4 ms·

Are the constitutional arguments about self defense? I've heard a few times that they're about rebelling against a corrupt government.

• GravitasFailure 5y ago
  One way to think about rebellion is as an act of self defense against a tyrannical government. Most of the pro-2A activity that I see these days seems to revolve around self defense arguments as opposed to earlier arguments (1980s or so) revolved around hunting/sporting. I'm not saying rebellion isn't a commonly cited part of the 2A, but it's probably one of the least persuasive arguments and doesn't get trotted out much in polite company.
• oxymoran 5y ago
  They are absolutely about rebelling against a tyrannical government. The founders were obsessed with safeguarding democracy against tyranny. That’s why there is the whole bit about the right to form a militia. The self defense aspect is just the logical extrapolation of that idea from from a population level to an individual level.
• timoth3y 5y ago
  > I've heard a few times that they're about rebelling against a corrupt government That's a relatively modern myth. The intent of 2nd Amendment is primarily the defense of the State. This is clear from the text itself and from other writings of the framers. In fact, in the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, Americans tried to use their firearms in just this way; to resist what they considered to be a tyrannical tax and imposition on their way of life. Washington called up the militia and put down the rebellion with overwhelming support of Congress, which contained many of the original framers. The leaders of the rebellion were tried and found guilty of treason.