2A question

[x11]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is generally agreed that one of the purposes of a state run "Militia" is to defend against a tyrannical federal government, for example the beginnings of the revolution that bore our country.

When a leader unilaterally deploys federal military against american citizens, that sounds something like tyranny. Regardless of your taste for Trump's or anyone else's cool-aid. does this not raise your 2A alarm bells? It does mine and I've been surprised that this hasn't been discussed. Maybe I missed it.

[bellavite1]

In before the lock...

[UncleDave]

A provacatour or a troll?

[x11]

Not a troll, an honest question. Hoping for some thoughtful answers. But you don't have to answer if it makes you uncomfortable.

[TFOGGER]

Been here since 2012, 9 posts. Hard to gauge, but I'm leaning towards troll...

[x11]

Been here since 2012, 9 posts. Hard to gauge, but I'm leaning towards troll...

I see your point, which is why I started this thread.

[buffalobo]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is generally agreed that one of the purposes of a state run "Militia" is to defend against a tyrannical federal government, for example the beginnings of the revolution that bore our country.

When a leader unilaterally deploys federal military against american citizens, that sounds something like tyranny. Regardless of your taste for Trump's or anyone else's cool-aid. does this not raise your 2A alarm bells? It does mine and I've been surprised that this hasn't been discussed. Maybe I missed it.

What are the circumstances of your scenario? What reason for calling in military?

I don't want military operating on the streets in CONUS but have no issue with NG being called in to stop rioting/looting/property destruction.

[x11]

What are the circumstances of your scenario? What reason for calling in military?

I don't want military operating on the streets in CONUS but have no issue with NG being called in to stop rioting/looting/property destruction.

NG are summoned/invited by the local government and operate under the local/state's authority, and are not sent by the federal government. In fact, that sounds as close to a version of a state militia as anything else.

I'm not asking about a scenario; this actually happened in portland. Rioting/looting/property destruction were definitely happening, and is happening again currently. And the local government has called in the NG to help, again. But there were federal forces that were not NG, and not invited, sent to portland this summer, right? That was non-NG federal military operating on the streets in CONUS? The media reported armed unmarked/unidentified feds in unmarked vehicles "arresting" and questioning citizens for undisclosed reasons. Was the reporting accurate? I don't know, but sure as hell my personal alarm bell went off and I have been wondering what the 2A centric community thinks about this.

[JohnnyEgo]

The last time I saw a stat on gun ownership I felt reasonably comfortable with, it pegged it around 160 million gun owners. Based on what I have seen of late, and the number of my left-leaning friends, associates, and/or coworkers who have a sudden interest in owning a gun, I'd hazard to say that number has increased substantially. But if it is in the neighborhood of accuracy, then I imagine there are roughly 160 million philosophies regarding how 2A should apply. Some will inevitably overlap on a lot of points. Some probably haven't had much thought put behind all the fine details. And that is life; full of nuance, experience, and subjective judgment.

I would also observe that people tend to love a particular philosophy until the negative consequences of it are applied to them. And that appears to be consistent regardless of political affiliation. I know plenty of folks on the left-leaning side who thought 'state's rights' was short-hand for 'racist', and favored a strong federal government and sanctioned use of force in state affairs all through the Obama administration. But their opinions changed awfully quickly with a change of administration. Same thing happens on the right all the time.

But since you seem to be soliciting personal opinions, my 1:160+ million opinion is that I do not care for the militarization of civilian law enforcement and I am a fan of Posse Comitatus, but like buffalobo, I do not object to the National Guard being used (at the state level and within reason) to assist in civil emergencies, to include civil unrest.

[buffalobo]

Are you sure it was military or alphabet agency?