He is right in that an armed uprising would be a rebellion to be put down by the military. The rebels would be the enemy of the Constitution at that point.
That is not the way the liberals understand it though. They think if they pass a law, such as banning all privately owned firearms, they can use the military to enforce it.
At that point, those issuing orders to the military to enforce an unlawful order would be the enemies of the Constitution.
Hotheads deciding to move away from the ballot box towards the bullet box will meet with military problems.
Arrogant politicians who seek to enforce their will through unconstitutional means will likewise meet with military problems.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
I will add that the author of this piece seems to misguided in our true form of government. We are a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy.
I would also anticipate problems within the military itself. Those that acknowledge the Constitution and those that believe we are a Democracy.
Then what was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution?
Just to have a standing militia for the government to use?
It's my understanding that the 2nd amendment of the constitution was put there so that if the government became unbearable, and tried to use force to stay in power, that the people would be able to remove that government by force if it became necessary.
Correct me if I'm wrong.