Quote:Why has "the right of rebellion" been conflated with a societal insurance policy against the rise of tyrants here?
The claim was made, by Ashock, that this idea of the people not relying entirely on the government and being able to resist it should it come to tyranny, is unique to America. I said it is not, that this is a much older concept that goes back through Locke to who-only-knows-where. Roland seconded him, claiming that the right exists, it just hasn't been used yet. I argue that it doesn't, and that it is a matter of national mythology, and not constitutional rights, that Americans believe the 2nd amendment somehow protects them from tyranny.
If the argument is that the right to bear arms is an insurance policy against tyranny, then it must be noted that, while there is a guaranteed right to bear arms, there is no corresponding right to use them against the government. There is no clause (except in New Hampshire!) that allows for, even in the case of tyranny, an armed rebellion. If you believe you have that right, it is because you granted it to yourself by historical analogy, not because it has been in any way "implemented" by the government. If you don't believe you have that right, then your right to bear arms is somewhat irrelevant, since you must go outside the law to overthrow the government anyway. What does it matter that you're wanted for firearm violations when you're already wanted for treason?
The second amendment, if it is in fact a shield against tyranny and not merely a way to save money on a standing army, it lacks a sister-clause that would justify their use against the government. The French, for instance, have the rule that a government that does not respect the rights of man has no constitutional authority, that the people can overthrow it and replace it with a democratic one. Nothing equivalent exists in the USA. If the government wants to react with harsh military force to rebellion, they are fully within their rights to do so, as far as I can see.
If you wanted to overthrow your government because it had turned to tyranny, you would be in the same position as anyone else in the world. There is no special case for America, not in your history, not in your constitution, and certainly not in practice.
-Jester
In response to your edit:
Quote:I am trying to see how the militia arming themselves against a tyrant who breaches the Constitution is guilty of treason. Said tyrant would be, de facto, an enemy, domestic, and logically required to resign or make war against himself, or in Hillary's case, herself.
And the judge of that tyranny is... who? The legal authority would the Supreme Court, I think. Feel free to hire a lawyer and challenge the government in court, but you can do that in any free nation. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant anyone but the government itself the power to decide who is or is not a de facto domestic enemy. This is contrary to the Declaration of Independence, that says that the people (rather vaguely) have this natural law right to "alter or abolish" if the government turns against the "consent of the governed." The Constitution, whose framers knew full well what the Declaration said, does *not* say this.