Myth: “The Second Amendment is to Overthrow the Government.”
In the debate about gun control, many gun enthusiasts argue that the Second Amendment to the Constitution was written, not for the purposes of hunting or even self-defense, but specifically to give people the ability to rise up against the government when they no longer support that government.
These gun enthusiasts further hold the reference to the word militia in the Second Amendment refers to the armed populace in general. As such, this militia has the right to own the type of weapons that would be required to overthrow the government if need be.
Let’s take a look at exactly what the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution and other laws about the Militia:
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists among the powers of Congress: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article II, Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Amendment 2: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
That is every reference to the Militia in the Constitution. The description of the Militia in Article I sounds very much like our country’s National Guard. It is supposed to be well-organized with officers and training.
Not only does the Constitution not say anything about bearing arms to use against the government, it specifically says the Militia can be called upon by the President to suppress insurrections against our government.
The Militia Act of 1792, which was passed only three years after our Constitution was ratified, defined how a state militia should be organized. It is not just a loose group of guys with guns. It is a well-organized militia with officers of various ranks, and the members are to receive the same pay and allowances as all troops of the United States.
While most men owned a musket and were expected to become part of the Militia when called upon, there is nothing in the Constitution or the Militia Act that suggests the public should be armed for the purpose of rising up against the government. The Militia Act specifically states that if there is an insurrection against the government, the President is authorized to call up the Militia to suppress that insurrection.
Taken together, the U.S. Constitution and the Militia Act of 1792 state a person has the right to bear arms specifically for the purpose of joining the Militia so you can help defend your country if you are called upon. Over time the Militia has evolved into what is now called the National Guard.
In 1794, during the Whiskey Rebellion, 5,000 men rose up to oppose the government. President George Washington called up the Militia in several states and personally led them to western Pennsylvania to put down the rebellion.
It’s not my intention here to argue that there isn’t a right to bear arms. The American people generally believe that there exists such a right, regardless of how the Second Amendment is interpreted. I am only pointing out that the claims by gun extremists about the intention of the Second Amendment being to allow the public to take up arms against our government is completely false. The Constitution, the Militia Act of 1792, and the actions of President George Washington certainly refute that claim.
Before anyone distorts what I am saying, let me clarify. I don’t want to confiscate the guns of law-abiding gun owners. I don’t want to disarm the American people, and I don’t want to ban all guns.
The Constitution does not recognize an unlimited right to own the most powerful and lethal weapons. There is no prohibition against commonsense restrictions like limiting the capacity of a firearm, requiring a waiting period or background check before buying a gun, or limiting certain features of a gun that make it especially useful for killing large numbers of people with little effort.
Read the Constitution, the Militia Act of 1792, and the Whiskey Rebellion here:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
http://www.ttb.gov/public_info/whisky_rebellion.shtml
Image Credit: Illustration by Kiersten Essenpreis
This article was edited by Jeri Walker-Bickett.
I do not ever stress about background record checks, due to
the fact that I do not currently have anything at
all to hide.
Neither do I. In face I’ve lost track of the number of background checks and security clearances done.
Then there is how background checks can be used as a weapon. NICS (the “I” stands for “instant.) background checks have a 1.2% denial rate. Plus they have three business days to complete. Would it be any better to allow 30 or 180 days? However, extended background checks is a popular Antigun proposal. Look st Seattle. The have tried to tax each round of ammunition and each gun sold. While the Antigun group nods in approval, it’s notable that cars, pot, booze and tobacco all don’t have such a tax. Each meets the arguements that were made for a tax on guns and ammunition.
I’m not arguing one way or the other on gun laws, but I thought I’d point out: Pot, cars, booze, and tobacco are all *also* taxed to high heaven in Seattle, or at least in the case of cars, the corresponding mandatory costs (insurance, licensing, tabs, etc.) are quite high.
In fact cars are a great analogy. They’re deadly weapons. To use one, you must have a license, which can be revoked, and you must maintain at all times insurance coverage for anyone you happen to hit with it. Seems to me a logical law would be to require insurance for guns – and that would satisfy many of the arguments gun control advocates often cite.
“Arguing That You Don’t Care About The Right To Privacy Because You Have Nothing To Hide Is No Different Than Saying You Don’t Care About Free Speech Because You Have Nothing To Say”
I seldom create comments, however i did a few searching and
wound up here Myth: “The Second Amendment is to Overthrow the Government.
” | The Progressive Press. And I actually do have 2 questions for you if it’s allright. Is it only me or does it seem like some of these responses come across like they are left by brain dead folks? 😛 And, if you are writing on additional places, I’d like
to follow anything new you have to post. Could
you list of every one of all your public sites like your
twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?
You left out the most obvious way to disprove this assertion–US Constitution, Article III, Section iii:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
The Second Amendment does not explicitly repeal this section of the Constitution, which it would need to do, for this to be a serious proposition.
The Second Amendment doesn’t begin “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” without reason. The problem is that the revisionist pseudoscholarship around this Amendment has taken the entire text out of constitutional context (i.e, to provide for the common defense) to create something so totally divorced from the text to be an absurdity.
OU ARE EXACTLY 100% ON THE NOSE.
How do you explain Founders such as George Mason, who said:“I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”
or Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
or Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
or Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.”
While the Founders had many comments in the course of their discussions and debates, note that none of the language quoted made it into the actual Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or any subsequent amendments.
Maybe not, but it certainly sheds light on their intentions.
Except that “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and beat asthma shall noise be infringed. “
Uh, bear arms. Ha ha
What a load of dreck! Try reading the Federalist Papers and then tell that opposing an oppressive government wasn’t on their mind! If you actually understand the Federalist papers, you would also understand that many of the founders were opposed to a standing army as well!
There is an unorganized militia defined in 10 USC 311. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
It also doesn’t matter what the constitution says. The Bill of Rights is a list a prohibitions on the government not an enumerated list of rights of the people. Just look up the preamble to the Bill of Rights. It says so explicitly. In fact, the Constitution is one big list of enumerated powers of the government (limits) not an enumerated list of rights of the people. The rights protected in the Bill of Rights were thought to be natural, pre-existing rights.
All good points, but there is this document called the “Declaration of Independence” and a conflict called “The Revolutionary War” which give precedence to armed revolt against an unjust government. I’m pretty sure the King of England and prevailing law at that time did not approve of such things.
The first section of the 2A is a prefatory clause, the main body, and point, is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Look at the rest of the BoR, where else does “the people” not mean individual citizens? Nowhere.
Then there is the word “people.” Throughout the Constitution “people” is collective and includes the citizens of the United States. In the Second Amendment, there are two parts: First the reason (“We need a militia.”) then the solution (“People keep guns.”)
What were the “arms” of the Revolution? The same as what the British used. Yes, to include privately owned cannon.
The anti-Rights crowd likes to argue that the 2nd as a check against a tyrannical government is some new, radical interpretation of the NRA and “gun nuts.” That arms or ammunition must have a “sporting purpose,” or should be useful only in the taking of game.
But as demonstrated by James Madison in Federalist No. 46, the actual meaning and intent behind it’s being codified in the Bill of Rights was, in no uncertain terms, to grant the People the ability to throw off the army of the federal government should the people decide to do so.
Madison explicitly states in Federalist No. 46:
“The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.”
Therein Madison, the principle author of the Constitution, many of the Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights presents the case of a federal government raising a standing army and turning it against the States and the People, respectively, and the rightful remedy of both being a contest of Arms with that federal army. He even goes so far as to argue that the armed population of America cannot be conquered as easily or quietly as the peoples of Europe.
This is the case for the individual Right to Arms, which may be exercised collectively by the People as a check against tyranny.
I won’t deny that the Founders desired we work things out through the electoral process, but I would argue that they safeguarded the Right of the people to solve it by other means if it became necessary. But they also codified protections to the Right to private Arms knowing that an armed citizenry is the final check against domestic armies intent on subjugation – and this is precisely the meat and potatoes of the Second Amendment.
Bravo, Mr. McKee. You beat me to it.
The founders included in our constitution numerous safeguards against the kinds of tyranny they knew governments were prone to becoming. The separation of powers into 3 branches. Elected officials to represent the interests of the people, chosen from among themselves. A process to amend the constitution, even a process to re-write it if necessary. As part of it, they prohibited the government from suppressing speech, establishing a national religion from preventing people from gathering to discuss politics (or any other matter). We have jury trials and rights to due process. And ultimately, as a last resort should all these fail us, we preserve the right of rebellion.
This one time I smoked crack and meth rolled up in Obama’s college diploma, and I spit out about the same intellectually shallow and deceptive garbage as this. This might be plagiarism.
“… The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Not the militia but the people. It’s pretty clear to a non-american what your constitution is saying.
Another person with a limited understanding of the English language enlightening us with their misunderstanding of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does NOT state that the right of the militia shall not be infringed, it states that the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed. But don’t take my word for it, I’m not an English Professor. Take Professor Roy Copperuds word for it, because he is one of the leading expert in English language usage. He was asked to analyze the Second Amendment and ” not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent.” When specifically asked about the militia phrase he said “No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.” This statement is clearly supported by the writings of the founding fathers of our country. In the attached article he explains why, in detail. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Remember this. After Pearl Harbor, a Japanese leader was asked why they didn’t continue to the Coast of California and attack. His response was, “In the U.S., there is a gun in every household. We would not succeed.”
The term “the people” appears in amendments 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 of the United States Constitution. If you believe that “the people” in amendments 1, 3, 9, and 10 refers to all citizens then you must accept that “the people” refers to all citizens in amendment 2. If you do not believe “the people” in the Constitution refers to all citizens but a restricted subset than the Constitution as a whole is deeply gutted and not nearly the protection it has been thought to be since ratification in 1787.
Bear in mind that at the time the Constitution was written the militia was “the people”.
The writings of Our Founding Fathers would disagree with this article. They ALL made statements about our freedoms and liberties were to be assured by the fact that the general population was to remained armed in other to keep the government in check. -So, Fuck You.
The writings of Our Founding Fathers would disagree with this article. They ALL made statements about our freedoms and liberties were to be assured by the fact that the general population was to remained armed in other to keep the government in check.
The point of the second amendment was to ensure local citizens had a right to join local militias, rather than the use of non-local ones, foreign occupying soldiers, or mercenaries, and to regulate these militias to prevent their abuse by central or local authorities. Since most people couldn’t afford a musket back then and firearms wouldn’t start becoming commonly-owned until the Civil War, I doubt the founders were worried about whether or not people had a right to own a gun. At the same time, though, they probably would have shot you if you’d tried to take theirs. We can debate how much regulation of owning firearms in modern life would have been agreeable to them, but I do not think the 2nd Amendment specifically tells us one way or another as some people claim.