> the rationale of the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution becomes clear
About the one thing this situation does not need is armed randos taking matters into their own hands. Currently, Seoul is in a constitutional crisis. The President is required to lift martial law. He has not yet done so. If people on the streets started shooting at each other, he'd have legitimate reason to send in the military. Korea's lack of a 2nd Amendment is one of the things keeping this constitutional crisis from what would have been the stupidest civil war of the millenium.
GP was responding to a hypothetical situation where the military does not care about the law and supports the president unconditionally. In this situation does the 2nd amendment make sense?
No, because by resisting at all you are already criminal, so why does it matter that you are legally allowed to own firearms when 2A supporters insist that banning firearms does not limit access to firearms?
A tyrannical state will not care that you are "legally" allowed to own firearms, and rebels do not get rights.
Also, I'll believe the claim that 2A is to prevent tyranny when I see it, because most of the time when you ask someone who supports the 2nd amendment about slave revolts, you tend to find out how little they care about "tyranny"
Consider the context into which the amendment was written; a very bloody war between Crown loyalists and separatists (all British subjects, mind you) had just been completed. The idea of a United States citizen was still a dream. That individuals owned and operated their own weapons was the sole reason the separatists won.
I'll point to a more recent example: the Los Angeles riots in 1992. Koreatown was protected by gun toting citizens, literally fending off the mob. (Whether we categorize the mobs as tyrannical is more pedantic than anything else, the men with weapons maintained their agency because of the threat of lethal force. Guns against a government yield the same end, maintaining agency when others may try to take it from you.)
Maybe when weapons were more limited in destruction. But, now the government has weaponry supremacy, and I don’t think you would want anybody to have access to artillery, fighter jets, etc.
The second amendment refers to a well-organized militia (which requires the average person to be able to own guns), not individuals taking things into their own hands.
I have bad news for you about which side of things a lot of the 2nd amendment fans are gonna be on if this comes to the US.
The history with actual cases of private arms being used to support or to resist government tyranny in the US can be generously described as "mixed".
It's also telling that so many instances like that, in the US and elsewhere, start with "... and then the good guys (or sometimes bad guys) seized a barely-guarded state armory". It's debatable how relevant private arms are to the resistance of tyranny anyway.
Foreign occupations are a whole other matter. When the call's coming from inside the house, plenty of your fellow "freedom-lovers" are helpfully using their liberty to liberate you from your liberty.
I always find it hilarious that people think the second amendment would matter much in a US civil war (or whatever internal conflict you want to imagine).
If the US military is united behind one group then that's that. If the US military is divided, then god help us caught in the middle.
Yeah, a non-divided military + police usually means a very short and decisive civil war, in observable modern cases. The exceptions tend to involve a divided armed forces, or extensive foreign interference on behalf of the rebels (see: Syria).
For some reason, folks like to cite US foreign intervention failures as proof motivated locals with rifles can beat the US military, but that's not really the right thing to look at, as a bunch of things about those situations are materially different from a civil war (plus there is in every case a ton more to the resistance's armament and materiel than some guys taking their old AKs out of the closet, dusting them off, and digging into their prepper-crates of MREs)
Consider insurgency as a possible way a civil war would play out. Asymmetrical wars (or Small Wars) are very hard for conventional armies to fight. And even harder to win.
Also what good are small arms against a government with tanks, fighter jets, drones, cluster bombs, napalm, attack helicopters, cruise missiles etc. Good luck with your AR15 :P
No it doesn't. People out in the streets brandishing their guns would only make the situation worse, not better. It's also worth noting that the 2nd Amendment didn't prevent a January 6 either.
A more interesting take is that 2nd didn't make it suceed. The protesters very well knew it would have been pointless to bring guns to a figher jet fight.
The 2nd amendment was added because the founding fathers didn't want a federal military. Instead, they wanted every state to have its own militia [1]. The interpretation that it means every private citizen can own a gun is modern not historic. It wasn't until the 2008 DC V Heller case that the right to firearms was actually established.
Absolutely incorrect. The state militias consisted of private citizens with their own arms who would organize when needed, not standing state armies with government issued arms.
Also, private gun ownership was the norm at the time.
Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy
> The state militias consisted of private citizens with their own arms who would organize when needed
The founders, in 1808, appropriated funding for arms to state militias. [1]. Previously the arming of militias was up to the individual states. Some would have chosen to just have private citizens bring their own arms. Others would have actually set aside a fund to bring those arms.
And that's blatantly apparent when you think about the wars fought after the revolution. Cannons had to come from somewhere and you'd not expect a private citizen to have procured one.
That was, in fact, one of the reasons George Washington disliked the idea of militias, because you'd be arming untrained and undisciplined citizens with weapons they'd never used before and expect them to somehow know how to operate them.
> To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows ... if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter. -- George Washington
Of course. Private ownership itself is just explanation of the historical context, not proof that the right existed.
Having read Heller, the various drafts of the Bill of Rights, and some of the correspondence, I don't think anyone that has done the same can make an honest originalist argument against the private right.
In particular, I think the linguistic argument about militias relies on a neologistic definition that is particularly misleading.
People can make valid living constitution arguments against the second amendment all day and all night, but these seem particularly out of favor. I think this, more than anything else explains the Heller decision in 2008
> Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy
The "reality" in this sentence here is pretty solidly not accurate. The majority opinion in Heller asserted truths about the past that aren't born out by the historical record. Probably lifted straight from interest-group amicus briefs that agreed with what the majority was inclined to decide to begin with.
[EDIT] Whoops. I mean, that the above is often true in cases that cite history, even legal history, means it might still be true, but I was actually thinking of Bruen, where this happened to a degree that'd be comical if it weren't, you know, the Supreme Court.
