Logical for the time....totally irrational in these times.

An armed citizenry was thought necessary to overthrow a tyrannical government Hardly realistic in any way these days.

Yes..back then it was more like a 13 colony European style union.

Well it would take a lot more than an armed citizenry with AR-15s, Glocks and 44 Mags to march on Washington and disband Congress

Indeed...

I believe even that was tendentious and politically opportunistic. One man's "tyrannical government" was another man's His Majesty's Government - and collecting taxes was a legitimate function.

Depends if Trump gets elected or not. It may become relevant then.

The Federalists were opposed to armed revolutions against the US government, which is one reason why we have a Constitution that made a point of federalizing the militias. (Research Shay's Rebellion and the federalist sentiment against it.)

Also note that the one crime that is specified in the Constitution is treason. Try overthrowing the government and see whether you get away with it.

Have constitutional theorists in the U.S. ever tried to rationalise that conflict - that it was ok to rebel against the government in 1776, but Shay's Rebellion etc was not OK? And Benedict Arnold was a traitor?

Well they won so they get to make the rules.

The American government is of, for and by the people, as opposed to the tyranny imposed by the Crown that was an outside force that taxed them but denied them representation.

One could revolt at the ballot box. Taking up arms against the state was not an acceptable option.

George Washington had retired from public life until Shay's Rebellion prompted him to participate in the Constitutional Convention, and he was pleased when the rebellion was put down. His comment while it was in progress:

"the accounts which are published of the commotions…exhibit a melancholy proof of what our trans-Atlantic foe has predicted; and of another thing perhaps, which is still more to be regretted, and is yet more unaccountable, that mankind when left to themselves are unfit for their own Government. I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned upon any Country."

Rebellion was acceptable when it was against the "trans-Atlantic foe." Against the US or one of its state governments, not so much.

Especially since after the seven years war with France the British treasury was almost bankrupt and the colonists expected the British to maintain a large military presence in the colonies yet were unwilling to help quarter and feed them.

On the other hand the Colonists had a legitimate grievance in that they were being taxed without representation.

Shays rebellion was during the Articles of Confederation...which was really a weak form of unity and weak Federal government. The Presidents who served under Confederation served only one year and had little authority. The Constitution strengthened the Federal authority.

Yes...but sadly his supporters own most of the guns.

A thought popped into my head. Not sure if it belongs in this thread, the Orlando thread or a Brexit thread.

Enoch Powell's "Rivers of blood" speech, is it prescient or still wrong?