The ballot box is the best defense, but not the only one. Waco proves my point. The only problem with Waco was that they were not widely supported. If the government tries that with a group that is widely supported, it will be a very different outcome. It's not paranoia, it's reality. The only defense against a gun is a gun. Doesn't matter how unlikely it may be.

You act like I'm afraid of these things happening or expect them too. I'm not and I don't. The Government knows it's people. They know we are well armed, and, for the most part, they know not to push too far.

You are fine with being disarmed, I'm fine with you being fine with it. But why are Europeans and others not fine with us being armed. It's who we are, it's who we've always been. We don't want to be like you, get over it.

It doesn't necessarily stop them from making those laws. What is does is undermine their ability to enforce the laws. We aren't talking about isolated incidents, but rather large scale disobedience.

If someone breaks the law they will be arrested. If they resist arrest, inevitably a gun will be pointed at them to force them to comply or be shot. If enough people resist and are also armed then the ability to enforce the law is lost. This extreme scenario is only possible if the population is well armed. The men who wrote the constitution understood this. A well armed populace is the last defense against tyranny, or as I said earlier, a government trying to assert control beyond what the population is willing to give up.

I really don't know how to make it any clearer. I guess I take for granted how this idea has been ingrained into American culture for centuries. It seems like such a simple idea to me.

Your scenario is probably the least likely thing to happen. A president can't just abolish elections. Even just mentioning such a thing would turn the entirety of the government, the military, and the people against him, including his own cabinet. With zero support, he would have zero power.

A more likely scenario would be the banning of semiautomatic weapons. Which has been discussed by many in government. A very difficult thing to do considering the constitution and the current supreme court rulings on the matter. However, not entirely impossible. If Congress manages to amend the second amendment, things will get ugly fast.

Now you might say that the constitution has been amended many times since it's inception, and you'd be right. But, it's always widely accepted by the populace, even if begrudgingly at times. In this case, it would not be accepted. Look up the numbers of guns in America, and the percentage of the population that owns them. This is not a partisan issue, it crosses party lines, it crosses regional lines, and it crosses cultural lines. There are states that have passed laws that say any new federal gun laws will not be recognized in their state. In fact, Missouri has a law working it's way through that says ANY federal gun law will not be recognized by the state, and it's looking like it could actually pass.

So what would this look like if the federal government managed to somehow get this done. Who would enforce this law? Well in many states local law enforcement would have no problem enforcing this law. But, in many other states local law enforcement would refuse. It would be up to the ATF to deal with. Now, in small isolated pockets, no big deal. We've seen this when Kansas made suppressors legal. ATF showed up and made examples of people. But on a large scale, with entire states and local law enforcement willing to stand against the ATF for what they believe is tyranny, the ATF simply is not equipped to handle such a thing. People would flock to hot spots, they would simply be overwhelmed.

The military is not allowed to engage American citizens on US soil and they know this. Any order to do so will be refused at every level. This is known, and has been discussed within the military. So that option is out. A national emergency could get the national guard involved, but that would only escalate the situation and there would be mass desertion. It would be a huge disaster.

There have been government funded think tanks on this very issue. The conclusion is always the same, epic failures, and massive civil unrest the likes of which have not been seen since the 1860s.

Gun control is not the only issue that could lead to this scenario, it's simply the most likely. Other issues could be free speech or massive tax hikes. The thing is, it's estimated that 43% of the population own guns, and there are enough guns in the US to arm every citizen. Those are incredibly daunting numbers for anyone who wants to control a population beyond it's will. And that's the crux of the issue, tyranny is control that goes beyond that which the people are willing to relinquish. And Americans are historically very willful people.

It's literal meaning is oppressive power. In the American sense, it would be in the form of an unconstitutional law that crosses a line where a large portion of the population decide not to adhere to it. I frame it like this because it can be argued that many laws/amendmeants are already unconstitutional, like taxation without representation. But, without mass resistance it simply becomes normal or understood. But there is a line, and we do have many checks and balances to keep the government from crossing it. If all else fails, the final check and balance is an armed populace.

How does a tyrannical government enforce tyranny? The only way to do so is at the end of a barrel. So, how does an oppressed people resist tyranny? At the end of a barrel. The first step for tyranny is to take away the ability of people to resist it. Therefore, it is widely accepted in American culture that the line to cross is the disarming of the American people.

@DrN1

Those groups did not represent a large portion of American citizens.

@Judah80 What does this make our government in New Zealand.Our government made it illegal to buy or own semi automatic fire arms with in weeks if not days after our prime minister first said it was going to happen.They have passed law making it a jailable offence to view,possess or share a certain video or read a certain document.They have also passed laws on what is hate speech.All done with out any chance of the citizens of this country to voice their opinion one way or another.

@DrN1

Sanity is a matter of perspective. You could say there are a lot of guns in America, but I say there are too few guns in the rest of the world. Too many people have allowed themselves to be disarmed.

@Jonah

As a citizen of New Zealand, you tell me.

@DrN1 I'm not an Irish Socialist Republican against violence and open to foreign invasion and imperial control.

@DrN1 You have zero historical perspective. I'm an immigrant. Now get on your knees for your Norman/German masters. "Whatever you wish, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Ma'am. Anything you need, my German overlord. " Grab the ankles slave.

@DrN1 My home city was founded by the Dutch.

there is a why to fix that problem.

Well said sir
Governments are corrupt because they are people.
Just as Capitalism is extremely successful because it harnesses humanities basic greed

You're not American.

Hello Facci. You're right, I'm not American.
Do you think this mindset is unique to the American people? In general? Or ALL the American people?

@Naomi The Second Amendment is the first tier of national defense as well as a stalwart against tyranny. It is a particularly American sentiment. We have dissenters who support foreign infiltration. We defend ourselves from them as well. This post is an attack against America. Yet there is still but a lone voice on this site against the tyranical South African government. And no criticism of China. I get it. Our superiority is your license to criticize, so have at it. The double standard bigotry has been noted.

"The Second Amendment is the first tier of national defense as well as a stalwart against tyranny. It is a particularly American sentiment."
That's an interesting insight - thank you.

"This post is an attack against America. Yet there is still but a lone voice on this site against the tyrannical South African government. And no criticism of China."
Oh, Facci, that's a bit of an overreaction, no? DrN1 is mischievous, sometimes, but he is alright, really.