Why is everyone so afraid of "second amendment remedies"?

Well, why I have my own disappointments with both our current federal government and the direction it has been taking over the last 80 years or so I would be interested in you naming three of the "basic human rights" you are being denied that would justify an armed rebellion.

@ Mark. You are missing a key point here in the US tradition. Rights were not granted by government, in the eyes of the authors of the Constitution, but rather granted by something higher. One view was they were granted by a Creator, another view was they were granted by "nature". In other words, no matter what any government ruled, the rights existed independent of that ruling. Let's put it this way. Our government at one time ruled that African races did not have the "right" to not be owned as slaves. Did they not have that right due to our government ruling so, or did they really have the right, just not the power to enforce it due to our government not making the correct judgement? You can side with the group that would say black people only have the right not to be owned as slaves as long as the government rules that way if you want to, I choose to side with the group that would say black people have the right to the same freedom as people of other colors because they are endowed with that right by "nature" or "their Creator". But we are all entitled to our own opinion.

You ail to understand the second amendment.

The right to keep arms is the right to own weapons so the militia will have a ready supply of weapons when the govt needs to be taken down by the well regulated militia.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia so the militia will have a ready supply of personnel to use these weapons so the militia can take down the govt.

Nowhere in the history of the amendment does it say it is about personal self defence, nowhere does it say you can form your own militia to take over the govt. In fact the founders want to avoid the latter because it would lead to people taking control and doing what they wanted.

Self defence exists as a right, but not from the 2A. The 2A does not protect any right to hunt, to carry and conceal, to self defence. Just because it say arms, does not mean anything is protected to do with guns. You don't assume that gun murder is protected, so why gun hunting and gun self defence.

Self defence can take place without a gun you know!!!

I have to laugh when people talk like this.

A thousand people like you could be wiped out in a matter of minutes by the government. Kidding yourselves that you could overthrow the US government with your rifles and handguns is living in a fantasyland.

At the time that the Constitution was written, citizens COULD fight the government with their own weapons, because with a few exceptions the government HAD the same weapons. Nowadays, your weapons might cause a small inconvenience, but they and you would not last long.

I always roll my eyes up seeing rants like this. One of my reasons for saying so is that I have absolutely no idea at all what you mean by your claim of "basic human rights."

We have three branches of government, one of which is solely dedicated to resolving legal disputes about what your rights are and whether they have been violated. If you can't get the courts to protect what you claim to be your rights, then I am absolutely supportive of "the government" and its authority to punish you for violating its laws.

I said it once this way to someone: Suppose your state legislature passed a law banning all guns. Your Governor signed the law, and even though someone in the state challenged that law in court to argue that it was unconstitutional, the courts disagreed with the claim and upheld the law. So all three branches of your government violated your rights, in your view. As far as I'M concerned, that means you do NOT "have" the right to carry a gun. So then, when a police officer came to you to confiscate your gun, and you decided that you will defy all three branches of the government and shoot the officer to defend your "right," what do you suppose will happen next? My answer is that you'd better get arrested and charged with first degree murder and you deserve the same fate as Timothy McVeigh.

Bottom line is, the number of responsible, law abiding gun owners far exceeds the law breaking ones. they should not be punished for someone else's actions.

No complaints from me. The second amendment is there for a reason. Good day sir.

JW B, I'd rather die on my feet than on my knees. Freedom isn't worth having if you aren't willing to die for it. That's the difference between "people like me" and people like you. I think he's also referring to the fact that the military is divided and citizenry comes into play to overthrow the corruption.

if the police refused to do their job, they would be fired. so we don't need to get into all of this "what if" stuff.

Excellent! To the point and well said.

This situation is so incredibly unlikely, it is actually sort of funny.