4 ms·
I'm pretty sure the right to bear arms does not give the people the legal right to violently overthrow the government, which appears to be what you are suggesti
by stanleydrew 14y ago
I'm pretty sure the right to bear arms does not give the people the legal right to violently overthrow the government, which appears to be what you are suggesting.
- ebrenes 14y agoI'm pretty sure that after the government has been violently overthrown there's really not much validity to what that government considered to be legal. At any rate, the right to bear arms is associated with the concept of defending yourself from tyranny. According to some interpretations that's part of the intent of the right to bear arms, part of what it facilitates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Experience_in_America_prior_to_the_U.S._Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_...
- molo 14y agoThat is actually one of the primary purposes of giving the people the right to bear arms. If you are not successful, however, expect to bear the consequences.
- mindcrime 14y agoI'm pretty sure the right to bear arms does not give the people the legal right to violently overthrow the government, which appears to be what you are suggesting. If it reaches that point, I don't think we're going to be worrying about what the current government considers "legal" or not.
- gee_totes 14y agoActually, if you live in New Hampshire, the right to violently overthrow the government is written into the state's constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Constitution#Article_10._Right_of_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Constitution#Arti...