You're confusing me. You say that the army is to uphold and defend the constitution and it will not shoot against civilians that are making a coup, but then you say that it is the civilians job to overthrow their tyrannical government and that the army can go bad... Your words contradict themselves there. Wouldn't a tyrannical government be already against the constitution? Or the army upholds the constitution or the civilians do... I guess both could, but your words before and now were that it is one or another. Also every government is tyrannical to someone. Who gets to decide when the government is tyrannical enough to start shooting? Even though many people, minorities, groups, etc keep saying how oppressed they are, keep making protests and marches, etc. Those that revolt against the government are considered criminals and terrorists. Why? Who has the power to decide when a government is tyrannical enough to start shooting and not be considered a terrorist and criminal? Something interesting about the bill of Rights is that it says quite a few rights that are not uphold. But no one bats an eye for those... The most blatant is the Amendment IV that says this: Speedy and public trial. But there are plenty of closed door trials and plenty that take years to be finalized... This happens everyday but no one bats an eye. The judicial system in the USA is always breaking the Bill of Rights but it doesn't matter because... it's a small thing, who cares if criminals have a speedy and public trial?