Quote:Well, this is interesting... so from your perspective you see the 2nd more as a collective right, in so much as it's main intention is to protect against federal tyranny. Would you say that is correct?


I see the 2nd I terms of individual rights to protect one's home, family, and person from criminals...


An argument can be made for the merits of both out points.


However, would not common sense and the reality of our standing military make your position impossible. Arms no longer are a viable means of protecting against a tyrannical US government.


Imagine if Dr. King decided he and Malcolm X would organize all African Americans and supporters of civil rights to pick up their arms to fight against segregation. It would be a blood bath.


In the 18th century, when arms of the government and the arms of the people were the same, the collective concept of the 2nd as the founders would perceive them, would be valid.


But as the standing army has held, and as the technology of professional warfare had exponentially advanced, this collective concept no longer has any true meaning.


While I appreciate your ideology, I just don't find the logic in it anymore. In fact, dr. King's approach to revolution and changing the course of a tyrannical government is the only modern way of creating effective change.


That's my view on it...

 

It's both an individual right and a collective right. The framers built into our founding document the empowerment of arming the public so that as whole if the time ever arose they would not be held hostage to a tyrannical government. As for the application of the 2nd Amendment in modern days the left will argue that no civilian resistance would ever match any modern military and that's a valid argument. However it's the core founding principle of a balanced populace and government that has held back the natural progression towards an all powerful state here longer than any where else in modern history. 

 

If the day ever arose that civilians found themselves in the need of defending themselves from the state, the state would eventually use the next level of force, modern weapons of such. And the civilian casualties would be horrendous, however the use of modern weapons against it's own population would lead to the regime changes that inspire any form of resistance to begin with. It always leads to a change of power when a government turns on it's people. 

 

The ideology that somehow we would be better served to limit our ability more to the state denies the reality that we need to be a counter balance to the state. I don't ever see a scenario where there will be any sore of physical uprising again.

 

I know my Mothers family wished they had the same rights in Columbia as we do here, when their government and the Catholic Church persecuted the Protestant movement in the 50's and executed 12 of my Grandfathers 16 siblings I bet he would've like the ability to defend his family. We have a very unique right to be armed here, that's not something we should take for granted, many other families in many other parts of the world are helpless to their states. 

---