Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution support armed resistance against the U.S. Government? Some people, even constitutional scholars, tend to have strong opinions on this topic. I'll present my argument below, but first, let's examine the actual text of the amendment.
"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."
Observation 1 - The amendment states that militias are "necessary to the security of a free State." Whether that remains true today is a matter for debate, but it was a reasonable position in the late Eighteenth Century. The new nation of the United States of America had plenty of enemies. They had just won independence from Great Britain, but King George was not ready to take no for an answer. Britain waged two more wars with the former colonies before they finally accepted their independence.
Hostile natives were also a threat to the citizens of the new nation, although admittedly, that threat worked both ways. And let's face it - we were broke. Armies cost money, and we didn't have much money.
Under these conditions, militias were vital to the security of the state. But that does not imply that the militias were there to turn on the government. They were seen as protectors of the state, not as revolutionaries in waiting. Militias were considered "necessary to the security" of the State, not as a reset button on an unpopular government.
Observation 2 - The amendment speaks in favor of well regulated militias, not renegades with guns. Who regulates the militias? The State. Why would the State regulate militias that had intentions of overthrowing the government? It doesn't make sense. Armed citizens were expected to protect the State, not to overthrow it.
Observation 3 - It's not reasonable to believe that the architects of our system of government would embed language encouraging the overthrow of that government. Jefferson and Adams didn't say, "Hey, let's let the citizens keep arms in case we overstep our authority." The Constitution was designed to put representative power into the hands of the people in hopes that armed insurrection would not be necessary. If we don't like our representatives, we vote for someone else. There's no reason to assassinate people when you can simply vote them out of office.
Armed insurrection was not seen as a solution, especially by people who had just lived through one. The solution that they proposed was a government based on stability and accountability, on a balance of power that could be altered freely by the electorate on a regular schedule.
Nevertheless, the plan was not foolproof. We did have our armed insurrection. It was called the Civil War, the deadliest war in our nation's history in terms of American casualties. That conflict resulted in the type of carnage that Jefferson and Adams were trying to avoid. Hopefully, in the future, we'll settle our differences at the ballot box instead of in the trenches of armed conflict. Our Constitution does not suggest or support armed insurrection despite what some conspiracy theorists might want to believe.
Copyright © 2015 Daniel R. South
