I was always told that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect us from tyranny. It’s what the Founding Fathers supposedly intended. The right to bear arms, we’re told, exists so that the people can rise up if the government ever becomes oppressive. But when you dig deeper into the historical timeline, that narrative starts to unravel.
Many of the Founding Fathers were under the age of 35 at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed. Most of them became politically active during or after the American Revolution, their ideals shaped by war and the rejection of monarchy.
Thomas Jefferson, for example, played a central role in drafting the Declaration of Independence and later became a vocal advocate for the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. That amendment, ratified in 1791, declares: “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.”
And yet, less than twenty years later, in 1807, Jefferson signed into law the Insurrection Act. This law grants the President sweeping authority to deploy the military domestically to suppress rebellion, insurrection, or civil unrest. It contains few meaningful safeguards and offers broad discretion to federal power. In essence, it empowers the very government that the Second Amendment was allegedly meant to keep in check.
So what does that contradiction say about the Founders? Maybe they weren’t all that different from today’s politicians. They spoke of liberty, but when they recognized their own power could potentially be at stake thanks to the Second Amendment, they acted to preserve control. The Insurrection Act reveals a hard truth: even in the earliest days of the republic, “liberty and justice for all” was indoctrinated in our national conciousness to establish the illusion of equality (only for white men, but what I’m driving at is even then, they laid the groundwork for the suppresion of a nation evolving to favor the majority).
Was the Second Amendment ever truly a purist safeguard against tyranny, or rather intended as a rhetorical tool? One designed to give the people a sense of agency while maintaining a political and economic status quo that benefited America’s original elite: the politicians, landowners, and wealthy class. In the end, maybe the Founding Fathers weren’t building a system to free us from kings, but one that simply divided their power amongst a ruling class, all while giving us just enough to maintain the illusion that they designed the best system possible.
Hell, if they didn’t design the best system possible, why let us keep guns? Because they knew the average person wouldn’t be able to access legislation and today they adapted to the access granted to us by the internet by keeping new legislation as complicated and long as possible. That way the average person either is unable to understand it or find the time while working 50 hours a week to read it. They knew everybody would remember the Second Amendment while forgetting the Insurrection Act, and they were right.
Comments
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I was always told that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect us from tyranny. It’s what the Founding Fathers supposedly intended. The right to bear arms, we’re told, exists so that the people can rise up if the government ever becomes oppressive. But when you dig deeper into the historical timeline, that narrative starts to unravel.
Many of the Founding Fathers were under the age of 35 at the time the Declaration of Independence was signed. Most of them became politically active during or after the American Revolution, their ideals shaped by war and the rejection of monarchy.
Thomas Jefferson, for example, played a central role in drafting the Declaration of Independence and later became a vocal advocate for the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. That amendment, ratified in 1791, declares: “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.”
And yet, less than twenty years later, in 1807, Jefferson signed into law the Insurrection Act. This law grants the President sweeping authority to deploy the military domestically to suppress rebellion, insurrection, or civil unrest. It contains few meaningful safeguards and offers broad discretion to federal power. In essence, it empowers the very government that the Second Amendment was allegedly meant to keep in check.
So what does that contradiction say about the Founders? Maybe they weren’t all that different from today’s politicians. They spoke of liberty, but when they recognized the stability of the new republic and therefore their own power could be at stake thanks to the Second Amendment, they acted to preserve control. The Insurrection Act reveals a hard truth: even in the earliest days of the republic, “liberty and justice for all” was indoctrinated in our national conciousness to establish the illusion of equality (only for white men, but what I’m driving at is event then, they laid the groundwork for this to happen).
Was the Second Amendment ever truly a purist safeguard against tyranny, or rather intended as a rhetorical tool. One designed to give the people a sense of agency while maintaining a political and economic status quo that benefited America’s original elite: the politicians, landowners, and wealthy class. In the end, maybe the Founding Fathers weren’t building a system to free us from kings, but one that simply replaced them while giving us just enough the maintaining the illusion they built the best system possible.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
To quickly raise a militia in case of invasion. Which would be much less helpful these days.
The purpose of the second amendment is to allow the states to maintain militias because at the time that we were moving from the articles of confederation to the constitution, we still lived in a world in which the states consider themselves to be quasi independent countries.
We also did not have the concept of professional law enforcement in the form of police departments.
The founders were very wary of a standing army. They were OK with the standing navy for what should be obvious reasons but a permanent standing army was something they did not want. They felt the tyranny of the British empire should not be replicated in the United States and wanted to make sure the federal government could not stop states from maintaining their own militias.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the now ignored third amendment comes right after the second.
It primarily serves as a masturbatory aid for Republicans and Libertarians.
Originally, the 2A could be interpreted as such: The Federal government could not infringe (disarm) individuals who could be members of a State militia.
That’s it.
The reason, I think Madison got into it, is that states could regulate their populations, but the Federal government could not. The thinking is, if the Federal government went off the deep end, states could raise militias to defend themselves against tyranny.
The 2A was not primarily intended for dealing with foreign invasion, as a centralized Federal government was responsible for that. The militias could augment the Army/Navy however, but States could not be compelled to do so.
The national guard is not a state militia. Primarily because it’s not independent from the Federal government. A real militia is trained civilians volunteer with some standards on interoperability and training.
To protect the inalienable natural right to arms that is directly tied to one’s right to defense. The right to arms is a human right that should not be restricted by any sort of ruling class. It was a reaction to the long history of arms being only available to the “proper” class of people be they the nobility, the ruling class, people of the “right” religion, or based on any other factor. It was an expansion of the English right to arms that was limited only to Protestants.
The reasoning for the Second Amendment is sort of secondary today to the fact that the Second Amendment exists and the only legitimate and legal way around it is by amending the Constitution. That is if one cares about constitutional and legitimate governance.
> Was the Second Amendment ever truly a purist safeguard against tyranny..
No, it literally never was. That’s historical revisionism on the part of gun-loving people today who want to view themselves as somehow being the inheritors of the defense-of-liberty mantle. The reality, of course, is that an armed population is just as likely to enable tyranny as it is to oppose it, as we’ve seen repeatedly throughout American history.
It’s important for context here that the first battles of the revolutionary war were fought to prevent the British from seizing the weapons caches at Lexington and Concord, and the fighters on the American side were ordinary citizens (militia groups) attempting to hide them, not regular soldiers.
A) The Founding Fathers, having read their Roman history, were wary of a standing army large enough to march on
RomeWashington and declare someone Emperor. The 2nd Amendment was to allow states to have militias ready to go in the event of invasion while word was sent to Washington for a proper standing army.B) Exactly how united these states were to be was up in the air in the 1770s; let’s not forget that the same guys who wrote the Constitution also wrote the Articles of Confederation which had a much weaker federal government. The idea of war between two states wasn’t exactly out of the question, and so they wanted to safeguard an unpopular state against being disarmed by its neighbors.
C) Southern states had slaves, and if southern states could have militias on standby they could help fight off massive slave revolts.
D) America was still extremely rural at this point in time, with a hostile frontier and wildlife being serious threats to people alongside hunting being a legitimate career choice. Guns were mostly useful daily tools, gun control in the 18th century would have sounded like “shovel control” or something.
This idea that the 2nd Amendment is some kind of “One Revolution Free Card” is very modern and very stupid, it’s a Rambo fantasy generally sold to people who really hate taxes and really want an excuse to shoot minorities so that they’ll buy armories worth of guns and make gun companies a lot of money.
The purpose of the second amendment is to give citizens an avenue to defend their life, liberty, and property in case of invasion, either by a foreign or domestic force, such as the government. It’s a last line of defense against a tyrannical government.
At the time of the constitutions writing, militia was primarily used for Slave patrol and law enforcement. Police departments didn’t exist yet.
American history is often quite ugly.
“the principal instrument for slave control was the militia. In the main, the South had refused to commit her militias to the war against the British during the American Revolution out of fear that, if the militias departed, slaves would revolt. But while the militias were effective at slave control, they had proved themselves unequal to the task of fighting a professional army.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html
In addition, the militia functioned as a standby local police force. (American cities did not establish their first professional forces of armed police until the 1850s.) The New England colonies merged the militia with the night watch while the Southern colonies assigned it the mission of slave patrolling. Governments in every locale depended on the militia to suppress insurrections. All such additional militia tasks imposed further compulsory duties upon the citizens.”
https://mises.org/library/american-militia-and-origin-conscription-reassessment-0
In the South, however, the economics that drove the creation of police forces were centered not on the protection of shipping interests but on the preservation of the slavery system. Some of the primary policing institutions there were the slave patrols tasked with chasing down runaways and preventing slave revolts, Potter says; the first formal slave patrol had been created in the Carolina colonies in 1704. During the Civil War, the military became the primary form of law enforcement in the South, but during Reconstruction, many local sheriffs functioned in a way analogous to the earlier slave patrols, enforcing segregation and the disenfranchisement of freed slaves.”
https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/
From my understanding, it was intended to ensure regulated militias couldn’t be hindered in acquiring weapons. At some point, these militias became what we now know as the national guard. So from my perspective, a modern version of the second amendment in spirit would be that a state’s national guard has a right to aquire and use arms.
To me, the idea that anyone qualifies under the term of a well regulated militia is, to put it mildly, a stretch. But alas, I’m not in the supreme court.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect the ability of the people to arm themselves in the common defense and defense of themselves.
You can see this by looking at the numerous state constitutions which call out the defense of the individual. This indicates that the 2nd amendment is not about a militia, because a militia is not designed for defense of the individual but the common defense.
E.g.
Pennsylvania, 1776:
> That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
This is the fundamental failing of those who would say that the 2nd amendment only protects a right of the militia rather than the people as laid out in the amendment. It is also a failing of those who would claim that with a standing army there is no point to the 2nd amendment.
>One designed to give the people a sense of agency while maintaining a political and economic status quo that benefited America’s original elite: the politicians, landowners, and wealthy class.
If you believe this, then it would be those opposing the stratified ownership that was preferred back in those olden days in favor of more general ownership by the people who are enabling that agency.
There is no mistake that Karl Marx said
> Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary
As interpreted by the Supreme Court. It enshrines the right to private gun ownership.
Part of it’s purpose was to fight off Native Americans too.
The English Bill of Rights (a precursor to ours) had a similar, though differently worded, section.
The historical context of that was a fear that Catholic elements in the government (most prominently the ousted but then-living James II) would subjugate England to French rule. At the time, England was only 1 generation removed from chaos and autocracy (interregnum/Cromwells) and within living memory of the OG Trump (Charles I).
The Founders knew all this. They knew Catholicism wasn’t the threat, but human nature meant that sooner or later something would be.
Thomas Jefferson said both:
1. The purpose of the Right to Bear Arms is to protect the People from tyranny in Government
2. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man
Sometimes people focus on 1 above and not 2 above. Self defense was always a part of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn’t say “only for use against tyranny”
Edit – many other forefathers also echoed the above in writing like:
Samual Adams said – Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defence.
James Monroe said – The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.
Not just that but look at State constitutions:
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state
Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use
New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state
The above are just a handful of examples amongst many
The purpose of the 2nd amendment, as with all the Bill of Rights, was to get the slave-holding states to agree to join the union.
It seems to me the most likely reading is that it was meant to protect the state governments from potential tyranny of the central government, not individual citizens right to stage an insurrection. It should be viewed more like the 10th amendment than the 1st. Post Civil War when we decided that states could not voluntarily leave the Union we should have revoked it. Reading it the other way is in general more likely to lead to tyranny than to stop it as small groups of armed individuals overthrowing governments of any type has an incredibly poor track record of leading to non-authoritarian societies.
The purpose of the second amendment was, quite clearly, to empower the maintenance of a trained and ready to deploy civilian militia as the primary form of Armed Forces in the new country.
The idea of the milita is probably the greatest failure of the Founder’s original vision. Most of the rest of the political and social mechanisms they put in to place proved to be pretty damn good and last a long time, most of them still being with us today. But the militia crashed and burned almost right out of the gate and was quickly done away with. We have no militia system in the US today, and I think we havn’t since the war of 1812.
In the original vision of the founders, having a permanent standing military was a bad idea. Militaries were expensive, having one at your beck and call was too much power for a President, making them too similar to a Monarch, and having a permanent standing military would give rise to a “military caste” of high ranking generals and commanders and whatnot who could become a source of political instability on their own. All of these were lessoned learned from Europe.
But of course there is always a need to defend your country and the occasional need to respond to different situations with military force.
So the answer was: The Militia. The idea was that most men of age would take part in state or local programs to learn very basic military skills, being able to march in file, common battlefield orders, how to shoot as part of a formation, etc. And it would be expected that the average adult male would own a firearm in good working order.
Under this system, quickly emergent situations would be responded to right away by local militia, basically serving as Minute Men. Large incursions or problem could be delt with by state level militias or states working cooperatively if a situation spanned their borders. In the even a situation arose that was too large for states to handle and warranted a national response, then Congress would commission an Federal Army to deal with it.
Congress would, as part of the commissioning of the army, set a budget and size, and a particular time line or specific set of goals, the Army would be rapidly stood up from among the civilian militias, officers would be appointed, and once the time/budget/goals were met, the army would disband unless congress voted to continue it.
In this way, the founders envisioned, we would still have military preparedness, but without the need for a permanent standing military caste.
The problem was that it, well it just didn’t work. Every time the Militia was used it either underperformed or was an outright shit show. Once the war of 1812 came along, the weaknesses of the Militia system were made abundantly clear, and either as part of the war or shortly thereafter, an official standing US Army was established, and the militia was never used again.
Some aspects of the militia were kinda sorta spun off into the National Guard, but it’s not really the same.
And so the second amendment ensured that no local or state laws could be put into place to prevent the individual from owning their own firearms, as this was a key component of the Minute Man style civilian militia. Any rules limiting different segments of the population from owning guns might mean that there was no armed militia available in an area to respond to a need, or that certain populations might be excluded from participating in the militia if they weren’t permitted to own guns.
Of note also, as much as I hate to bring it up, but it was an important factor at the time: Slavery. A large interest of the South was preserving access to fire arms and militias to serve as slave patrols and to put down slave uprisings. Additionally, Patrick Henry and the legislature of Virginia specifically wanted it to be made clear that the the authority over the militia remained with the states.
The original draft of the Second Amendment read as follows: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
This was rejected by the state legislature of Virginia, on the grounds that if the Militia was employed in service to the Country as a whole, then it might be possible that the Federal Government press black slaves into militia service, which would wreck the southern economy, and more over, the federal government might attempt to manumit the slaves (free them) while under federal service. So Virginia threatened to vote against the ratification of the bill of rights, which would have torpedoes the approval of the new Constitution. Not just for that reason, but that was a major reason. So Madison changed the language in his second draft to the version we have today, and Virginia agreed.
You can look up a speech Patrick Henry gave on the floor of the Virginian Congress that makes the concerns about the Militia as it relates to Slavery abundantly clear.
The founders made it pretty clear that the purpose is to be able to quickly raise a militia to assist in national defense. And although that’s obviously not necessary anymore, the 2nd Amendment remains in the Constitution. We still have that right, even if its original intended purpose no longer seems relevant.
The purpose is for the country to maintain an armed populous, thus providing an ample militia in the event of an outside invasion (the British being the prime threat for the US at the time) and thus giving us a foundation for defense that did not rely on a large, standing army. The latter was the source of a number of the gripes the colonists had towards Britain, such as the forced quartering of soldiers.
As others have said, 2A was about ensuring a ready and funded well regulated militia. They opposed having a military, which means that there isn’t a permanent fund. So that meant they needed 2A to ensure that the militias were never defunded.
It was not about fighting the government. That is called insurrection and is prohibited in Article 1 Section 8.
It was not about everyone having no gun control. Literally they themselves regulated guns, gun ownership, gun carry, gun storage, and gun use while placing militias subordinate to the state and federal government.
You’ll notice all the “ra ra fight the system” quotes were revolutionary rhetoric that didn’t actually get into the US laws. Laws instead insist that you not be violent and respect the courts.
Most rights can be abrogated in some fashion. No single right is absolute if certain actions would cause more harm than good and the government can pass scrutiny in their reasoning. Speech is curved through libel/slander laws as well as fraud. It’s why there’s the Due Process clause in the 5th and 14th Amendments. The government may deny these things, but they must have a legitimate reason and they must follow proper procedure. It’s why there’s two types of due process: substantive (the legitimate reason) and procedural (following the proper procedure).
Obviously the right to bear arms is about if you want to hug a bear
Governments are based on a balance of power. This can be in a lot of forms, money, labor, resources, violence, etc.
In an authoritarian state, the leaders have most of the power. See Russia.
In a failed or anarchist state, groups of random people have all the power. See Hati.
To maintain a democracy, the people have to be as powerful as the government, but not too far beyond it. See France.
The UK only got the Magna Carta because the king was threatened, the US only became free of the monarchy by shooting agents of the crown.
“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.”
If you want a free state, you need the people to have power, and the easiest way to give them that is guns. But if the government is toothless than you don’t have a state at all.
A lot of people seem to believe that because states created militias, that militias of regular citizens can no longer qualify as militias. The whole purpose of the amendment is to protect the citizens rights to bear arms. The government has grabbed more power in creating a standing army doesn’t invalidate any part of the constitution.
Ugh.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is written in the damn 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.”
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to have people that can be called up for service that can shoot a gun and HAVE a gun. It is to enable a well regulated militia.
All that “resist tyranny” BS is just hokum BS meant to sell an image to gun nuts. They’re not buying a gun, they’re buying themselves as Mel Gibson shouting “Freeeeeeeeeedddooooommmm!”
It’s mean to enable Militias for the State, which are used … Mostly AGAINST citizens. The idea that it was for resisting the government are, frankly, really fucking stupid.
Also, this isn’t a question, this is you ranting with a question mark on the end.
The purpose of the second amendment is to signal when the party’s over
In historical context, the Second Amendment is fairly easy to understand.
The answer to all of this was privately owned firearms. The greatest equipment expense of a land army was therefore privatized to men would would likely be buying a flint-lock musket of some form for personal use anyway. The phrase “well regulated” in historical context means regular practice, so they were expected to have regular practice as a military unit. Militias were also “regulated” in a more modern sense by listing what regular equipment was required to serve in a military capacity (musket, cartridge box, etc.). The idea of fighting internal tyranny was theoretical and never fully formed outside of Jeffersonian’ish ideas. Washington, for example, used the militia almost immediately to quell a whiskey tax protest, so like most Constitutional ideas, the 2nd Amendment is somewhat vague and highly contextual to circa 1790 practical realities.
Side note to everyone saying it was to stop government tyranny…
Most state militias were used to put down slave rebellions. Those well regulated militias specifically mentioned in the 2A were PROTECTING government tyranny…
Your beliefs are a lie so you feel good.
The founding armies feared a standing army. They felt militias were the answer to defend the nation without having the constant risk of coup.
It is absurd to think the founders of a nation would put in a clause to make it easier to overthrow that government. It has fuck all to do with preventing tyranny.
Given that the Supreme Court has ruled that police have no duty to protect citizens, that. The modern lefts approach is a mix of ‘the police are here for you’ and ‘we’ll just fix it with goodwill’.
To hunt down fugitive slaves?
The second amendment was not created in order to grant a right to Americans to own and carry guns for self defense. The entire Bill of Rights as a whole serves no other purpose than to pacify the concerns of the Antifederalists — the division of politicians at the time who were wary of ratifying the US Constitution (the Federalists — who promoted the US Constitution — didn’t even want a Bill of Rights, and thought that creating one was unnecessary or even dangerous). The second amendment was essentially created as a companion to Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which conveys to Congress the power to summon the militias, and to organize, arm, discipline, and govern them. The purpose of this conveyance of power was for the federal government to be able to place the militias under a uniform plan of regulation, and to coordinate their collective military power in order to defend the country. The idea was to preclude the need for a standing army by making a standing army unnecessary and obsolete through the use of the militia system.
At the time the US Constitution was being proposed for ratification by the states, the Antifederalist legislators believed that these militia clauses of the Constitution could potentially be abused to give Congress power to neglect the regulating, arming, and operating of the militias, and diminish the state governments’ pre-existing power over their own militias. Hence, the amendment ultimately was designed to protect the efficacy and the state autonomy of the militias against congressional interference. The amendment is essentially a military provision. It has nothing to do with the practice of private firearm ownership. Private gun rights are not determined by the second amendment or the federal government; they are determined by state constitutional and statutory law. So to summarize, the second amendment was created to reinforce Congress’s duty to uphold the regulation of the militias, and to protect the states’ militia effectiveness from intrusion by Congress.
We have to remember that the start of the revolution was British Redcoats marching to confiscate guns and arms.
The 2nd amendment was directly in response to that act and the long history of governments and leaders disarming their people.
The insurrection act, while implicitly written to deal with rebellion it was also to give the president the authority to request support from the states for a military action. This structure of having to ask for troops from states lasted until the civil war, but that’s a longer conversation.
The early revolutions that we saw this act passed in reaction to were far less about establishing a new government or legal separation from country or state and more single issues around taxes and regulations.