Where and why would YOU put limits on RKBA?

[Mitch]

I was aware of the Bonus Army before posting my opinion and the circumstances were certainly unique. In truth, I think the circumstances were so unique as to be inapplicable as an example of what the military would do in the face of popular uprising against a tyrannical government.

What was so unique about the Bonus Army? Or Kent State? That's exactly how a popular uprising would begin.

Reminder: the military is there to protect the government. In the history of the US, going all the way back to the Shays Rebellion, there is nothing to indicate the contrary.

[kcbrown]

On the topic of whether or not heavy weaponry would be needed to overthrow a tyrannical government, realize that perhaps 10% of the American population at the time actually fought in the American Revolution. They probably had broad support from the rest but I don't know if there's any information that would say just how much support they actually had. I expect a relatively large number of people sat on the sidelines, but times were different then and perhaps the people were, too.

I agree that the preferred order is soap box, ballot box, and ammo box, but if it were always true that the first two were sufficient then we almost certainly wouldn't even have a 2nd Amendment. Remember that the enumeration of rights in the Constitution in no way implies that those are all we have, so the fact that the 2nd Amendment exists at all is proof that the founders thought that particular right to be of very high importance, more important than most others. And I guarantee they didn't have self defense in mind when they wrote it, either: the Constitution was written explicitly for the purpose of laying out the relationship between the people and the government.

So it should be clear that the ability of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government by force of arms is a necessary ability, because lacking that, the people ultimately become slaves to the government at the point where that government simply decides to ignore the soap and ballot boxes. And history has repeatedly shown this to be true. Even now, the government grows ever bolder in its willingness to ignore the wishes of the people. No government that was in the least responsive to the people would have passed the bank bailouts with the people in opposition to it in the hundreds to one range.


So in the end, I don't think we can simply ignore the need for the people to be able to toss the government out by force of arms just because it would require weapons that are "too powerful" for our own personal comfort.

Solving this particular conflict of interests is precisely why I posed the question. In our pursuit of the RKBA, we need to understand why we do it, because that will surely shape our efforts in the years ahead.

[rolo]

The military is there to protect the country from all enemies of the constitution, foreign or domestic.

If you want to see an example of what happens today in circumstances similar to what happened at Kent State, look at the WTO protests in Seattle and the way it was handled. Kent State has turned into something it wasn't in the popular press.

The Bonus Army was viewed as mutiny as it was SOLELY about pay. Posse Comitatus didn't apply since it was in D.C. and McArthur probably should have been brought up on treason charges because he defied a direct order from the president to stand down. The Bonus Army wasn't standing up against a corrupt government, they were trying to mature their contracts YEARS ahead of time. A crappy situation to be sure, but it isn't a good example.

[Hopi]

Edit: I also think Kent State and Waco aren't representative of what a popular uprising would look like either.

I offered those examples as contexts for reactive responses against what you termed 'tyrannical government'. Opposition is not always proactive.

[rolo]

kcbrown, I think it's an excellent thought experiment and very important for people to think about. I just think that there is a slight undercurrent of Hollywood style fantasy flowing through peoples minds when they think about overthrowing government.

[Mitch]

The Bonus Army was viewed as mutiny as it was SOLELY about pay. Posse Comitatus didn't apply since it was in D.C. and McArthur probably should have been brought up on treason charges because he defied a direct order from the president to stand down. The Bonus Army wasn't standing up against a corrupt government, they were trying to mature their contracts YEARS ahead of time. A crappy situation to be sure, but it isn't a good example.

It's an excellent example. It's an example of a military commander crushing a popular rebellion under his own authority.

Who cares whether it was about pay. It was a threat to the government.

These examples, Kent State and and the Bonus Army, are precisely how popular rebellions start. Read up on the revolutions of 1848 for some more examples.

If that happens again in the US it will be crushed by the US military.

[rolo]

Mitch, I care that it was about pay. The constitutionality of an uprising is directly proportional to its righteousness. The Bonus Army wasn't protesting the infringement of natural rights or a compromise of constitutionally sound ideals.

Kent State started out with riots and looting. Banks were being robbed and downtown was in flames. It was VERY similar to the scale of the WTO protests. A sophomoric response from the government turned it into tragedy, but they've learned a lot. When was the last time we had a Kent State type action?

If what happens again, you've provided disparate examples that have little in common, will the military get involved on US soil?

I'm not being obtuse or combative, I am genuinely interested in understanding your position.

[kcbrown]

kcbrown, I think it's an excellent thought experiment and very important for people to think about. I just think that there is a slight undercurrent of Hollywood style fantasy flowing through peoples minds when they think about overthrowing government.

Yeah, no doubt about that.

Some people probably think an armed rebellion would be relatively clean. The reality is that it probably wouldn't be. Chances are high, actually, that it would turn into a civil war, because the idea of a Constitutionally limited government has largely been turned on its head and a lot of people now depend on the government functioning (for lack of a better term) the way it does today.


But that discussion is probably best had in a different thread...

[Mitch]

If what happens again, you've provided disparate examples that have little in common, will the military get involved on US soil?

Yes they will.

As others have pointed out in this thread, uprisings against the government will be messy. They always are. They will be accompanied by breakdowns in civil order. Kent State and the Bonus Army are perfect examples. Someone mentioned Waco; that's a good example too.

The US populace is fat, happy, outgunned and cowed. Conditions here will have to get very very bad for the people to get up from in front of American Idol and take up arms against the government.

When they do that, the US military will be on hand to shoot them down.

[dustoff31]

You should be able to own any weapon in common use by members of any law enforcement or military organization in the world.

This includes all pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, SMGs, RPG and 'Bazzookas', shoulder-fired missles, etc.

The ownership of tanks, field artillery and military aircraft should be widely "allowed", with minimal restrictions ... about as much trouble as buying a shotgun in California.

It's interesting how many people do not realize that the in most places the ownership of these things is widely allowed. Although a little more difficult than buying a shotgun. It's a matter of cost rather than prohibition.

How many know that many artillery pieces and antitank guns are classed as C&R's and FFL03 holders can have them delivered to your home? (in free America)

Nukes and biologicals are just completely off-the-chart.

I agree. Historically, the RKBA has been construed to apply to weapons in common usage. Nukes are certainly not in common ownership much less common usage.

The vast majority of countries/governments in the world do not even own them. And a Nuke hasn't been used in over 60 years. That seems quite uncommon to me.

[dustoff31]

kcbrown, I think it's an excellent thought experiment and very important for people to think about. I just think that there is a slight great deal of undercurrent of Hollywood style fantasy flowing through peoples minds when they think about overthrowing government.

OK, I'm with you now.

[rolo]

Yes they will.

I phrased my question to you poorly. If WHAT happens again?

We've had Kent State type riots; Seattle, S.F. Lost Angeles, did the military start shooting? Nope, the military was only involved in ONE of those and it was proper use of the National Guard.

Waco was a federal law enforcement issue, NOT a military response.

Your views of these incidents are colored by something and I don't know what it is. I'd really like to understand why you think the way you do, but I don't think you can explain it to my satisfaction since it doesn't seem to be articulatable.

[kcbrown]

The military is there to protect the country from all enemies of the constitution, foreign or domestic.

Yes, but the problem is: at what point does it become obvious even to the military that the government is no longer Constitutional? One would hope that the citizenry being up in arms would be a powerful clue.

One can make some powerful arguments that it isn't Constitutional now. There is considerable debate about that, and opinions range very widely on the subject.

Ultimately, the military is composed of people who have their own opinions and beliefs, but they are constrained by military doctrine in terms of what they may "legally" do about that. Many will argue that any person in the military may "legally" disobey an unconstitutional order, but that has been almost entirely academic thus far. The real question is: what will people do when they are actually given an order that they should rightly believe is unconstitutional?

We can only hope that they will choose to disobey. The role of military organizations in other countries around the world, particularly those countries that have tyrannical governments, doesn't inspire confidence. It is all too easy to think of the citizenry as "the enemy", and in fact we often see that in our own police forces, who are also sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution!


The bottom line is that there is no substitute for a properly armed citizenry when it comes to keeping the government at bay, no matter what LEOs and military personnel have sworn to do or not do -- those people work for the government and will act on what they know, which is going to be largely what they've been told by the government.

[fullrearview]

Anyone should be able to own any single type of firearm they wish. The only limits imposed should be on weapons that are explosive on a large scale (he grenade or bigger).

Agreed! The only law I want that is new, is a 30 year minimum for felons who have possession.

[Mitch]

My position is very simple and easy to articulate. Every standing army since the beginning of history has been on hand to protect the government. Ours is no different.

Usually governments fall to rebellion only when most or all of the standing army joins the rebellion.

I personally don't envision an armed rebellion in the US. If there is, it will be repulsed by the National Guard/Army (the Posse Comitatus Act essentially has no meaning any longer). Since the US population is, for all intents and purposes, unarmed in the face of a modern military equipped with jet fighters, bombers, artillery, cruise missiles as well as the most modern and effective small arms, the only way any rebellion will stand a chance in this country is if it is accompanied by mutinies within the standing military.

My radical position on the right to bear arms is a philosophical one. I literally don't care what kind of weapons law-abiding people possess.

As I said, it's that simple.