One of the prime, if not the prime, purposes behind the Second Amendent was to provide American citizens a defense against their government becoming a tyrannical monster similar to the one the Founding Fathers just revolted against. This purpose is well upheld and explained by those individuals responsible for our country and its Constitution:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
- Noah Webster“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
- Tenche Coxe“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
- Patrick Henry“… of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms…. If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.”
- James Monroe
These days, many people on all sides of the fence would argue that civilians armed with light arms would stand no chance against militaries equipped with tanks, aircraft, cruise missiles, and all the rest of modern warfare technology. However, some people have gone before us into battles just as unbalanced, and come out victorious:
Why do I Fight for 2A Rights?
Communism. I’ve seen it, I’ve lived it. I will hate it until the end of my life.
Most of you here say guns in the hands of people can defeat tyrants. Regardless of what you may hear from naysayers and firearms “hobbyists” who will tell you AR’s and AK’s in civilian hands are no match for tanks and machine guns (I remember one such hobbyist posting this here on Calguns), I come before you to tell you that what you believe to be true it is true: on December 22nd 1989 me and thousands of my compatriots we did just that.
We took up arms from the police forces who deserted their units, broke into the Patriotic Guards arms caches (some sort of communist reserve force), joined forces with a few Army units that refused to obey the order to fire upon the civilian population, kicked Ceausescu out of his palace and on Christmas Day 1989 shoot the bastard and his wife dead.
–Calgunner .454
I will freely admit that I had no idea who “Ceausescu” was, but a quick Google search answered my question:
Voters “elect” Ceausescu president of the republic in March. He further tightens his control of government by placing trusted allies and members of his immediate family, including his wife, three brothers, a son, and a brother-in-law, in strategic party and government posts – a policy that comes to be known in the West as “dynastic socialism.”
Meanwhile, Ceausescu’s personality cult is increasingly boosted by the state-controlled media, which lionises him as the greatest genius of the age, the ‘Genius of the Carpathians’, the ‘Danube of Thought’, the “guarantor of the nation’s progress and independence”, the “visionary architect of the nation’s future.” His presidency is described as the “golden era of Ceausescu.”
However, while the first years of Ceausescu’s reign do see a continuation of the spectacular levels of industrial development achieved under the Stalinist programs adopted by Gheorghiu-Dej, overcapitalisation and economic mismanagement leave the country with excess production capacity and a mounting foreign debt at a time when world market prices for industrial products are experiencing a downturn.
…
With the country now firmly in the grip of a balance-of-payments crisis Ceausescu introduces a rigorous austerity program to pay off the accumulated foreign debt within a decade. Most of the country’s produce is exported, causing further shortages of food, fuel and other essentials at home.
The standard of living plunges. But while most Romanians are needlessly starving, cold and living in the dark, Ceausescu and his family continue to be surrounded by comfort and privilege. One dissident estimates that at least 15,000 Romanians die per year as a result of the austerity program.
US Secretary of State George Shultz claims that Romania has “possibly the worst” human rights record in Eastern Europe.
…
Ceausescu is now the head of state, the head of the Communist Party, the head of the armed forces, chairman of the Supreme Council for Economic and Social Development, president of the National Council of Working People, and chairman of the Socialist Democracy and Unity Front.
To strengthen his control and keep any potential rivals off-balance party members are constantly rotated through the government’s key ministries. At the same time, at least 27 of Ceausescu’s close relatives now hold top party and state posts, acting as his trusted eyes and ears.
While communist regimes elsewhere in Eastern Europe are falling, Ceausescu refuses to loosen his grip. His goal of clearing the country’s foreign debt is achieved during the year but the high social cost will precipitate his downfall.
…
On 16 December antigovernment demonstrations begin to break out in Timisoara in the west of Romania. The next day, as large numbers of protesters march on the Communist Party headquarters in the city, Ceausescu orders his security forces to fire on the crowd. Up to 4,000 die during the days of conflict that follow. The ‘Revolution of Timisoara’ ends on 20 December when the demonstrators take control of the city, aided by army defectors.
The demonstrations spread to Bucharest. On 21 December 80,000 to 100,000 people gather outside the headquarters of the Communist Party in Republican Square in a mass rally organised by the party in support of Ceausescu and broadcast on national television.
However, as Ceausescu speaks to the crowd from the balcony of the building, he is shouted down by chants such as “Timisoara”, “Down with the murderers”, “Down with the dictatorship”, “Romanians awake”, and “We are ready to die.” The television broadcast is stopped, but not before images of a visibly shaken Ceausescu are aired.
Ceausescu retreats inside the party headquarters. Outside the number of demonstrators converging on the square grows throughout the night. It is reported that the minister for defence, General Vasile Milea, is summarily executed after he refuses to obey Ceausescu’s directive and order his troops to fire on the crowd.
The army sides with the demonstrators on 22 December. Ceausescu makes a final attempt to address the crowd, but seeing that situation is now out of his control he flees the capital with his wife, boarding his personal helicopter from the roof of the party headquarters building.
Several hours later the Ceausescus are captured at Cîmpulung, about 100 km northwest of Bucharest, and returned to a secret location in Bucharest.
…
On 25 December the Ceausescus are tried by a special military tribunal and convicted on charges of mass murder and other crimes. The sentence is death. Ceausescu and his wife are executed by firing squad shortly after the sentence is handed down. They are buried at an undisclosed location. After footage of their dead bodies is broadcast on national television the remaining resistance to the regime change quickly falls away.
Those are just the “high” points I picked out of the article in a quick skim-through – read the whole thing.
So no, one armed civilian against a military detachment probably does not stand a whole lot of chance (unless he is John McClane). However, a few thousand/million? Then the tables level, if not outright turn. The power of the American government resides with the people, and so long as the Second Amendment exists and is observed, so shall it remain.
(Courtesy of RNS.)
I’ll table the discussion about whether it is possible, or likely or anything else. Fact of the matter is it is our right to have the tools at hand to try. The possibility of success in that hypothetical scenario is not relevant.
People with minority political views that have zero chance of being represented don’t lose their freedom of speech because it is unlikely to have an effect. Same thing here.
There are no obsolete weapons…only obsolete tactics & strategies.
Linoge,
I realize there are 20th centuries examples of tyrannies that have arranged to have the people disarmed and then did their bad business, but do you really think that is a possibility in the 21st century USA?
I don’t believe they will take our guns away,but to take everything else away first. Limit the amount of ammo,the size of the magazine , spare parts…stuff like that will happen first.
This way we will not have the ability to fight back due to effective limitations.
Dave – I completely agree, I just wanted to point out, to those who would believe otherwise, that armed civilians can and have overcome superior military forces, even in the recent past.
MikeB – Do I think that there will be sweeping legislation banning any and all firearms in America in one fell swoop? No. Do I think that the government (especially the current government, under the most anti-gun President in history) will do its best to nip and nibble and snipe away at various aspects of firearm ownership, like what Michael suggests? Absolutely. And every last one of those small infractions will be under the guise of “reasonable legislation”, “common-sense controls”, and other such buzzwords/phrases that people like you are so fond of misusing.
Mature governments exist to do one thing, and one thing only – control their people. Firearms only allow for so much control, and thus run contrary to the purpose of mature governments. You do the math.
Of course, you have already admitted to being incapable of accurately determining facts, so I might just have to spell the situation out for you… and you still probably will not get it.
Pistolero – Very accurate, that. Despite being outnumbered and armed with equipment that was, at best, equivalent to that the British used, our forefathers were able to beat back an occupying force due to the use of revolutionary (harhar) tactics and strategies (namely, not lining up across the field from the other guy and exchanging volleys).
He’s a Fabian, small-s socialist who sees getting his machine up and running in an incremental way – but once up and running with all its bits in place, command-and-control of the financial side including insurance, industries at his beck and call, and ACORN ensuring that the votes fall where they need to – oh what a sight it will be.
Examples of tyrannies disarming people in order to effect complete compliance goes way back before the 20th Century.
Hell, every tyranny in history has had to disarm their subjects in order to ensure their success, and those that did not do so have failed miserably (see American Revolution).
I will certainly admit that our glorious President seems to be taking things a little slow these days, but only an idiot will believe that pace will hold for the entire four years.