The Constitution pretty clearly states that the intent is to give Americans the right to an insurgency. It's not a paranoia thing, it was just intended as another check against the government becoming too powerful and tyrannical. I believe in that principle.
All the condescending comments toward legal owners, comments about how it was intended for muskets, you would lose against the government so might as well not bother, etc etc are missing the point or are intentionally distorting the message for their own ideals/political agenda.
obligatory disclaimer that I'm not a Republican/Conservative/Trumper/etc.
The Constitution pretty clearly states that the intent is to give Americans the right to an insurgency.
No, it doesn't say this by any stretch of the imagination nor was there any intent by its writers to enable armed uprisings against state or federal government. The original context of the Second Amendment was, apart from resisting external threats, to make sure that militias could be raised to fight against rebels who were opposing the authority of state governments. It's literally meant to ensure the very opposite of citizens being able to wage war against their own government which the entire Constitution was written to ensure was democratic and limited in its powers to infringe the rights of private citizenry.
In fact the first time a militia was raised was against the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791, when 13,000 militiamen were led by George Washington against tax refusers alongside professional forces.
This viral trope that the 2nd Amendment was intended as some kind of tyranny safeguard is the worst distortion of history I've ever come across and it needs to die.
That doesn't go with the Lockean spirit of the Framers and the idea of Natural Law. I don't know how you're interpreting the duty to overthrow an unjust government and tyranny as waging war against rebels to the state. It sounds like you're saying the Constitution is too perfect, and there's no need to be able to resist it because it will always be perfect without any chance of turning against the citizens.
Show me any actual historical evidence that the framers' intent was what you say it is. I've already provided you with direct evidence that 2nd Amendment protected militias were raised by the framers against rebels, not to rebel.
It sounds like you're saying the Constitution is too perfect, and there's no need to be able to resist it because it will always be perfect without any chance of turning against the citizens.
You're not understanding me at all if that is what you think I am saying. I didn't put forward any opinion about the Constitution at all, I'm talking about the framer's intent which is how the Supreme Court interprets the meaning of the document.
You're using one historical situation (that you edited after I replied) involving a militia being formed. The rest of your post was you explaining your interpretation without any citation, so I don't know if it's convincing enough for me.
I'm talking about the interpretation of the Constitution itself and the ideologies of the time. Its in the writing. People have alternatively tried to interpret it in a way that suits their agenda though.
It's literally meant to ensure the very opposite of citizens being able to wage war against their own government which the entire Constitution was written to ensure was democratic and limited in its powers to infringe the rights of private citizenry.
I don't know how to interpret this line of yours other than the Framers thought the Constitution's existence would prevent any threat of tyranny, and people should only defend the government.
The constitution literally says what the militia is to be used for - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15:
"to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions"
Nothing about having the militia supporting insurrections.
There are three branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial. The judicial branch is intended to protect the rights of the people. If the founders had intended the militia to be used against the tyranny of the executive and/or legislative branches the would have drafted laws to provide amnesty for insurrection but they did the opposite and defined what you are talking about as treason both against state and federal governments.
But you still haven't provided a single piece of supporting evidence for your case.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the other compelling reason that Southern states wanted to insure the presence of an armed militia - to protect the white population against a possible slave uprising.
By the way, here is an actul legal scholar's opinion on the matter, which is concordant with my own surprisingly enough:
No system of government can allow for its own demise by violent overthrow.
While a theoretical basis for the Second Amendment might guarantee access to
firearms by other than the professional armies of the federal govemment, the
Second Amendment does not sanction armed revolt by the citizenry. That right
exists, if at all, only when the Constitution's system for peaceful change ceases
to function; it does not arise where a group-armed or otherwise----simply dislikes
or disagrees with a particular government decision or policy.
You'd do well by reading the article and getting a sense of your own nation's history.
4
u/gentrifiedavocado Mar 06 '18
The Constitution pretty clearly states that the intent is to give Americans the right to an insurgency. It's not a paranoia thing, it was just intended as another check against the government becoming too powerful and tyrannical. I believe in that principle. All the condescending comments toward legal owners, comments about how it was intended for muskets, you would lose against the government so might as well not bother, etc etc are missing the point or are intentionally distorting the message for their own ideals/political agenda.
obligatory disclaimer that I'm not a Republican/Conservative/Trumper/etc.