A terrible, terrible tragedy.

[Occhidiangela]

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?

You seem to miss the point of the US Constitution. All powers are reserved to the citizens and states that are not explicitly delegated to government. You thus do not need a right to throw the bastards out if they have violated their Constitutional limitations. It is inherent. Granted, due process is a good first avenue for remedy. (In the interest of splitting some hairs: this is not mythology, it is political philosophy. You are correct that it comes from multiple origins.)

The Government does not grant rights, nor does the Constitution, other than in the generally negative sense, where a right is specified, agreed to, spelled out, and codified. See the Ninth and Tenth amendments for clarification on that score.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

You are erroneously assuming that a citizen (or a group of them) exercising his/their sovereign rights as citizen and free men (woman) is being treasonous. Apprehending criminals is not a criminal act, nor is fighting treasonous tyrants treason. If you note the "them" language from article III, it is the states that are being warred against that makes for treason, or all of them, or one of them, while the person/cronies/faction of the tyrant is not so protected by the language.

I do not understand your assumption.

Occhi