I think people are missing a major component of an armed uprising. You state it's too protect the country from a tyrannical government. Your missing the part where once armed resistance is necessary, it's already too late. The country your "defending" is already gone. Thus the reason for armed conflict. Anything created after the conflict is no longer the country it was before hand. Look at our own civil war. If you want to protect the country, then vote in the right people.
R3v3n, what exactly would you define as tyranny? Would slavery fall in there, or Jim crow, or the genocide, relocation and stripping of freedoms of the native americans? How bout not allowing LGBTQ people the same rights as others? Or how bout ignoring the 14th amendment, which states people seeking asylum are granted due process regardless of citizenship? Or creating a special protected class based on religious beliefs, i.e. "religious freedom" bill's?
The point is tyranny is subjective to which side your on. You happily ignore, and advocate for tyranny as long as it's directed at the "other". Only taking issue when said tyranny comes to your door.
You also started making the argument that the average citizen could be considered part of "a well regulated militia". In that case, the government isn't infringing on any right by banning or outlawing certain weapons. It's doing exactly what the 2a calls for, "regulating the militia". You just don't like what they regulate, basically screaming like a child cause they took your toys away. And then threatening violence because of it. (Not a personal attack, just an analogy) Again this can all be avoided by simply voting.
R3v3n, what exactly would you define as tyranny? Would slavery fall in there, or Jim crow, or the genocide, relocation and stripping of freedoms of the native americans? How bout not allowing LGBTQ people the same rights as others? Or how bout ignoring the 14th amendment, which states people seeking asylum are granted due process regardless of citizenship? Or creating a special protected class based on religious beliefs, i.e. "religious freedom" bill's?
The point is tyranny is subjective to which side your on. You happily ignore, and advocate for tyranny as long as it's directed at the "other". Only taking issue when said tyranny comes to your door.
You also started making the argument that the average citizen could be considered part of "a well regulated militia". In that case, the government isn't infringing on any right by banning or outlawing certain weapons. It's doing exactly what the 2a calls for, "regulating the militia". You just don't like what they regulate, basically screaming like a child cause they took your toys away. And then threatening violence because of it. (Not a personal attack, just an analogy) Again this can all be avoided by simply voting.
Comment