Uh, but if you think your political enemies are tyrannical, then is it open season to shoot them? Your reply seems to say it is.
And who gets to decide if a political foe is tyrannical? If you were to decide that your governor or mayor were tyrannical, do you then become at liberty to shoot them? I certainly don't think so. Please let me know your opinion on that question.
The article from the Atlantic in my second link explains historical militias. During the American revolution militias were part of the fight, but they were basically organized groups under the leadership of what had been the state government before Britain intervened. So there was a "legitimate" central government and a militia working with that government. And in the big scheme of things, those militias were minor compared with Washington's army and foreign military help.
But such militias are a far cry from the go ahead to allow groups to organize themselves to attack a sitting American government whenever they think that government is tyrannical.
Militia are there in case of a tyrannical force challenges the established rule of government. Not just our Federal government. If a force came into an area(elected or moved in) that would ignore the Constitution and prevent the checks and balances from correcting the problem, that is when you use firepower.
In a free society, everyone needs to get involved in government to get good leaders and Reps, but also to support the removal of bad leaders if required to maintain the rule of law. You revolt with a ballot not a firearm, until someone prevents you from using the ballot. You protest to make your Reps aware of your concerns, they act or don't act, you vote for or against them next election or you seek to peacefully have them removed if needed.
Armed revolution is the last resort. A civil society needs peaceful change of power.
Correct.
And in your opinion, if you judge that your governor is tyrannical, does this amendment give you the right to shoot him? I think not. What do you think?
As a last resort yes. There is many options and appeals to prevent the need to use force. Also it allows society to voice an opinion on the grievance. Either to support or deny it. The few crazies believed they do have the right to chose. They ignored all the checks and balances in our system and believed their right was the final decision. But society has to choose what is right and just. Society might not be the masses.
Revolutions have occurred with less then majority support. If enough people believe there is an injustice and the masses don't care or are bought off with "Handouts". Then a smaller society might need to shake the larger society foundation, to bring them back to reality.
When people will trade away rights for entitlements, then society will circle the drain.
Just to be sure, I am not saying we are ready for a revolution. We still have a lot of individual power to control our government. But the people are less and less concerned with the greater picture and more focused on what can this person running for office get for me.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country."
People working to improve a country makes a strong country. People working to improve themselves from the country will weaken it.
