Would the US have long ago been subjugated to the will of the monoparty if it wasn't for the second amendment?

Question

I mean the citizens subjected to the houndings of a terrible government .

Answer 1

Quite possibly. I've always been of the opinion that ALL of our "rights" actually stem from the 2nd amendment, and that you really only have as much "right" to freedom of speech, or freedom from unreasonable search, etc. as you can assert or defend through force or through the threat of force of arms. Some American regimes have been quite enlightened, most have been relatively benign, and a couple (like the current one) have been downright evil. Thankfully, few have gone out of their way to endanger what we take for granted as our "rights." And in reality, at this point in time modern law enforcement and federal paramilitary can easily overwhelm any private arsenal so resistance would ultimately prove futile. Nonetheless, historically I would think the tacit threat of armed insurrection has discouraged in many cases the over-reach of wannabe dictatorial types, at least on a local scale (e.g. preventing the outright slaughter of strikers or demonstrators.)

Having said that, let me also note that I am very much what most "conservatives" would call a "leftist." Yet I also very much support the "right" of the people to bear arms. I don't agree with the NRA on many of their positions but I do believe that at the very least I should have the means the defend myself in whatever way I deem necessary if threatened, and it's the 2nd amendment which underpins the framework of laws that allow for this.

Answer 2

Yes I believe the second amendment has been helpful to a degree in keeping a stable government. It severed two purposes when created. Yes, the Continental Congress could not always afford weapons for its men. Better for individual citizens to have weapons on hand to defend the U.S. However NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD ALLOWED ITS CITIZENS TO KEEP WEAPONS PRIVATE, the founding fathers understood that the citizens of this country were the last line of defense to prevent an internal takeover.

Now before you or anyone else thinks I support the NRA, I DO NOT! They are way off base about gun control, and anyone who need an AK-47 or M-16 to go hunting needs to be institutionalized. If you are a responsible gun owner who cares if you have to wait 5 days or 30 days before you can purchase a fire arm. Oh by the way why do you think the first thing the Nazi's did was to declare the private ownership of firearms illegal? Why do you think we made the Germans and Japanese turn over their private firearms to us when we occupied there countries after WWII? Should there be tighter gun control YES! Should the second amendment be changed NO!

Answer 3

No. First, get off the 2nd amendment jive. The second amendment was not written/established to insure that the citizens could defend themselves from a tyrannical government. It was established because at the time the federal and state governments could not afford to arm an army/militia, so private citizens had to buy their own guns so the could fight the British or Indians or whatever. It is even written in the first line of the amendment, so forget all that NRA crap.
Second, the Constitution was written with "checks and balances" so it is very hard for one branch to overpower another. The same with the GOP. Even though the Republicans have control over every branch, it is very difficult for them to make unilateral changes in the government due to lobby groups, PAC's and other political party opposition.

Mono-party? would never happen and could never have happened. the founding fathers did their homework to well.

Answer 4

If the idea behind the 2nd Amendment was not crucial to the continued existence of ALL Free Governments everywhere, guns would have long ago gone the way of the dinosaur.

Where is there a government that continues to exist without guns to defend itself?

Placing large signs at your borders that say, "Please, don't hurt us", is not the kind of thing that sensible people will use.

Maybe, some day within the next 200 years, a substitute for the gun will be developed, but it will still be used for the same purpose.

Answer 5

Strange I don't feel subjugated or at the will of any one and I do not feel hounded by a "terrible "government ?Are you sure that was water you were drinking when you felt this paranoia take over .I feel sorry for your obvious dislike of the USA...

Answer 6

I'm surprised that the NRA doesn't advertise that Switzerland is the heaviest armed per capida in the world every time the left attempts gun control. Our government may have done some dumb things, but I have found a better government to live under - yet!

Answer 7

The first things the dictators do is collect all the weapons because they know they can't enslave an armed population... but the "take the guns for the children" morons in the U.S. are too stupid to think of that.

Answer 8

This is related to the law of any government including the US.After the election the people decide their own fate.

Answer 9

Hitler did it. He tore up the German constitution and voila! there was a one party (read mono party) government.; Germany immediately became a fascist state.

A constitution in written on paper. It tears and burns easily under the right conditions.

Answer 10

The bipartisan system we have now is on the verge of that now. What is the difference between a douche bag and a **** sandwich?