U.S. Citizens Have a Legal Right to Insurrect

Did you know that the U.S. Constitution ironically grants U.S. citizens the right to engage in an insurrection against the U.S. Government? I say "ironically" because the U.S. Constitution is what gives the Government its power - and more specifically, the power to ratify the Constitution itself.

Anyhow, here's the clause in question:

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

As most of you probably realize, it's part of the 2nd Amendment. Its purpose is to give U.S. citizens the right to fight against an oppressive government or entity, which infringes on the rights granted to them under the constitution. What do you think of this?

Do you think it's about time for an insurrection, considering the widespread violation of American citizens' rights that the U.S. Government currently engages in (e.g. NSA Spying, unwarranted searches under the Stop Question and Frisk policies of various states, various U.S. police violating citizens' right to life in unjustified shootings, etc)?

Sure, I'm up for an Insurrection. Sounds like it would add a little excitement to my week.

I don't think at this stage Americans have the urgency to do such a thing. They have their laptops and their new car so they are pretty content.

They've no such right, except the right of might. If one were to attempt to use force to fight the government they'd likely be locked away for murder of government officials, employees, terrorism, or whatever, they'd have the book thrown at them. The only way someone is going to fight the government and get away with it would be to overthrow the entire government and its military, it's law enforcement, it's courts, opposing armed civilians, and establish it's own government and rules of law and protect itself. All the right wing libertarian gun nuts would probably do is go shoot up a black church or kill a cop or two or blow up an Planned Parenthood center and that's the end of their revolution, then they'd be on FoxNews bitching about how it was an Obama red flag operation meant to take away their guns.

You're right. Of course we don't have the right to march through D.C. and wipe out our current government via murder. We do however have right, as a people, to remove and replace our government if we find that it is unfit. It was written in our Declaration of Independence and it's implied throughout the Constitution. American government is derived from John Locke's social contract theory that states that the government only has power at the consent of the governed (you and I). Also, according to the constitution we do have to right to protect ourselves from the government and any kind of tyranny.

Man this thread is shit.

Why do you think so?

We have a non violent uprising every two years, and every four years. /thread.

"Tyranny" though is such a vague term for some people, some people consider it "tyranny" if they have to pay taxes or obey certain laws. People might harp about how the Affordable Healthcare Act is worse than slavery. We don't have a right to simply say which laws we want to follow, which elected officials have authority in their lives, at least not in the capacity to avoid repercussions from the state. At best we have a broken system of representative government where we can vote for new leadership, and it's also where money and big influences corrupt those duties. I don't think it matters what kind of government system one uses though, wherever there's power people will try to obtain and use it to their advantage. If we used force to fight "tyranny" it's not going to stand up in any court of law, unless a whole new government and legal system is in place and the "tyranny" is toppled. We do of course have a human right or ability though to simply fight, regardless of laws. Nothing can take that away from people, and it doesn't have to be in the constitution to be true. But having the right doesn't make it right.

What's the point of a right of insurrection?

Would it cheer up the polite anarchists and revolutionaries who only play by the rules?

I mean, if you thought that the government was legitimately corrupt and thus you're legally entitled to overthrow them...the corrupt government isn't going to give two shits about your legal rights. Whereas if you're opposing a government that follows due process and so on, they're not exactly tyrannical and thus I don't see how such a right would be enlivened.

Also, people seem to be misreading that amendment. If the point is to secure a free state, isn't that obviously only referring to keeping the nation-state of the USA free from being controlled by foreign entities (such as, I don't know, the British Empire)?

It seems to be a huge leap to infer that "free state" means "free people within the state", given the context in which this was written. Hell, the US Constitution and legal system in general is all about binding people within the state to certain rules and regulations - you're allowed to be free, provided that you do what the government tells you to do.

If you're going to insurrect, does it really matter if it's legal or not?

No, we have a dictatorship that's highlighted with illegal immigrant democracy every two years and four years. I didn't vote for this president or 533 other members of the congress yet they pass laws that affect my life. Nancy Pelosi gets on her hands and knees and washes an immigrants disgusting feet and she votes on laws to increase my taxes? I cannot accept that a women who lives 3000 miles away from me and is probably mentally ill can be the deciding factor on how my tax money is spent. The nation has become too large and the entire Federal government needs to be abolished and if you look at Congress' approval ratings, it's not far from happening.

I have no idea what you're saying here so please step off your soapbox and try to argue with rational arguments instead of emotional appeals.

I can't see insurrection being a good idea for at least 25 years from now. There isn't enough class consciousness, and I don't see it being a question of legality.

I think American society has long ways to go before it will free itself from enough manufactured delusions.

I believe we need to organize first, spread propaganda, show another way is possible through our deeds and the way we organize. We wait until enough people are on board, and are with unified goals. We gather enough supplies. Then we strike.

@RushKing: @RushKing: You saw what happened to occupy steps have already been taken to make sure such things cannot happen not to mention all the hollowpoints they purchased not for fun...

I agree with you. Even with the gripes people may have with current policies in place, our government is still working within it's constitutional limits. For example, I may not like the Affordable Care Act personally, but according to the government's power to regulate interstate commerce, as stated in the constitution, the ACT is functioning legally. Until our government stop's functioning and working within its constitutional mandate, there is no reason for rebellion.

ya, it's called voting.

Lead the way then!

Me and my girl was just talking about this and how corrupt and controlling the government has become. I told her if we were to have another civil war, I would be against the government and I would enter the war. So to answer your question TC, we are past due for one.

That's a stupid idea

Go eat a sandwich or something. Make sure not to include cheese so that you won't be so full of shit. :P

Sorry, I don't take advice from people who torture animals and think rape is funny.

Rght to bear arms sounds great to protect your home from invaders or self defence but true benefit of it is over powered government.

Look at Nevada duing that issue few weeks ago. When mr government tried to ruins a omeone life over b.s the community stand together. Police got involved started tasering people so the people came back holding their riffles. The mr government gave up and gave what the people wanted.

When they tried disarming people last year. People marched with their riffles. Thr issue was dropped by congress

Sure you can protest without guns but you can see how far that goes. Maybe the people who protested the wallstreet/financial crisis should of brought guns and demened that the government start doing their job by imprisionong big wigs at companies for crimes and not just slapping a fine on the companies that can easily can afford them.

Standing alone or very small group isnt goi g get you anywhere, but thousands of people stands and chance

Wow, there are some interesting Kool-Aid drinkers in this bunch.

If you believe that the Federal Government has all of a sudden become bloated and corrupt, you haven't been paying attention to your American History.

The US Government has always been highly regulatory, interfering, flawed, and has had a lot of corrupt leadership at various levels. And you know what? We often elect those leaders in the first place.

As to the "I didn't elect those leaders" BS: we live in a country where majority rules most of the time. So if you didn't vote in a specific Congressman or President, the majority of the country did, and you just have to deal with it. I didn't vote for GWB, but I accepted that he won the POTUS election TWICE, which I liked it or not. I didn't think that required an insurrection, or some other kind of civil disobedience. I know that at the end of his term, I could vote for another flawed, lesser-of-two-evils, purchased-by-corporations tool.

If you honestly believe that the government is truly in control, and not corporations and the super rich, go back over the last few years of campaign donations and SCOTUS rulings.

That's not a legal right. It's a human right.

Guns serve no political purpose unless there's a real threat of them going off, in which case the US government swiftly brings in whatever equipment and personnel they need to quickly put an end to the chaos. Any person who advocates for a large-scale armed rebellion of untrained, disorganized firearm owners against the US government is advocating for public mass suicide.

The police can bust into your home illegally(whether that means without a warrant or just because they got the address wrong) and if you shoot themthem, you're automatically in the wrong for protecting your family, your property and your rights- if, that is, you're taken alive(which is a near fuckin' impossibility).

You have a right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure, and a right to dictate who may occupy your home. But if you exercise that right against armed men you're called a criminal at best, summarily executed at worst.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

As far as the second amendment goes I don't think it's just about insurrection. There are other purposes for guns: hunting, self-defense, sport/hobby, though the amendment does mention a "well-regulated militia", the purpose of this militia was probably more ordinarily to guard against foreign invasion, or for protection against Indian raids, although it is likely that it was also intended as a safeguard against the possibility of an oppressive government.

There have been various scandals and injustices in the federal government recently, such as the IRS scandals, but they don't rise to a level that justifies armed insurrection and they can still be peaceably resolved (for instance by Congressional investigations). For instance the case of Pine v. Holder , shows that injustices can still be resolved peaceably and that violent uprisings are not necessary: The DOJ unjustly and illegally charged Mary Susan Pine with violating the FACE act (they claimed she "obstructed" entrances to an abortion facility, though there was no evidence of her doing so because the DOJ and the facility decided to erase the surveillance footage - a rather suspicious action -), so the judge tossed out the case and fined the DOJ $120,000.

Not every injustice is serious enough to justify armed insurrection, which would lead to much loss of life. For example the Jim Crow Laws mandated segregation, violating the rights of black people as well as the rights of white business owners, and preventing black people from voting (albeit not outrightly), but that would not have been serious enough to justify armed rebellion (though it did justify unarmed civil disobedience and marches like the sort led by Martin L. King). On the other hand if some of those states had laws that allowed - or mandated - black people to be killed or enslaved, than that would have justified armed insurrection.

Actually the Supreme Court did not rule that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act was constitutional because of the government's power to regulate commerce. That was the primary justification the government lawyers tried to use in defense of the mandate, but the court ruled against that claim saying that the mandate compels commerce (forces people to enter into commerce by buying a product) which is not within the scope of the Commerce Clause. The court instead ruled that the mandate was constitutional based on the taxing power, which was the government's backup argument.

Right, and I should have mentioned that in my statement.

Do people really think that they can mount an insurrection against the US military? Right to bear arms aside we're talking about the most powerful military on the face of the planet in all of history.

This is just speculation, but I'm willing to bet that a good amount of the military leadership (Generals/Admirals) would tell politicians to blow it out their asses and then side with American citizens.

Well, the only way you can legally get away with insurrection is if you're successful. Otherwise, get ready for prison.

That's okay. It's a detail thing, that could be easy to overlook.

It would amount to nothing more than a slaughter (If the US government had the balls to gun down their own citizens). Lets look at these insurgencies. Its usually a massacre where the insurgents use the populace as a shield that suffers the most i.e. lots of dead US citizens.

I think they're assuming most of the military would not fight for a tyrannical government.

@bforrester420: Prison? No, the punishment for treason is death. And in the aftermath of a war, the winners want nothing so much as to silence the vanquished as soon as possible.

@plageus900: You're delusional. The brass would side with the government because the powerful want nothing but to protect and expand their power.

The only hope an American rebellion would have would be if the majority of the civilian population took up the fight, and if enough the common soldiers either stood down or defected outright.

And what, exactly, would this insurrection accomplish? A libertarian paradise? A people's republic? I'm probably about as disenchanted with the way this society functions as the next person, but I don't see the anarcho/libertarian/let's overthrow-stuff-because-we-don't-understand-it crowd as the best alternative. People have no plan, they have disillusion and anger and nothing more. Did you know that at the beginning of our Republic the states couldn't even agree on the establishment of a navy, even though we might never have survived without it? It was seen as an overreach of federal power, individual states were theoretically supposed to field their own navies at their own expense. Taking down established power is all fine and well, I'm actually all for it, but what are you going to do once you take it down? All of the sudden the usurpers are the new rulers and have the repsonsibilities of governance thrust upon them. I highly doubt that the people talking of insurrection right now have even an iota of an idea of how to actually wield power.

Wait... oh..

I don't know that it would be prosecuted as treason, but attempt/advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. The penalty is "not more than 20 years."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

@bforrester420: I'm not fluent in legalese, but it seems to me that the three paragraphs in that code have to do with 3 different kinds of non combatants- 1st, the instigators, 2nd, the propagandists, and 3rd, the organizers. That code doesn't relate to those exercising the "force or violence".

And besides- a beat cop will shoot you to death for struggling too effectively. So what makes you think anyone caught up in the raids to capture the people named in that code would survive to see a courtroom?

Oh, they likely wouldn't.

@bforrester420: I agree. Thus, reinforcing the need for the uprising in the first place.

I don't know about all that. Things aren't that bad here. If the citizens were truly being mistreated, maybe. And uprising should begin at the voting polls.

@bforrester420: you ever seen that meme about insanity? Voting's never going to change anything as long as the choices we have are evil vs incompetent(or two other equally shitty choices).

You don't think citizens in our country are being abused? Look up "police brutality" on YouTube, or websites like copblock.org or the Free Thought Project.

I know you have a legal right to protest or organize. Dont think insurrection is covered.

@BluRayHiDef:

No where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to privacy.

I do agree this is bs.