinion justifying such resistance of tyranny, because strength in numbers matters in the success of an uprising.

So if popular opinion says something is tyranny->more guns/combatants->victory->just cause

If an unpopular faction says something is tyranny -> fewer combatants/guns -> failed uprising ->unjust cause

Reading about Shay's rebellion (which inspired the drafting of the constitution) may help to clarify the intention.

dragoblack · Answer

Tyrannical is anyone in power found to be untouchable by court & law, that has been shown to compromise the country's stability, security, safeguards, freedoms, & alliances; attacks the working class citizens regardless party, violates the freedoms and safeguards of the country and those who reside in the country, supresses other departments of government, bribes & threatens politicians that resist orders, uses the military on the people of the country; the one in power gives orders and they are followed without question, bypasses every level of government, & is beyond the right of the position to give; puts loyalists into every level of government & court-system to nullify any lawful resistance, encourages extremist groups to act, encourages a citizens to attack certain groups of people, destroys historical documents to rewrite history, tries to prevent citizens from knowing their rights and laws, attacks & villainizes education, attacks the press/news, defunds research that goes against their plans, covers up research results that prove them wrong, takes bribes from other countries & special interest groups, and defunds programs that help the most vulnerable.

Chazmatazz269 · Answer

That’s why “they” are winning, and always will. Unless US citizens wake up to the uniparty portraying itself as a two-party state in order to prevent the citizens from uniting against them, the uprising will never happen. The ruling class is safe as long as the governed are somewhere between distracted and misdirected.
But y’all keep calling people who know that “conspiracy nuts”, literally helping those in power marginalize the people you need most to guide you out of the dark.
Welcome to the government you deserve, dummies!

Still-alive · Answer

"WHO gets final approval on what constitutes “tyrannical?” It's pretty much which ideology holds the most power at a given time. they are the ones who get to define that. Luckily for us we do still have loads of people who know that this Trump regime are in fact the tyrannical ones. if there weren't then... well lets just say most of us would likely be in death camps by now. :/

OneViewpoint · Answer

You have the gist of it. The second amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. To defend the state. Not to overthrow the state. That’s what voting was supposed to be for.

The founders made no provision for citizens to overthrow the state in an armed rebellion due to all the stupidity of that you just listed.

So when it happens, it’s gonna look a lot like the Civil War part deux. Asymmetric / guerrilla warfare against fixed targets to topple the state. Hit and run. Disrupt and disable.

Phoenix98 · Answer

The second amendment is about more then merely defense against a tyrannical government and it goes beyond the amendment itself I would have thought you'd be smart enough to know that.

And in case you've forgotten your history the ability to bear arms is what allowed the citizenry aka the militia's and newly formed continental army to arm themselves and fight back against the oppressive monarchy of Britain. The amendment was born out of the main situation it was designed to protect against.

As for what determines a tyrannical government if or when that time arises that answer would need to be result of consensus between all of us. Because such an answer and following action would affect everyone not just in the country but around the world.

But at this point in time democrats are not the ones who should have a say with anything related to firearms or potentially violent actions for a variety of reasons.

Joshydavid25 · Answer

I don't think anybody on the Right called Biden a Tyrant.. And definitely didn't condone violence against politicians when it was warranted.. Not like on the left where they actually do call Trump a tyrant and criticize everything he does as illegal..

But its pretty simple.. Any government overstep into the private lives of its citizens is tyranny or the start of it.. The government should be here to simply protect our natural born liberties and not legislate our lives.. I think we all know what Tyranny looks like, and it's not whatever party doesn't like what the other is doing... If you at least have common sense that is.. Unfortunately we live in a society where people are starting not to recognize it, and sacrifice freedom for a false sense of safety.. Tyranny happens only because people let it and don't see it for what it is..

noohair · Answer

My hope that we as Americans can conduct ourselves without resorting to violence. When the country was founded, there was no standing army, so the thought of the citizen solder evolved. Today I believe that personal self defense is the issue. The Civil war cost us dearly with 620,000 lost lives when we had a population of about 31.4 million, we lost out smartest and bravest. A second civil war would be a disaster. The 2A is not going anywhere so education and training in gun safety is important. We also neglect mental health as an American issue. Things are complicated.

msc545 · Answer

This is a fantasy. Nobody is going to use semi-automatic rifles effectively against a government that is armed with tanks and automatic weapons and jet planes and all the other paraphernalia of modern war.

jmr2191 · Answer

This is a moral quandary that has never been solved. The best anyone has come up with is 'I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.' In theory, the hope is that enough Americans have passively exercised their 2A right by merely possessing one or more firearms to create a collective deterrent against the US government actively lashing out against its own citizens in like manner.

DonaldDarko · Answer

I'd say it's up to the people themselves and if they're successful then they'll overthrow the government. The idea is that they at least have a fighting chance, not that they are guaranteed to win. Guns in the hands of the people are also a deterrent. Big corporations and banks that want to subvert the will of the people by bribing politicians know we're armed and they sleep less well knowing that.

BeenThereLovedIt · Answer

gather 40,000 people with guns

March to DC

Drones will incinerate all 40,000 of them. Pretty efficiently too

The only government casualty would be the soldier who while being called to muster accidentally tripped over his bootlace and hit his head on a table and died.

We will forever remember that soldier as brave while those 4000 vermin were eradicated. Perhaps he might even get a statue in memorandum.

exitseven · Answer

I think our founders hoped it would be only used as a deterrent but for a while during the Biden administration I expected to have to drop the gloves and get ready for a fight.  Trump and all his supporters are garbage.

DrPepper12 · Answer

This sums it up;

No one would have a chance against the US military. Hell the Whiskey rebellion to J6 shows that conclusively.

The question is ALWAYS who will the military accept orders from? That's the crux.

Twalli · Answer

History isn't written by those who are right, but by those who are left. So, it doesn't matter when you do it, as long as you are successful.

whiskeyontherocks · Answer

In its most basic form to the victor goes the spoils of War.
I don’t think people realize how far we actually are from armed rebellion it definitely would start with at least one state at least actively charging the other and trying to detain cabinet members not just wards but actions.

Just4ThisNow2 · Answer

Fascinating question that gave me a reflective pause. When it was written, our young nation had just fought a war against what they viewed as constituting a tyrannical government. It’s good to consider this from a historiography standpoint involving leaders who were trying to form a more just union.

Snakeyes7 · Answer

If you are going to reference 2A, use the full quote.

"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."

There IS no reason why, it just says that the right to bear arms must not be infringed. And no, "regulated" means maintained, not government controlled which would defeat the purpose.

NaultD · Answer

Jury of peers. John adams 2ed president was the defense attorney for the British soldiers who were responsible for the Boston massacre. A fair trial is the cornerstone of the founding of our country.

qwerty2469 · Answer

Im of the mind that the Government went tyrannical back in Abraham Lincoln days. Just not enough people agree. Fuck. We went past Bush 1, Bush 2, Obama 1, Obama 2, Trump 1, Bidan, Trump 2 levels of Tyranny and the far right is still sitting in their Israel cuck chair watching ugly He Brews fuck their country while jerking off with their guns.

goaded · Answer

It should be reserved for when there are no peaceful, democratic, ways to change the government. Clearly, 2024 was not such a time, I'm not so sure 2026 will be.

Even then, an unarmed revolution is better.

spartan55 · Answer

Different component of the 2A debate, but more than country decided invading us by land was a terrible idea. Why? Because we have lots of guns... 🙄..  Is that a new profile pic?

Miristheiss · Answer

The bottom line, the moment all of the people have no guns, then the state is free to do what it wants.

purplepoppy · Answer

I wonder how often it gets used as a defence in court.

shortster · Answer

The founders set the standard with the Declaration of Independence. They understood that they were signing their own death warrants with the King of England.

andreasderjuengere · Answer

Shoot first - ask later. The winner is always right. Yee haaah.

captain_voidwalker · Answer

Im going to say it's when the government is so bad that the left and the right and all points in-between are getting crushed under a metaphorical boot

Anonymous · Answer

where do you get your "objective" morality from?

Awesomesauce2005 · Answer

When the majority can collectively agree that the government is too powerful and oppressive

beefcakebradybatson · Answer

Yankees hate each other, which is why they carry 400,000,000+ guns.

Ariesman81 · Answer

I can tell you, as a conservative Christian MAGA fucktard, I have yet to feel the need.

Anonymous · Answer

Well, I'm not American, so I don't have to worry about that 🤷

dustybiker2 · Answer

How did Saddam Hussein go?

ilistengood · Answer

He who wins, gets to write the history book

9999Tito · Answer

The constitution decides

2A question for Americans?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

2A question for Americans?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.