Second-Amendment proponents always tout the argument that the second amendment was designed to protect the people from "tyranny by the government."
"Tyranny by the government" is typically interpreted to mean a government that uses police and/or military force to quash amendments under the Bill of Rights, such as the First Amendment.
The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
Keep in mind that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution prohibits the president from effecting any executive order that violates the bill of rights, including the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause prohibits the State Legislatures/Governors/Mayors from passing laws or effecting executive actions that violate the bill of rights, including the right of the people to peaceably assemble.
The Second Amendment states that "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." As stated above, the history and purpose of the second amendment pertains to citizens being able to forcefully protect themselves from having their freedoms under the Bill of Rights abridged through police and/or military force. A "Free State" is intended to correspond to freedom from intrusion upon individual rights founded in the Constitution, including the right to peaceably assemble.
For purposes of the following questions reference to protests/protesters is not to be construed as reference to looters/rioters:
1.) Isn't it true that breaking up protests through police and/or military force under the guise of "enforcing curfews" violates the first amendment right to peacefully assemble? (My answer: Of course it does)
2.) If you answered yes, do you agree that the plain language and/or purpose of the second amendment gives protesters (and/or a well-regulated militia group) the right to bear arms against the police and/or military in defense of the protesters having their first amendment right to peacefully assemble infringed upon? (My answer: Of course it does)
3.) If you answered no to either question, please elaborate on your personal modifications to the first and second amendment.
"Tyranny by the government" is typically interpreted to mean a government that uses police and/or military force to quash amendments under the Bill of Rights, such as the First Amendment.
The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
Keep in mind that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution prohibits the president from effecting any executive order that violates the bill of rights, including the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause prohibits the State Legislatures/Governors/Mayors from passing laws or effecting executive actions that violate the bill of rights, including the right of the people to peaceably assemble.
The Second Amendment states that "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." As stated above, the history and purpose of the second amendment pertains to citizens being able to forcefully protect themselves from having their freedoms under the Bill of Rights abridged through police and/or military force. A "Free State" is intended to correspond to freedom from intrusion upon individual rights founded in the Constitution, including the right to peaceably assemble.
For purposes of the following questions reference to protests/protesters is not to be construed as reference to looters/rioters:
1.) Isn't it true that breaking up protests through police and/or military force under the guise of "enforcing curfews" violates the first amendment right to peacefully assemble? (My answer: Of course it does)
2.) If you answered yes, do you agree that the plain language and/or purpose of the second amendment gives protesters (and/or a well-regulated militia group) the right to bear arms against the police and/or military in defense of the protesters having their first amendment right to peacefully assemble infringed upon? (My answer: Of course it does)
3.) If you answered no to either question, please elaborate on your personal modifications to the first and second amendment.