The origin of the Second Amendment

[Altherion]

I'm starting this thread mainly to reply to Kalbear's post in Dallas one:

Quote

I get that this is what you think and what the common belief is. Is there actual scholarly research indicating this? Because what scholarly research I've found indicates that this is not true at all. It is not something against slaves, nor is it against resisting their government; it is specifically to be able to resist armed invasion. Which at the time they were also pretty worried about, given that the British were still fucking around in Canada and were kind of totally pissed off. That's what I've read. If you have any actual quality links I'd appreciate them. 

As I said, the Constitution had input from many different people and even individuals often had several distinct reasons for adding something. However, there is a fairly strong current of fear of government in general and standing armies in particular and the Second Amendment is certainly influenced by that. For example, here is a quote by George Mason who was the primary author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights much of which made it into the Bill of Rights:

Quote

No man has a greater regard for the military gentlemen than I have. I admire their intrepidity, perseverance, and valor. But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence, yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? Give me leave to recur to the page of history, to warn you of your present danger. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

And of course there is the famous Thomas Jefferson quote:

Quote

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Also, here's the actual debate on the Second Amendment (strangely, the page they cite appears to be from a different day, but in any case, the text is there). Note that Elbridge Gerry almost immediately goes into the purpose of having an armed militia (in response to the proposal having some extra text with a religious exemption):

Quote

What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

So it might not be the only reason, but it's certainly one of the primary ones.

Aside: I've read through a bunch of old documents to find these and the evolution of our government is really, really depressing. The people who wrote the Constitution were drawn from a population that is a tiny fraction of the current one: not only was the overall population more than 100 times smaller, but they had to be from a much smaller cross section of that population. Their education, if they had any at all, was either from private tutors who had somehow wound up in the colonies or early colonial universities (i.e. even by the standards of the time, first-rate education this was not). And of course they are missing knowledge acquired over the more than 200 years of history between now and then. One would expect that from a modern point of view, they'd be way worse at governing, but from the documents, they're quite intelligent and, while not always right, often quite insightful. Our current leaders have all the advantages and... they are a pitiful mockery of their distant predecessors. Strange and depressing.

[Kalbear]

Thanks, @Altherion.

Here's another scholarly document that indicates that the two major reasons were to ensure that another army - whether from another country or the own tyrannical government - would be opposed by a trained militia.

What's interesting to me is how completely irrelevant the arguments are as far as good governance nowadays. The notion that a trained militia could easily overwhelm any standing army by sheer amount is obviously an idea which effectively died with mechanized forces, and absurdly died with air forces. That a militia could reasonably oppose standing armies via anything other than guerrilla tactics was an accepted, de facto principle then and is completely ludicrous now. This makes sense given the historical backing - England had just spent the last 150 years with people dissolving, restarting, rearming and losing various armies and militias depending on what location, religion and governor they supported, with a military dictatorship essentially arising because they had a standing army and no one else did. 

Furthermore, it's pretty clear that they envisioned rules similar to the English had for a while - which was to make sure that every single able-bodied person was trained with arms, and that that would be a basic standard. Again, totally unreasonable nowadays one way or another. 

Am starting to agree with @Ser Scot A Ellison on this stuff - the constitution as written is entirely irrelevant for the goals and features of a modern society. 

[DunderMifflin]

Wouldn't you still need/want weapons if you are opposing a standing army via guerilla tactics?

[Altherion]

13 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

What's interesting to me is how completely irrelevant the arguments are as far as good governance nowadays. The notion that a trained militia could easily overwhelm any standing army by sheer amount is obviously an idea which effectively died with mechanized forces, and absurdly died with air forces. That a militia could reasonably oppose standing armies via anything other than guerrilla tactics was an accepted, de facto principle then and is completely ludicrous now.

Yes and no. It's true that no modern militia could stand up to a modern army in a pitched battle, but don't underestimate guerrilla warfare. It's not that the militia would win, but the resulting chaos simply is not worth it: first, the markets would take it really poorly and second, there's no telling who might get hurt (important people are well-guarded, but not immune to bullets).

Also, the founders were right about standing armies, but they misjudged who would be the targets of oppression (probably because it did not occur to them that we'd ever be able to project power globally like we currently do).

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

Yes and no. It's true that no modern militia could stand up to a modern army in a pitched battle, but don't underestimate guerrilla warfare. It's not that the militia would win, but the resulting chaos simply is not worth it: first, the markets would take it really poorly and second, there's no telling who might get hurt (important people are well-guarded, but not immune to bullets).

I doubt the founders cared about the markets. And well-guarded people are immune to bullets by means of not being anywhere near people who have said bullets to fire them. The idea of faster than horseback travel wasn't exactly a common thing. 

Again, it's very clear that the militia would be the primary force to fight both internal and external threats, and keeping a standing army for more than two years would not be remotely considered. Said militia would be loyal to the state government first and foremost too (another feature that is basically meaningless now) which would make them more loyal to defending their cause. They would even be expected to train with others of their state, with officers chosen from that state. 

The only thing that we've kept from that is that you can have small arms. 

What a clusterfuck. 

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

Also, the founders were right about standing armies, but they misjudged who would be the targets of oppression (probably because it did not occur to them that we'd ever be able to project power globally like we currently do).

I don't know that they were right about standing armies in that way, either. At the very least they didn't envision people being so wedded to industrialization and capital as a means of control, nor did they think that a standing army would be particularly strong against an armed populace. 

I mean, imagine the notion of a militia forming to face the tyranny of the government right now. There are no officers. People don't train as a unit (this would be part of the well-regulated parts too). There are no leaders. Heck, people don't even need to have trained with their weapons. And they'd be going up against...what, exactly? Even in Iraq, where the guerrilla forces were quite strong, a large reason they were so strong was because they were ex-military or led by ex-military. 

The idea that this is somehow relevant to modern times is clearly and obviously insane. I'm totally down with wanting to keep a check on the tyranny of government if that's what you want to do, but this? This doesn't work for shit. 

[DunderMifflin]

 

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Yes and no. It's true that no modern militia could stand up to a modern army in a pitched battle, but don't underestimate guerrilla warfare. It's not that the militia would win, but the resulting chaos simply is not worth it: first, the markets would take it really poorly and second, there's no telling who might get hurt (important people are well-guarded, but not immune to bullets).

Also there's evidence that modern social media could play a huge role in any sort of uprising. Like what happened with Arab Spring.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Realistically, the only thing the Federal Government would need to do to suppress a Second Amendment uprising is turn off the rebel's internet and wait.

I agree with the sentiment that the purpose of the Amendment was to ensure national security without one of those dreaded standing armies. It's been perverted out of all recognition, when in reality it should be as obsolete as the Third Amendment.

[DunderMifflin]

25 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Realistically, the only thing the Federal Government would need to do to suppress a Second Amendment uprising is turn off the rebel's internet and wait.

Thats assuming they could even do that and keep it off without turning everyone else's off too.

If it's that easy then just turn off their electricity too while they are at it.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

7 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Thats assuming they could even do that and keep it off without turning everyone else's off too.

If it's that easy then just turn off their electricity too while they are at it.

The point is that the sort of people who think their little rifle can defend against Government tanks don't seem to realise that things they take for granted in their day to day lives (internet, hot water) are part of a wider socio-economic infrastructure that they'd suddenly have to do without.

[DunderMifflin]

20 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The point is that the sort of people who think their little rifle can defend against Government tanks don't seem to realise that things they take for granted in their day to day lives (internet, hot water) are part of a wider socio-economic infrastructure that they'd suddenly have to do without.

Thats assuming you know exactly where the troublemakers are located and exactly who they are. If it's a somewhat organized nationwide effort. How would they even know whose facilities to turn off?

I'm not exactly sure what type of people would actually support a government revolt right now but I'm just speculating how a modern day USA revolt could possibly go. 

 

In the end it's going to come down to if enough people are pissed off enough to actually coordinate and do something. 

I mean, if these hypothetical rebels were to somehow manage to coordinate a couple hundred thousand people in D.C. ready for battle all with rifles.

That's not going to be an easy thing to deal with no matter how many killer robots and tanks you have.

Even if it gets to the point you have to send fighter jets to mow everybody down, the aftermath of that is going to be something very serious.

[James Arryn]

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

Yes and no. It's true that no modern militia could stand up to a modern army in a pitched battle, but don't underestimate guerrilla warfare. It's not that the militia would win, but the resulting chaos simply is not worth it: first, the markets would take it really poorly and second, there's no telling who might get hurt (important people are well-guarded, but not immune to bullets).

Also, the founders were right about standing armies, but they misjudged who would be the targets of oppression (probably because it did not occur to them that we'd ever be able to project power globally like we currently do).

Yes, finally we're getting to it.

Here's the benefit: that if an invading force managed to flood the U.S. with overwhelming force, catch conventional forces off guard and defeat them, all without the U.S. having time to form and arm militia forces, then the stockpile of personalized weapons would add to the guerrilla effort. Assuming, of course, that they weren't owned by collaborators or captured by enemy forces, in which case these become negative factors for the resistance. 

-or-

That if the government becomes a tyrannical oppressor, makes war on its own people and it's overwhelming conventional forces aren't properly coordinated or sufficient, the personal stockpiles was will add to the guerilla effort, assuming they don't belong to pro-government types or are captured, at which time, etc.

 

That's it. Those are the doomsday possibilities that uphold the 2nd Ammendment. Does any sane person really and truly think that an almost impossible invasion or Helter Skelter civil war  scenarios are worth the cost in human lives we pay every fucking day to keep these people-hunting guns around? 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

28 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

That's it. Those are the doomsday possibilities that uphold the 2nd Ammendment. Does any sane person really and truly think that an almost impossible invasion or Helter Skelter civil war  scenarios are worth the cost in human lives we pay every fucking day to keep these people-hunting guns around? 

 WOLVERINES!!!!!

[ThinkerX]

Spent way too much time arguing with vehement 2 amendment supporters on Facebook.  (Most of them are ardent libertarians as well.)

Came up with a couple of hypotheticals:

1 - 2nd amendment provides for a 'well regulated militia.'  A militia of the sort envisioned by the founders is obsolete, but the amendment still stands.  President of the US is also Commander in Chief of all US military forces, including, ultimately the militia (gun owners).  Hence, while the president cannot directly ban gun ownership (the 'shall not be infringed' part) he can regulate gun usage.  (aka 'gun control.') 

Gun nuts went absolutely berserk at that line of reasoning.  A fair number appeared ignorant of the 'well regulated' bit, others insisted it didn't apply in the present day and age.  None were able to present a good counterargument.

 

2 - 2nd amendment includes the 'security of a free state' provision.  As mentioned in point 1, the president is supreme commander of all US forces.  Many of these militia groups are based on the 2nd amendment.  These days, Muslims are seen by those on the right as a threat to the US.  Therefor, in theory, the president could 'activate' (federalize) these militia groups and send them overseas to combat this 'threat to the security of a free state.'  Not going to happen, of course, but it does seem theoretically legal. 

 

 

 

[Altherion]

7 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

I doubt the founders cared about the markets. And well-guarded people are immune to bullets by means of not being anywhere near people who have said bullets to fire them. The idea of faster than horseback travel wasn't exactly a common thing.

They may not have cared about the markets or indeed any other specific means by which the lives of the elites would be disrupted, but they knew that as long as people are willing and able to resist, the possibility of disruption would be there. The act of avoiding discontent by running away is similarly disruptive. Yes, one can run away to a bunker or overseas, but who wants to live like that?

Quote

I mean, imagine the notion of a militia forming to face the tyranny of the government right now. There are no officers. People don't train as a unit (this would be part of the well-regulated parts too). There are no leaders. Heck, people don't even need to have trained with their weapons. And they'd be going up against...what, exactly? Even in Iraq, where the guerrilla forces were quite strong, a large reason they were so strong was because they were ex-military or led by ex-military. 

The idea that this is somehow relevant to modern times is clearly and obviously insane. I'm totally down with wanting to keep a check on the tyranny of government if that's what you want to do, but this? This doesn't work for shit.

 

You are beating up a straw man here. Yes, the idea of an 18th century militia is laughable today because the strategic, tactical and political aspects of a revolt are completely different -- but that just means that any meaningful disturbance or revolt would play out differently. However, the right to bear arms is still extremely important for creating a disturbance or revolt, especially since today's arms are much more effective than 18th century ones. As has recently been demonstrated, somebody with military training (of which there is no shortage since we've been in a continuous state of war for the past decade and a half) can do a great deal of damage even to armed individuals when combining a well-chosen position with the element of surprise.

4 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Hence, while the president cannot directly ban gun ownership (the 'shall not be infringed' part) he can regulate gun usage.  (aka 'gun control.') 

Gun nuts went absolutely berserk at that line of reasoning.

They went berserk because this is precisely the opposite of the reasoning behind the Second Amendment. For many of the people who wanted the amendment in the first place (see the quotes in the initial post or the conclusion of Kalbear's PDF), the entire point was to allow for armed communities which are not under the control of Congress or the President (the founders did not appreciate how terrifyingly powerful that role would become) or any other government except in time of war. The latter means actual war as declared by Congress, with a beginning and an end rather than the persistent state of war that we have today (they didn't see that coming either). "Well regulated" as used in the 18th century has a different connotation from what it does today (it's only with today's interpretation that the amendment is obviously self-contradictory).

[James Arryn]

Altherion, 

I'm trying to understand your world view. Who are these 'elites' you're always talking about? Not like a list of names or anything, but what kind of people they are, what distinguishes them from other folk, and what danger they represent. Because if I understand you....no, I'll leave it until I think I do.

[Altherion]

57 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Altherion, 

I'm trying to understand your world view. Who are these 'elites' you're always talking about? Not like a list of names or anything, but what kind of people they are, what distinguishes them from other folk, and what danger they represent. Because if I understand you....no, I'll leave it until I think I do.

I'm just going to copy my answer from here:

When I say the elites, I mean government leaders as well as leaders and largest shareholders of major (usually transnational) corporations. There is considerable overlap between all of these categories. By "government leaders", I mean not just presidents and prime ministers, but also the more powerful cabinet members, governors of important states/provinces/etc., mayors of the mega-cities, the more powerful legislative, judicial, military and bureaucratic officials and so on. Every once in a while, a member of academia or the media is so influential upon some of these groups that he or she can also be considered part of the class. The Bilderberg Group is a fairly decent cross section of the ruling elite of Western countries, although there are obviously many more of them than that.

They're dangerous because a substantial fraction of them is insatiable: no matter how much power they have, they always want more. Of course, there are ordinary people who are like that too, but unlike the latter, the elites have the power to keep squeezing everyone else and carrying out all of the auxiliary procedures (e.g. divide-and-conquer). They won't stop until they encounter sufficient resistance to frighten them or until the system falls apart (which is highly unpleasant for everyone). The people who wrote the Constitution were themselves the 18th century version of these elites, but they understood the problem and tried to keep the government from acquiring enough power for the issue to snowball and to prevent it from suppressing signs of discontent. Unfortunately, the world did not evolve as they expected and their modern successors lack their understanding.

[Kalbear]

14 hours ago, Altherion said:

They may not have cared about the markets or indeed any other specific means by which the lives of the elites would be disrupted, but they knew that as long as people are willing and able to resist, the possibility of disruption would be there. The act of avoiding discontent by running away is similarly disruptive. Yes, one can run away to a bunker or overseas, but who wants to live like that?

When running away to live means going to your own private island away from one country, or going to somewhere like Monaco, the chances are good that a whole lot of people don't mind at all. You're constructing some bizarre idea of the entire world erupting in revolt; this wasn't what the founders were talking about or wanting to defend against whatsoever, and it certainly wasn't the case that they were wanting to defend against 'elites'. They were wanting to defend against tyranny. And specifically they had seen a whole lot of tyranny from non-elite sources in their recent historical past - notably Oliver Cromwell. 

14 hours ago, Altherion said:

You are beating up a straw man here. Yes, the idea of an 18th century militia is laughable today because the strategic, tactical and political aspects of a revolt are completely different -- but that just means that any meaningful disturbance or revolt would play out differently. However, the right to bear arms is still extremely important for creating a disturbance or revolt, especially since today's arms are much more effective than 18th century ones. As has recently been demonstrated, somebody with military training (of which there is no shortage since we've been in a continuous state of war for the past decade and a half) can do a great deal of damage even to armed individuals when combining a well-chosen position with the element of surprise.

Not really. They shot 5 cops and wounded others in a nonwartime situation. Having random rogue shooters is not comparable to a war zone or an insurgency. This is completely silly.

And it is also not remotely what the founders were envisioning. 

I'm not beating a strawman here; I'm saying that the concepts that the founders were going after and what they were choosing to defend against are completely irrelevant here, much like the third amendment is at this point completely irrelevant. It's the central point I'm choosing to make. Using the Dallas shooting as good reason why people should have weaponry is a true strawman; he was a single shooter, alone, deeply personally troubled and militarily trained. He is in short not remotely like what an uprising would be like as far as common people's behavior, and the situation of a large unarmed police force at a peaceful protest is not remotely like what would happen during an actual insurrection. 

I'll say it more plainly: if the second amendment's goal is to ensure that the general populace acts as a means to combat either foreign invaders or internal tyranny, it is completely out of date in guaranteeing the necessary rights to do so. It is laughably bad at it. Being able to have the right to have small arms but not have training, organization, leadership, any kind of electronic or supply support is essentially turning anyone that might have guns into suicide bombers at best. While they may be able to disrupt an opposing force to some degree depending on said opposing force's desire to wipe out civilians, they are completely ineffective at dealing with internal tyranny. 

The US military would be able to absolutely destroy civilian opposition. Ruthlessly, quickly, effectively and depending on how much collateral damage would be acceptable, without almost any resistance at all. 

Therefore, the 2nd amendment as it is written is completely useless for the point of actually opposing domestic-based tyranny. It might as well guarantee everyone has the right to a horse and saddle. 

14 hours ago, Altherion said:

They went berserk because this is precisely the opposite of the reasoning behind the Second Amendment. For many of the people who wanted the amendment in the first place (see the quotes in the initial post or the conclusion of Kalbear's PDF), the entire point was to allow for armed communities which are not under the control of Congress or the President (the founders did not appreciate how terrifyingly powerful that role would become) or any other government except in time of war. The latter means actual war as declared by Congress, with a beginning and an end rather than the persistent state of war that we have today (they didn't see that coming either). "Well regulated" as used in the 18th century has a different connotation from what it does today (it's only with today's interpretation that the amendment is obviously self-contradictory).

Well-regulated even in the 18th century is now out of scope. If the requirement was a well-regulated militia (per the old definition) this would actually make things a bit better. Requiring all states to have civilian militias that are trained in military weaponry, tactics, skills and equipment and which are beholden to said states - and require essentially every single able-bodied person to do so - would actually be a bulwark against said tyranny, at least a better one than exists today. That's what a well-regulated militia would be right now. But that's not at all what the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is right now, not by a very long shot. 

[DunderMifflin]

If changing constitutional rights is on the table to update the spirit to match modern day needs. I'm all in favor for amendments guaranteeing citizens the right to train and organizing themselves in any way they choose, right to choose their own leadership, and the right to provide electronics for themselves.

That would be amazing, I would love to see that happen.

Certainly would thin out the constant governmental wars against street gangs.

[Altherion]

10 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

I'll say it more plainly: if the second amendment's goal is to ensure that the general populace acts as a means to combat either foreign invaders or internal tyranny, it is completely out of date in guaranteeing the necessary rights to do so. It is laughably bad at it. Being able to have the right to have small arms but not have training, organization, leadership, any kind of electronic or supply support is essentially turning anyone that might have guns into suicide bombers at best. While they may be able to disrupt an opposing force to some degree depending on said opposing force's desire to wipe out civilians, they are completely ineffective at dealing with internal tyranny.

You are lumping together categories of things which are not similar. There's no way to guarantee effective organization and leadership -- you either have them or you don't (e.g. if we had effective leadership, the recent events in Baton Rouge and Dallas would never have happened in the first place). Training is generally something possessed by a few and naturally acquired by the rest as the situation develops. Supply support is actually much easier to obtain today than it ever was. I'm not sure what you mean by electronic support, but modern consumer devices typically have military-grade encryption by default.

Quote

 

The US military would be able to absolutely destroy civilian opposition. Ruthlessly, quickly, effectively and depending on how much collateral damage would be acceptable, without almost any resistance at all. 

Therefore, the 2nd amendment as it is written is completely useless for the point of actually opposing domestic-based tyranny. It might as well guarantee everyone has the right to a horse and saddle.

 

Have you paid any attention at all to the US military's recent adventures in the Middle East? They're allowed a far freer hand with destruction of infrastructure and collateral damage than they would be at home, but I would not described the results as quick or effective. Or, if you want a more ruthless force, consider Russia's actions in its Caucasian republics (the Russian army is smaller, but of the same type as ours). Modern armies are designed to defeat other modern armies. They are not designed for asymmetric warfare and their record at it is fairly lousy.

Also, I think you greatly underestimate the effects such a conflict would have. It's one thing to have a war halfway across the world and quite another to have one where your family lives. It's not obvious that the American military would actually obey orders to bomb American cities. If you look at US law on the matter (i.e. the Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts), they deliberately prevent the government from using the military until other options are exhausted.

[Kalbear]

29 minutes ago, Altherion said:

You are lumping together categories of things which are not similar. There's no way to guarantee effective organization and leadership -- you either have them or you don't (e.g. if we had effective leadership, the recent events in Baton Rouge and Dallas would never have happened in the first place). Training is generally something possessed by a few and naturally acquired by the rest as the situation develops. Supply support is actually much easier to obtain today than it ever was. I'm not sure what you mean by electronic support, but modern consumer devices typically have military-grade encryption by default.

There absolutely are ways of ensuring that leadership and training exist. As an example, both Switzerland and Israel require everyone to have enlisted in armed forces for a certain period of time and then afterwards keep their skills refreshed. 

That you think supply support is easier to obtain means you really don't understand logistics at all. You won't be able to call in to Amazon fresh to get delivery of food during a war. And if you're fighting against your own government, you'll need supply depots with food, ammunition, you'll need to have manufacturing that won't be susceptible to simple disruption, you'll need your own supply chain, etc. Or at least ideas on what to do if you do need them. 

Electronic equipment isn't just encryption (and no, it doesn't have military-grade encryption). It's being able to have communication with others that can't be disrupted easily, signal systems that allow you to determine if nodes are compromised, intelligence that you can actually control (such as satellite systems and the like), networks that aren't immediately compromised, etc. 

29 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Have you paid any attention at all to the US military's recent adventures in the Middle East? They're allowed a far freer hand with destruction of infrastructure and collateral damage than they would be at home, but I would not described the results as quick or effective. Or, if you want a more ruthless force, consider Russia's actions in its Caucasian republics (the Russian army is smaller, but of the same type as ours). Modern armies are designed to defeat other modern armies. They are not designed for asymmetric warfare and their record at it is fairly lousy.

I have. Have you noticed that the Middle East opposition is largely made up of Iraqi military, or Syrian military? 

That said, the results not being immediate doesn't mean they haven't been hugely effective. It also depends heavily on what the goal of the forces are; if they're trying to take out military threats and political threats they are naturally restrained. If they're simply trying to wipe you out, they need not be nearly so much. While they're freer to destroy and cause collateral damage, the US military is by far the most restrained military currently existing. 

29 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Also, I think you greatly underestimate the effects such a conflict would have. It's one thing to have a war halfway across the world and quite another to have one where your family lives. It's not obvious that the American military would actually obey orders to bomb American cities. If you look at US law on the matter (i.e. the Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts), they deliberately prevent the government from using the military until other options are exhausted.

My suspicion is that any tyranny that was needed to fight would not be paying a whole lot of attention to the insurrection acts or their legality. You are right that it is unclear if the military soldiers would choose to fight against their own countrymen; it's also unclear if they wouldn't absolutely relish it (at least some of them). Ultimately consider that we are talking first about a tyranny that is arising in the government itself, and it would be something that happens over some time. As a thought experiment, let's take an authoritarian president. The first thing they do is get rid of any senior military that are not willing to do what they want, and have specific ideas on how to combat something (say, Islam). They then tell said seniors to trim out any military that aren't willing to back them either. You purge the military first. Then you start with actions designed to keep the peace - things like having military presence in Islamic neighborhoods, curfew for anyone Islamic, restrictions on when worship can happen (and military presence there). Perhaps you implement an ID system that allows you to indicate who is Islamic. Restrictions on arms sales to known Islamic people.

Eventually this gets bad enough that the populace wants to fight back. But how do they do so? Certainly not with the pitiful rights that the 2nd amendment allow.