Skip to main content

View Diary: If government is full of tyranny, why arm it to the teeth? (239 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have a further collorary to this theory... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fumie, wader, floydgrant

    Many of these same 'gov't tyranny' people claim the 2nd amendment was created SPECIFICALLY by the Founders for armed resistance to what is seen as government tyranny. If this is true, why did George Washington -- one of those founders, who wrote the 2nd amendment -- Why did he put down the Whiskey Rebellion?

    here we have one of the founders CLEARLY demonstrating that armed rebellion is NOT a right guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment.

    It shoots the argument so full of holes they only blubber and repeat themselves, louder.

    We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

    by ScrewySquirrel on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 11:00:25 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe you're not talking to very smart people. (0+ / 0-)

      Perhaps you haven't discussed this with someone who thinks more analytically than you or those that you do bring the argument up with just roll their eyes to themselves and don't bother to respond to such a ridiculous claim (much as I don't bother to respond to people who promote Homeopathy - it's just not worth wasting my time).

      It's clear that the founders didn't intend the Second Amendment to allow a citizen to do whatever they wanted without government interference just because citizens possessed firearms. Else, the Constitution to which it is attached would not have established a rough framework of a court system - which would make no sense if anyone with a firearm could just ignore the decisions of that court system because they possessed a firearm.

      The reason the Whiskey Rebellion was not successful was mostly that not enough people cared enough to take up arms and/or didn't think the tax was unconstitutional (remember, an issue in the recent Revolution was taxation without representation, not all taxation). The outcome might have been quite different if 13,000 militia were facing 26,000 armed citizens instead of only 500 armed citizens - who decided to go home before the militia got there because it really wasn't that important to them.

      Contrast this to the American Revolution just a bit earlier. In that case, there were colonists willing to put their lives on the line and fight their government - which, without firearms would have been impossible. In the final confrontation of the Whiskey Rebellion, not a single person was killed (and very few were even injured in earlier phases of it) while in the American Revolution, some estimates are that there were about 8,000 "American" combat deaths.

      It is completely reasonable to believe that Washington (who, as you recall, was a military leader during the Revolutionary War) understood the difference between a Revolution and a few disgruntled citizens who were not very committed to their cause and were protesting about a single law rather than a systemic unjust system.

      The Whiskey Rebellion could be better compared to OWS or any of a number of previous protest movements than the American Revolution. No one expects the protesters to take up arms and fight the police -- there just aren't enough protesters to do that nor do (at least most of them) think that's appropriate in that situation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site