Only when the Constitution doesn’t matter anymore.
Like, it’s axiomatic. The Constitution draws its authority from the consent of the governed. If the governed still consent to the existing government, efforts to overthrown it are invalid. If the governed do not consent to the government, the Constitution isn’t valid any more.
Justied how, it will never be legal to rebel against the government regardless of how tyrannical they get. Morally justifiable is an individual line everyone has to decide for themselves.
individually/antu-tyranny movement-wise, whenever the people decide it is.
legally, it won’t ever be, until the uprising wins.
those in power aren’t going to say “yep, we’re tyrants, so you uprising against us is justified”, right. they’re the ones that dictate what the laws are, and which ones are enforced and how. they’re the ones who say what is or isn’t justified, because they’re the ones in control of the violent uniformed thugs that enforce what laws they’re told to.
once the uprising succeeds in overthrowing the tyranny, then they’re in charge of deciding those things, and can declare it justified.
Armed rebellion against the government is always illegal. The founding fathers were committing treason against Great Britain. If they’d lost, they would all have been hanged (if not drawn and quartered).
If you think armed rebellion against the U.S. government is justified, you can certainly try it. But you will be a traitor in the eyes of the government you are opposing. You must be prepared to die a traitor’s death. Unless you win.
Note here that I said rebellion is always illegal. That it is illegal has no bearing on whether it is or is not justified. Law and Justice are different things.
Rebellion will never be legal. No government provides for the means of its own destruction. There are no universal criteria for “justified”. You either win or you don’t. If you win it was justified.
Essentially, it’s always valid. Because the point that it’s necessary isn’t some hard line in the sand that when crossed everyone knows its go time. And we can’t know for sure when actions taken in the name of freedom and against tyranny will be viewed as fully justified. It basically boils down to society agreeing that drastic actions taken in the name of freedom were necessary even though fall outside the boundaries of the law.
The real point of the 2nd amendment is to make sure that people have the tools and hopefully experience with those tools so that if it’s ever needed they’ll be ready.
If there’s a rebellion and it fails, everyone who participated is a traitor and goes to jail if they survive. If the rebellion is successful then it really doesn’t matter what the law says anymore because it will be rewritten.
The point of the 2nd amendment is to make such a rebellion easier to carry out and, at least in theory have a government that fears it’s own people so that we never have to resort to such extremes.
My understanding is that you rebel against the government for as long as the government gives you the option to change it through peaceful means. So as long as we hold elections it is a big no no
The 2nd Amendment was created so that people would be armed if the government wanted to raise a militia to defend the country. It is a common lie that it was intended to defend against our government. Militias and how they are formed are even defined in the constitution.
Okay, so it gets a little confusing, but I’ll do my best to explain.
If you’re using a gun to extract a tiny little bit of justice in a system completely captured and ruled by an unelected and unaccountable corporate class; you know, like shooting an insurance company CEO, then the second amendment offers no protection.
If you want to take a shit in the Capital Building, or gun down a bunch of first graders, then the second amendment will protect you.
From my understanding (and someone can correct me if I’m wrong), the 2nd Amendment was meant to allow States to create their own security forces (i.e. Militias back then, now it’s Police Agencies and State/National Guard) that is not controlled by the Federal government or US President during peace-time (i.e. when the USA is not being invaded). Remember, Militias back then were used to fighting off Native Americans and crushing slave revolts. It makes me wonder if one of the reasons why our Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was so that they didn’t have to be directly involved in giving out orders to do controversial violent stuff involved in maintaining security.
In terms of justifications, it all depends on how many people are willing to fight and die against something they think is tyrannical and only if they win, will history judge that fight to be justified.
If someone comes to detain you with no probable cause, then ship you to a slave prison in El Salvador with no due process, where you’ll receive no 8th amendment protections and lose any and all ability to appeal or ever be released, you likely have as much if not more moral and natural justification to use deadly force against the person/people trying to do that as the founding fathers of the revolutionary era had to use violence against the British empire because they felt the taxes were exploitatitve.
It would never be? The second amendment allows you to have firearms, not to use them. If you are defending yourself against tyranny, you better hope you win.
once blatant door to door gun grabs take place , or when mass execution happens or when masses are being placed or prepared to be placed into work camps of some kind .
For those of you arguing the militia angle, read up on history. Letters from the founding fathers and other notes they wrote quite explicitly state that the reason they put the 2nd amendment in there was to make sure the citizens would have the means to overthrow the government once it inevitably became tyrannical. They had just gone through it and knew it would eventually happen again.
If you agree with that statement but want to argue that no one could fight the US Army and win, I would like to point out Vietnam and Afghanistan for your next look back at history. The US has never won against an insurgency. And in those cases the army wasn’t even fighting its own countrymen who they might likely even agree with.
I won’t put a dog in this fight, but please discuss facts.
Legally? Never. Any government that is lax enough to shrug and allow armed insurrection against it is effectively by definition not tyrannical. The US has certainly never even suggested that the second amendment allows you to use your arms against the government.
Morally? You don’t need the second amendment or any law to morally justify opposition to tyranny. When is a personal moral decision that should respect no law.
That really isn’t why the 2nd amendment exists, despite what the “patriots” will tell you.
It exists because, at the time of the writing, it was considered tyrannical to have a standing federal army in peacetime, and they wanted to have a readily-deployable body of men to call up on short notice, thus the clause refering to “well-regulated militia”.
No constitution for any country is written in such a way to allow for it’s own violent overthrow.
the second amendment has nothing to do with tyranny. “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.” … nothing there about tyranny. defense against a tyrannical government has been used as a justification for it, but the text doesn’t mention it at all. the closest it comes is allowing the people to be armed, presumably so they could be levied as a militia in defense of the State
When the number of unassimilated/ hostile foreigners threatens the Host Populations. The Native Americans, despite not being a unified polity, but rather many tribes of diverse culture and alignment, are still a good testament to this reality.
So, as others have stated, it will never be legally justified. You take up arms against the government, you’d better win or you’ll die. Full stop.
Therefore, if you’re looking for moral justification, think about that from which the law gains its own justification – the will of the governed. Therefore an armed rebellion could only be POSSIBLY be justified when a majority of citizenry would support it.
More realistically, your justification comes from the following equation. If X is the minimum number of people willing and able to take up arms that is necessary to defeat the US government in combat, then moral justification only becomes possible at X+1
If you think for 1 second that Republicans would hesitate to use force against Americans, you are mistaken. Everything that has happened thus far, including the disappearing of people who have legal rights to be in Ametica, has happened because the Republucans allow it. They could stop all this at any time but lack the courage to do so. They are just a step or so away from the point of no return, and I see only a few Democrats speaking against it. Republicans know that given what has happened, they have to stick with Trump or lose their personal power. They don’t work for the electorate. They work for the man who demands them to replace their Americsn flag on their lapel to a gold coated bust of Trump to show true loyalty.
I expect this post will be up for about another half an hour before it’s taken down by the mods.
Reddit, now being a publicly traded company, has enacted policies that focus on meeting shareholder needs for profitability rather than providing for user freedom in discussion of government, especially when that discussion relates to challenging the State, and even more so if it can be linked in any way, at any depth of reading between the lines, by mods, and which will result in a ban without recourse.
These are important conversations to have, but please be careful.
It is better to have these kinds of conversations in person with like minded individuals.
Just to be clear the time to rise up is sooner rather than later. Once they start kidnapping and sending citizens to El Salvador it’s go time. If you wait months or years hoping for a mass group to be part of and blend into, your gonna be too late.
Comments
the 2nd ammendment does not give you any rights about USING your firearms
you can have them all you want
Only when you win.
Only in order to maintain a state militia.
Only when the Constitution doesn’t matter anymore.
Like, it’s axiomatic. The Constitution draws its authority from the consent of the governed. If the governed still consent to the existing government, efforts to overthrown it are invalid. If the governed do not consent to the government, the Constitution isn’t valid any more.
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.
This is the Second Amendment. It’s mostly about having a militia since the founding fathers didn’t want a standing army.
Always and never.
If it comes to that point, it’s effectively the constitution ripping itself up
Justied how, it will never be legal to rebel against the government regardless of how tyrannical they get. Morally justifiable is an individual line everyone has to decide for themselves.
The second amendment is always justified
individually/antu-tyranny movement-wise, whenever the people decide it is.
legally, it won’t ever be, until the uprising wins.
those in power aren’t going to say “yep, we’re tyrants, so you uprising against us is justified”, right. they’re the ones that dictate what the laws are, and which ones are enforced and how. they’re the ones who say what is or isn’t justified, because they’re the ones in control of the violent uniformed thugs that enforce what laws they’re told to.
once the uprising succeeds in overthrowing the tyranny, then they’re in charge of deciding those things, and can declare it justified.
Armed rebellion against the government is always illegal. The founding fathers were committing treason against Great Britain. If they’d lost, they would all have been hanged (if not drawn and quartered).
If you think armed rebellion against the U.S. government is justified, you can certainly try it. But you will be a traitor in the eyes of the government you are opposing. You must be prepared to die a traitor’s death. Unless you win.
Note here that I said rebellion is always illegal. That it is illegal has no bearing on whether it is or is not justified. Law and Justice are different things.
Never. Inciting violence is never OK, according to reddit rules.
Rebellion will never be legal. No government provides for the means of its own destruction. There are no universal criteria for “justified”. You either win or you don’t. If you win it was justified.
thucydides said in 5th century bce
the strong will do what they can, while the weak suffer what they must
I’m pretty well convinced the Founding Fathers would have taken up arms years, if not decades ago.
In before the lock.
Tyrants are not likely to grant you such a right
We past it a couple weeks ago imo
Essentially, it’s always valid. Because the point that it’s necessary isn’t some hard line in the sand that when crossed everyone knows its go time. And we can’t know for sure when actions taken in the name of freedom and against tyranny will be viewed as fully justified. It basically boils down to society agreeing that drastic actions taken in the name of freedom were necessary even though fall outside the boundaries of the law.
The real point of the 2nd amendment is to make sure that people have the tools and hopefully experience with those tools so that if it’s ever needed they’ll be ready.
Guns are bad remember?
Now, honestly if I was an immigrant I would be armed and no faceless badge less hoodie brigade would be taking me alive.
That prison across the sea is a death camp, those people sent there will die. Our current government is evil.
If there’s a rebellion and it fails, everyone who participated is a traitor and goes to jail if they survive. If the rebellion is successful then it really doesn’t matter what the law says anymore because it will be rewritten.
The point of the 2nd amendment is to make such a rebellion easier to carry out and, at least in theory have a government that fears it’s own people so that we never have to resort to such extremes.
My understanding is that you rebel against the government for as long as the government gives you the option to change it through peaceful means. So as long as we hold elections it is a big no no
The 2nd Amendment was created so that people would be armed if the government wanted to raise a militia to defend the country. It is a common lie that it was intended to defend against our government. Militias and how they are formed are even defined in the constitution.
Literally never.
It was never meant for overthrowing the US government, as history has shown time and time again.
History is written by the winner, the winner decide if it was justified or not
Not sure how we’re ever going to compete against predator drones
Thats something only the people who would be picking up and using their guns on fellow Americans can answer.
Tyranny is defined in the Declaration of Independence.
Civil war
Brother, i will *not* be going to el salvador.
Okay, so it gets a little confusing, but I’ll do my best to explain.
If you’re using a gun to extract a tiny little bit of justice in a system completely captured and ruled by an unelected and unaccountable corporate class; you know, like shooting an insurance company CEO, then the second amendment offers no protection.
If you want to take a shit in the Capital Building, or gun down a bunch of first graders, then the second amendment will protect you.
Hope that clears things up.
From my understanding (and someone can correct me if I’m wrong), the 2nd Amendment was meant to allow States to create their own security forces (i.e. Militias back then, now it’s Police Agencies and State/National Guard) that is not controlled by the Federal government or US President during peace-time (i.e. when the USA is not being invaded). Remember, Militias back then were used to fighting off Native Americans and crushing slave revolts. It makes me wonder if one of the reasons why our Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was so that they didn’t have to be directly involved in giving out orders to do controversial violent stuff involved in maintaining security.
In terms of justifications, it all depends on how many people are willing to fight and die against something they think is tyrannical and only if they win, will history judge that fight to be justified.
When the people decide to
Literally never. It’s for the purpose of a militia being used by the government.
Many Americans believe the Luigi situation was justified. 🤷♀️
Probably now or around now.
If someone comes to detain you with no probable cause, then ship you to a slave prison in El Salvador with no due process, where you’ll receive no 8th amendment protections and lose any and all ability to appeal or ever be released, you likely have as much if not more moral and natural justification to use deadly force against the person/people trying to do that as the founding fathers of the revolutionary era had to use violence against the British empire because they felt the taxes were exploitatitve.
It would never be? The second amendment allows you to have firearms, not to use them. If you are defending yourself against tyranny, you better hope you win.
About two weeks ago
Maybe two or three weeks ago.
At any time the government infringes upon the rights of its citizens, and no peaceable means of reconciliation remain.
Attention everyone, respond with caution a FED wrote this question.
once blatant door to door gun grabs take place , or when mass execution happens or when masses are being placed or prepared to be placed into work camps of some kind .
Around July 4, 1776….
What’s the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?
Victory
For those of you arguing the militia angle, read up on history. Letters from the founding fathers and other notes they wrote quite explicitly state that the reason they put the 2nd amendment in there was to make sure the citizens would have the means to overthrow the government once it inevitably became tyrannical. They had just gone through it and knew it would eventually happen again.
If you agree with that statement but want to argue that no one could fight the US Army and win, I would like to point out Vietnam and Afghanistan for your next look back at history. The US has never won against an insurgency. And in those cases the army wasn’t even fighting its own countrymen who they might likely even agree with.
I won’t put a dog in this fight, but please discuss facts.
Depends. Is it being used against the party you voted for?
Thats terrorism
Is it being used against the party you didnt vote for?
Patriotism.
Legally? Never. Any government that is lax enough to shrug and allow armed insurrection against it is effectively by definition not tyrannical. The US has certainly never even suggested that the second amendment allows you to use your arms against the government.
Morally? You don’t need the second amendment or any law to morally justify opposition to tyranny. When is a personal moral decision that should respect no law.
The second amendment says nothing about tyranny, its stated purpose is the security of a free state.
Reddit will probably ban people who upvote this for promoting violence
Why can’t I read comments passed a certain point? I can’t scroll down and read anymore for some reason.
That really isn’t why the 2nd amendment exists, despite what the “patriots” will tell you.
It exists because, at the time of the writing, it was considered tyrannical to have a standing federal army in peacetime, and they wanted to have a readily-deployable body of men to call up on short notice, thus the clause refering to “well-regulated militia”.
No constitution for any country is written in such a way to allow for it’s own violent overthrow.
Merely exercising your 2nd amendment right is a revolutionary act in states that infringe upon it
You’re gonna have to fine Americans that aren’t completely domesticated and spineless first. Maybe some French will due.
When our military is sent away and UN troops land in the us as Peacekeepers. Any later than that point.. it too late.
Now
the second amendment has nothing to do with tyranny. “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.” … nothing there about tyranny. defense against a tyrannical government has been used as a justification for it, but the text doesn’t mention it at all. the closest it comes is allowing the people to be armed, presumably so they could be levied as a militia in defense of the State
Last January 21st.
When the number of unassimilated/ hostile foreigners threatens the Host Populations. The Native Americans, despite not being a unified polity, but rather many tribes of diverse culture and alignment, are still a good testament to this reality.
So, as others have stated, it will never be legally justified. You take up arms against the government, you’d better win or you’ll die. Full stop.
Therefore, if you’re looking for moral justification, think about that from which the law gains its own justification – the will of the governed. Therefore an armed rebellion could only be POSSIBLY be justified when a majority of citizenry would support it.
More realistically, your justification comes from the following equation. If X is the minimum number of people willing and able to take up arms that is necessary to defeat the US government in combat, then moral justification only becomes possible at X+1
TL;DR – probably not gonna happen
If you think for 1 second that Republicans would hesitate to use force against Americans, you are mistaken. Everything that has happened thus far, including the disappearing of people who have legal rights to be in Ametica, has happened because the Republucans allow it. They could stop all this at any time but lack the courage to do so. They are just a step or so away from the point of no return, and I see only a few Democrats speaking against it. Republicans know that given what has happened, they have to stick with Trump or lose their personal power. They don’t work for the electorate. They work for the man who demands them to replace their Americsn flag on their lapel to a gold coated bust of Trump to show true loyalty.
Since 2001
I expect this post will be up for about another half an hour before it’s taken down by the mods.
Reddit, now being a publicly traded company, has enacted policies that focus on meeting shareholder needs for profitability rather than providing for user freedom in discussion of government, especially when that discussion relates to challenging the State, and even more so if it can be linked in any way, at any depth of reading between the lines, by mods, and which will result in a ban without recourse.
These are important conversations to have, but please be careful.
It is better to have these kinds of conversations in person with like minded individuals.
If you win you are revolutionaries who deposed a tyrant
If you lose you were terrorist extremists fighting against democracy
Just to be clear the time to rise up is sooner rather than later. Once they start kidnapping and sending citizens to El Salvador it’s go time. If you wait months or years hoping for a mass group to be part of and blend into, your gonna be too late.