The natural right of revolution, as espoused by both John Locke and Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution), was a concept that a tyrannical government could – and should be – overthrown by the people when that government no longer looked after the interests of the people being governed.

John Locke even described armed revolution as a duty and an obligation, rather than as an option which citizens could decide against.

The flaw in applying this concept to the Constitution’s Second Amendment is in assuming that exercising one’s natural right to revolution guarentees a republican form of government or – the legal flaw – a constitutional government.

Exercising one’s right to revolution guarentees neither.

All it guarentees is revolution.

The Constitution was established and ordained with an amendatory process by which any part of and/or all of the Constitution could be altered or repealed. As long as that amendatory process remains intact and has not been rendered impaired, or was somehow repealed, we can assume that anyone taking up arms against the government is doing so in opposition to their duly elected officals – and not against the government which those officials represent.

That’s not a revolution.

That is, instead, an insurrection, which the Constituion clearly states is a criminal act to be suppressed (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_15.html) and not encouraged nor legalized via someone’s distorted and twisted personal interpretation of the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

And that brings us back to what this is all about: The constitutional or extra-constitutional interpretation of the Second Amendment, and precisely why the “right to bear arms shall not be infringed’.

While the right to own a firearm has been ruled as an individual right – and properly so, in my view – by the US Supreme Court, as opposed to a collective, group, right, the context is clearly for a collective, group, purpose: “A well regulated militia.”

That purpose is clear because that is, after all, exactly what the Second Amendment says the purpose for the amendment is:

“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.”

Obviously, the men who drafted and voted on the passage of the Bill of Rights’ Second Amendment saw the right to own firearms as a prerequisite to a people’s militia, and equally obvious was that this people’s militia was to serve the federal government – not overthrow it, citing, again Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.

This people’s militia was intended to be subject to FEDERAL regulation and FEDERAL oversight citing both the Constitution’s Second Amendment and Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, a third time.

It is Congress’ constitutional duty in that Clause, in fact, ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion’ – making the federal government the master of the people’s militia, not the target of that militia’s armed might.

If that is the case – and it most certainly is – then Congress could be said to be derelict in it’s constitutional duties when it fails to properly regulate the people’s militia – for failing to do so prevents the people’s militia from performing those activities which the Constitution says the people’s militia is constitutionally obligated to do.

Any other interpretation of the Second Amendment under the hubris of a ‘defense against tyranny’ argument is therefore flawed.

Flaren Jabck – explain how you need 500 rounds for a hunting trip. Who am I to tell you what you need for a hunting trip? I am someone who can take a step back from the issue and see the big picture. You however, are someone who gets pissed off and shuts off your brain and starts reciting your favorite Rush verses.

Instead of reading and thinking about what I said, you picked out one line that you disagreed with and used your best 4th grader impression to tell me to get out of the country and that I have no right to tell you not to shoot each deer you come across 250 times. Congratulations Flaren, you are the perfect example of someone who displays the rampant immature and irresponsible attitude that makes the public dislike and distrust gun owners. Myself included.

Bogus showed that James Madison, author of the Second Amendment, was motivated by the concern of slave owners, like himself, that the Constitution could empower the federal government to disarm state militia in the South that were essential for preventing and suppressing slave revolts. The amendment was a concession to the powerful opponents of the Constitution like Patrick Henry, who feared the new document would permit Congress by these means to subvert and abolish slavery.

It was adopted to reassure Southern states that the federal government could not interfere with their ability to muster and maintain an armed force to secure slavery.

The Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

There was no public clamoring for the right of individuals to own guns for self defense and there certainly was no support among the Framers – slave owners in the South, bankers, large land owners and merchants in the North – for authorizing armed resistance to actions of the federal government. In fact, the Founding Fathers were virtually unanimous in supporting the violent suppression of Shay’s Rebellion in 1787, a revolt by disenfranchised small farmers, shopkeepers and hired workers in Western Massachusetts, being driven into foreclosure and debtor’s prison by Boston banks.

Madison called the revolt “treason” and urged Congress to send troops to help the State militia. John Hancock, elected governor to deal with the rebellion, mobilized troops with instructions to “kill, slay and destroy, if necessary, and conquer by all fitting ways, enterprises and means whatsoever, all and every one of the rebels.”

The suppression of the rebellion was heartily endorsed by George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams and John Marshall. Only Thomas Jefferson, then living in Paris as U.S. Ambassador to France, temporarily floated the idea of the right of revolution before realizing that he was alone in his views.

Later in 1794, a similar revolt by small farmers in Western Pennsylvania, known as the Whiskey Rebellion, was suppressed by Pres. George Washington, who under the provisions of the new constitution, led 13,000 troops mobilized from four state militia to disperse the rebels.

The Founding Fathers limited the franchise to white males with property over the age of 40 – approximately 15% of the population. If they were unwilling to arm ordinary people with votes to change the government, they certainly were not for arming them with guns.

Thus, the “insurrectionist” twisting of the Second Amendment has no basis in history. It is a fantasy promoted by reckless profiteers and delusional right-wing extremists.

It should be noted that while the proliferation of guns has reached record levels of over 300 million, the number of households possessing them has sharply declined from 54% in 1977 to 32% in 2010 according the Univ. of Chicago General Social Survey. Fewer people are amassing more guns and the study found that these new gun buyers are primarily Republicans. In fact, 50% of adult Republicans now own guns, but only 22% of adult Democrats.

The answer to all of that is no of course. So when you say “They are banning guns”, thats a laughable over simplification of the situation. They are not seeking a ban on handguns (Though individual cities have done so), they are not going to ban your shotguns. You act as though a ban on assault weapons is the same as disarming. It isn’t.

On the other side of the argument, I am a gun owner. I know a thing or two about guns. I know that the AR15, because of its looks, is being targeted despite the fact that any semi-auto rifle currently used for hunting and that wouldn’t be banned under new federal legislation, can be just as dangerous. I compare this argument to someone who owns a pickup truck and modifies it to look like a tank. Do they own a tank? No, it just looks like a tank. Is the AR15 a military grade rifle? I don’t believe so, it just looks like one. That much of the legislation I don’t agree with, but everything else they are going for makes sense. Better tracking of firearms sale, better background checks, limits on ammunition sales (You don’t need 500 rounds for a hunting trip).

Can you intelligently argue against responsible measures of tracking weapons and better background checks? I’d love to hear it. But you and your NRA buddies who are fighting this debate with fear as your only talking point are making fools of yourselves.