Hypothetical regarding gun ownership and the Second Amendment.?

(1) YES, yes, yes !

(2) Git 'er done.

(3) God n' Country.

So private individuals, unless part of a militia, have no right to self defense? A very basic concept, clearly that is not what the founders intended. The author of the first draft of the Second Amendment was James Madison. Madison’s favorite book of political theory was Aristotle’s Politics. Several times in that work Aristotle makes the point that all citizens should have weapons, and that only those with weapons should be citizens. Otherwise, he wrote, those that are disarmed are the slaves of those who are armed. The point was made another way by Jean Louis DeLolme, a Swiss jurist. DeLolme wrote a book on the English constitution that we know Madison read, and that was a source for other American Founders as well. In speaking of the need for an armed citizenry, DeLolme wrote: “The Power of the People is not when they strike, but when they keep in awe. It is when they can overthrow every thing, that they never need to move; and Manlius [a Roman consul] included all in four words, when he said to the People of Rome, Ostendite bellum, pacem habebitis. [Look toward war, and you shall have peace]. The widespread ownership of firearms, therefore, helps to preserve freedom, usually without the need for armed violence. When politicians limit or harass gun ownership, the threat is far wider than the threat to guns alone. By reducing the number of citizens who are armed, gun control emboldens the authoritarian politicians to control everything else we do, thereby imperiling freedom generally. The citizenry, well armed, are that "well regulated militia". Why can't that be understood? The second amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed. Where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. "On every question of construction (of the meaning of the Constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and, instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed". Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p 322.

Well, there was no change to the 2nd Amendment - all that happened was that a court finally affirmed what anyone who can read and is honest knew all along. "The people" means THE PEOPLE and not militias controlled by the state governments. Those who supported the minority view that "the people" doesn't mean "the people" are simply dishonest, and unwilling to just come out and oppose part of the Bill of Rights.

I am a socialist and do not approve of any "Democratic Party" politician (not very democratic!) or "Republican Party" politician (so un-republican they're practically royalists!).

However, an elected scumbag is better than an unelected scumbag. I would resist the coup. I own several guns.

However, I think just running out and charging the barricades would be stupid. I would be more likely to snipe at patrols, do sabotage, etc.

A good model, I think, would be the communist-led resistance groups in Nazi-occupied Europe. In all of history, no occupying regular army, no matter how sophisticated their weaponry, has ever defeated a guerrilla resistance that had the support of the population.

Did you miss the entire Vietnam thing? How about the current "troubles" in Iraq?

And to Mike who thinks no pro-weapons rights people would like the idea of the victims of USA, Inc. having THEIR militias? Guess again! I think that's a grand idea. And considering that Venezuela has spent so much on small arms in their current military buildup, much, MUCH more than on missiles, ships and aircraft, apparently Chavez agrees.

When Allende in Chile caved in to the "soft left" and approved laws to disarm the workers militias that supported him, that was the signal for the coup that overthrew him.

Hopefully, resistance to a coup against Obama would follow the model of 1917 Russia, when the status quo "socialist" prime minister Kerensky was defended by the Bolsheviks against a military coup by General Kornilov. Kornilov was defeated, and by doing so, the Bolsheviks gained strength and were later able to get rid of Kerensky themselves.

1. As every citizen between ages of 18 and 45 is required by federal law to be a part of the militia, militia act of 1791, of course I own a gun.

2. I personally am trained to easily take out a man sized target from over 1000 yards away, therefore I would join with my other citizens and begin procedures for removing the illegal use of US troops on US soil. The Constitution specifically disallows the use of a standing army to enforce any law on US soil, btw. To do so, as General Clark did at WACO, is treason. But I digress.

3. The US Constitution and the oath I took as a young woman to defend that Constitution with my life if necessary.

There have been in American history two attempts at a coup.One in 1934 to oust Franklin Roosevelt and the other in 1974 to keep Nixon in power.The coup plotters in 1934 were ratted out and stopped by General Smedley Butler.In 1974 persons on Nixon's own staff took steps to prevent any orders for a coup to be given.The current military establishment of the United States is as incapable of implementing a coup as Monaco is of taking over France.It does make for good entertainment though as in the movie Seven Days In May.

First of all, circling the wagons around the White House Will have no effect. We can ignore the president the same way we ignore Bush.

If they surround the Capital, we email them to hold on and we go shoot em out. If Washington falls we rally around the Governors and rescue Washington.

The fact is that the U.S. military is not big enough nor is the government non-partisan enough to take over the country by martial law.

A more serious and likely scenario these days would be a terrorist attack or attacks splintering the nation into safe zones separated by unsafe or occupied zones.

In that scenario the U.S. troops would be spread thin and may need ad-hoc support from citizen militias.

We would give the guys who didn't have a gun a hoe to fight with.

Perhaps the second amendment should be adopted by every country-then when the US government engineers a coup to overthrow whichever leader they view as being contrary to US interests (Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Indonesia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Venezuela, Cuba etc etc) or just goes for the direct invasion/bomb the crap out of the place approach (Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Vietnam (police action my ****), Somalia, Sudan, Cuba again, Surinam etc etc), the people would have the opportunity to defend their leaders in the way in which you describe.

And before the gun psychos start with the thumbs down, the last two gun massacres in Britain were carried out by licensed gun owners. So spare me the bullshit about only criminals misusing guns. They were banned in Britain after the last gun worshipping limpdick fuckup blasted a school to pieces, and guess what? No massacres since.

Edit to Leftwing Gun Nut; You forgot to add "US backed & funded coup" with regard to Allende's ovethrow. And as for you sniping at patrols and carrying out sabotage....is that not what is happening in Iraq & Afghanistan and being labelled as terrorism? Funny how one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter isn't it?

Hypothetical questions usually result in dumb answers. And, since there are a lot of kids posting in this forum, full of bravado, but unable to own guns, their answers will be....well, you know what I mean! I would need more information. For instance, did they only arrest Obama, or what? Who is heading the coup? Where is our National Guard, when we need them? Still in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran? Oh, I think I'm gonna be sick!

Yes my family has always owned guns.

Mostly collectors items,

I would use a gun to protect my family, I would not want to, but if someone broke into my house and attempted to hurt one of my children, shouldn't I have the right to defend my home and family?

I am all for regulation, taking the right aways from covicted criminals, but we can't just give up our rights to bare arms.

1. No, and I never will.

2. Nothing.

3. One girl who lives on the other side of the country isn't going to have that much say in it!

First of all, there was no "change" in the Second Amendment, it was just made official for the anti-gun idiots. Second, if there was some sort of government overthrow and that Democrat p**** was the president I would Get my guns and lend a hand to make sure his a** never came back. Hypothetically.