# Is the Second Amendment meant to facilitate armed rebellion? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 29, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774 "2003-07-29T23:44:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/1 "2003-07-29T23:44:51Z")
In a recent thread, “Should bombs be legal?” ([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=191851](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=191851) the OP, **Major Kong,** stated: > [@](#): > > Should citizens of the US be allowed to have bombs? I say they should, as a part of the second amendment. Bombs are a necessary tool of the people to protect their freedom from the tyranny of government. The right of the people to keep and bear arms should extent to bombs. Even very powerful bombs. > > What do you think? > And no this is not a parody of gun threads. Perhaps not, and I don’t want to rehash the debate about personal ownership of bombs (which most posters on that thread seemed to favor) . . . What struck me was **Major Kong’s** assumption, apparently shared by many posters, that “to protect [the people’s] freedom from the tyranny of government” is what the Second Amendment is **for.** The phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is distressingly ambiguous. Is the militia supposed to be necessary to defend the country from foreign enemies? Or to be a tool of the state governments to resist the federal government? Or to be a tool of the people at large to resist both the federal and state governments? That last, known as the “insurrectionary theory” of the Second Amendment, is the one **Major Kong** assumes is the correct interpretation – and in my experience, a lot of other pro-gun people make the same assumption. Especially those in non-state “militias.” I’m skeptical – “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” and I do not think any constitution would really make any provision for facilitating armed resistance or rebellion against the state. But I’m willing to entertain arguments to the contrary. Do any of you know a lot about the Second Amendment’s history, and the public debate on its adoption? Did any of the people who proposed or endorsed it suggest it was meant for insurrectionary purposes? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/2 "2003-07-30T00:01:29Z")
I think that is the unquestionable intent of the Founding Fathers. Does this sound familiar: > [@](#): > > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. > > That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. **That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,** laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. > > Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. > > But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, **it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.** \ ***"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."** –Thomas Jefferson\* ---
**Author:** ![aramis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@aramis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aramis)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/3 "2003-07-30T00:49:18Z")
Consider the times in which the authors lived: a very large proportion of the population lived on farms or in frontier areas. In those circumstances, having a gun in the house would be almost a necessity. I have no cite available but I’d be surprised to find that less than the vast majority of US households held one or more firearms as of 1780-ish. That being the case, why would they even consider the question of citizen’s right to keep arms. In their time, the right – the need even – to keep arms should have been self-evident. And yet they felt it was important enough to put it second in the bill of rights. To my mind, that says they had been faced at some point in the past with a government’s desire to limit that right and didn’t like it one bit. Given that, in spite of the vague wording about “a well-regulated militia”, it sounds clear to me like the threat of armed rebellion was the intent. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/4 "2003-07-30T01:09:57Z")
To take the opposite tack for just a second. Why would a group of people, themselves the ruling class the document in question would be establishing, specifically write in an ammendment with an intent to foster the ability of the populace to violently overthrow the ruling class? IOW, I’m the king. I make a decree that all citizens are allowed to carry guns in case they someday may want to shoot the king. Does this seem likely? I realize this is an imperfect scenario as the US government is not a monarchy, but the fact remains that those very lawmakers would have been on the receiving end of the bullets from the guns if people ever used them in the manner some are claiming the founders intended them to be kept and borne for. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/5 "2003-07-30T01:16:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* > **To take the opposite tack for just a second. Why would a group of people, themselves the ruling class the document in question would be establishing, specifically write in an ammendment with an intent to foster the ability of the populace to violently overthrow the ruling class?** Because they had just finished doing the exact same thing, maybe? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/6 "2003-07-30T01:23:44Z")
Sure, but they were establishing a democracy, not a monarchy. There was already a method of removing them from power if they started getting power-hungry. Vote them out. Impeach a president, etc, etc. Why write in something intended to foster a violent uprising instead of fostering peaceful ones? Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/7 "2003-07-30T01:25:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mtgman \* > **Sure, but they were establishing a democracy, not a monarchy. There was already a method of removing them from power if they started getting power-hungry. Vote them out. Impeach a president, etc, etc. Why write in something intended to foster a violent uprising instead of fostering peaceful ones?** I’d imagine it was because even the best of governments can go bad. Get enough corrupt people high up in a newly-formed democracy, and violence might be the only way to fix things. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/8 "2003-07-30T01:27:00Z")
Because they felt, from time to time, it might be necessary? Bombs have civilian uses, too, you know. Stump blasting, for one. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/9 "2003-07-30T01:31:56Z")
_Still playing the high-minded idealist, albeit unconvincingly_ Sure, but a democracy is self-correcting. What are the odds of reaching a critical mass of corrupt people without an intervening election or the armed forces(which didn’t exist at the time) refusing to support them, rendering them as helpless as their opponents? Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/10 "2003-07-30T01:41:58Z")
If it is a defense against tyranny, it sure seems pretty laughable today. The technological advantage that nations have over citizens with guns is like the difference between spears vs. gatling guns in Africa. And the U.S. is even further down this road than most. Our armed forces can incinerate square miles with fuel-air bombs, detect all major troop movements from space, and they’re even develop amazing new non-lethal mass pacification weapons like supersonic suns, foam, and EMP. If there is rebelion in the U.S., the ONLY thing that makes any difference at all is which side the bulk of the armed forces/arms suppliers choose to support. A couple of militiamen with rifles won’t make any difference. It sure didn’t make any difference in Iraq that the populace was so heavily armed: tyranny often rises up with the people’s support and THEN turns on them. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/11 "2003-07-30T02:12:42Z")
Posted by **Apos:** > [@](#): > > If it is a defense against tyranny, it sure seems pretty laughable today. The technological advantage that nations have over citizens with guns is like the difference between spears vs. gatling guns in Africa. And the U.S. is even further down this road than most. Our armed forces can incinerate square miles with fuel-air bombs, detect all major troop movements from space, and they’re even develop amazing new non-lethal mass pacification weapons like supersonic suns, foam, and EMP. > > If there is rebelion in the U.S., the ONLY thing that makes any difference at all is which side the bulk of the armed forces/arms suppliers choose to support. A couple of militiamen with rifles won’t make any difference. It sure didn’t make any difference in Iraq that the populace was so heavily armed: tyranny often rises up with the people’s support and THEN turns on them. Well, the actual prospects for an armed revolt in the United States under modern conditions were discussed in another recent thread, “US Army v. A bunch of gun-toting rednecks,” started by **SenorBeef** ([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198939](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=198939)[/url). But that’s not what I’m asking about. Does anybody know about the discussions that preceded the adoption of the Second Amendment? What was in the public mind at **that** time? Did the people, or any of their leaders, think the amendment was necessary to keep the people in a position to revolt against the state or federal governments? Posted by **aramis:** > [@](#): > > Consider the times in which the authors lived: a very large proportion of the population lived on farms or in frontier areas. In those circumstances, having a gun in the house would be almost a necessity. I have no cite available but I’d be surprised to find that less than the vast majority of US households held one or more firearms as of 1780-ish. Maybe so (although even the extent to which colonial Americans were armed is controversial – see Michael Bellesiles’ book _Arming America_ and the many heated rebuttals it engendered from NRA supporters). However, even if the common people of that time were armed, they were armed so they could shoot animals and Indians, not so they could shoot tax collectors and police officers. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/12 "2003-07-30T02:20:49Z")
If the intent was to allow armed rebellions to occur, prior government action doesn’t seem to support that interpretation: [Shay’s Rebellion (1787)](http://www.shaysnet.com/dshays.html), though on the other hand it was in reference to this rebellion that Jefferson said “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing”. The ability of a “well regulated militia” to provide for some of the defense of the nation from foreign aggression was very useful at the time, though – with the emphasis on _well regulated_. Major Kong’s claim to the contrary aside, I think the “Should bombs be legal” thread was started as a joke. Major Kong was the name of Slim Picken’s character in _Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb_ who rides a 30 megaton bomb down on the Russkies at the end of the movie. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/13 "2003-07-30T12:29:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrainGlutton \* > \*\*…although even the extent to which colonial Americans were armed is controversial – see Michael Bellesiles’ book _Arming America_ and the many heated rebuttals it engendered from NRA supporters). However, even if the common people of that time were armed, they were armed so they could shoot animals and Indians, not so they could shoot tax collectors and police officers. \*\* Interesting that you should refer to Michael Bellesiles’ book. Do you not realize that Bellesiles resigned from Emory University because his “research” on that particular book was determined to be fraudulent? ---
**Author:** ![BF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5ac83/32.png) [@BF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BF)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/14 "2003-07-30T12:38:33Z")
**BrainGlutton** wrote: > [@](#): > > Maybe so (although even the extent to which colonial Americans were armed is controversial – see Michael Bellesiles’ book Arming America and the **many heated rebuttals it engendered from NRA supporters)**. Emphasis mine. I don’t think the NRA had a whole lot to do with the revocation of Bellesiles Bancroft prize or the [actions](http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/10/25/3db9bc0a08df2) of his university. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/15 "2003-07-30T13:36:15Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Fear Itself \* > Does this sound familiar:_ **"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."** > > –Thomas Jefferson\* \*\* “Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.” - Oscar Wilde I also saw “The Rock”. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Apos_ > If it is a defense against tyranny, it sure seems pretty laughable today. The technological advantage that nations have over citizens with guns is like the difference between spears vs. gatling guns in Africa. And the U.S. is even further down this road than most. Our armed forces can incinerate square miles with fuel-air bombs, detect all major troop movements from space, and they’re even develop amazing new non-lethal mass pacification weapons like supersonic suns, foam, and EMP. And yet a handful of men with boxcutters were able to launch an attack on America that has only been equaled by the Japanese Imperial Navy. Little Asian men in black pajamas with nothing but AK-47s, RPGs and home-made bombs fought the most technologically advanced army in the world to a standstill. What’s laughable is that people still view war as two armies squaring off like football teams and going at it. Uh…ok…you bring your tanks, Apache helicopters and jets and I’ll bring my AK47s and we’ll rumble at noon. I don’t think so. What’s also laughable is this idea of a well-armed populous being necessary to ensure its freedom. I can speak for what the Founding Fathers had in mind, but it strikes me odd that the most repressive and backward regions on the planet also happened to be ones with the most guns - Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/16 "2003-07-30T16:11:27Z")
It occurred to me that the [Whiskey Rebellion](http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/whiskey_rebellion.htm) is probably as pertinent if not more so than Shays’ Rebellion, as it occurred in 1794, after the adoption of the Bill of Rights. George Washington’s Proclamation ([Link](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/gwproc03.htm)) includes the following, bolding mine as it deals specifically with militia siding with rebellion: > [@](#): > > And whereas, by a law of the United States entitled “An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions,” it is enacted that whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed in any state by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by that act, the same being notified by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed. **And if the militia of a state, when such combinations may happen, shall refuse or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States shall not be in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto as may be necessary** ; and the use of the militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the of the ensuing session; Provided always, that, whenever it may be necessary in the judgment of the President to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time; > \ > Therefore, and in pursuance of the proviso above recited, I. George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons, being insurgents, as aforesaid, and all others whom it may concern, on or before the 1st day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all persons whomsoever against aiding, abetting, or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable acts; and do require all officers and other citizens, according to their respective duties and the laws of the land, to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such dangerous proceedings. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/17 "2003-07-30T16:17:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrainGlutton \* > \*\*However, even if the common people of that time were armed, they were armed so they could shoot animals and Indians, not so they could shoot tax collectors and police officers. \*\* Well, that would depend upon the actions of those tax-collectors and police officers. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/18 "2003-07-30T16:38:28Z")
You might want to read the links on the Whiskey rebellion, **Razorsharp** , the cause of the rebellion was that > [@](#): > > many persons in the said western parts of Pennsylvania have at length been hardy enough to perpetrate acts, which I am advised amount to treason, being overt acts of levying war against the United States, the said persons having on the 16th and 17th of July last past proceeded in arms (on the second day amounting to several hundreds) to the house of John Neville, inspector of the revenue for the fourth survey of the district of Pennsylvania Washington seemed to consider this act to be treason and not to be the reason people were allowed to bear arms. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/19 "2003-07-30T17:16:03Z")
“Beware of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors – and miss”. – Robert Heinein ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774/20 "2003-07-30T18:06:33Z")
Posted by **Fear Itself:** > [@](#): > > I think that [facilitating armed rebellion] is the unquestionable intent of the Founding Fathers. Does this sound familiar: > [quotes the first four sentences of the Declaration of Independence, and Jefferson’s famous statement on the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots and tyrants] We are discussing the United States Constitution here, **Fear.** We must bear in mind that the Declaration is **not** the Constitution and bears absolutely no relevance to its interpretation – that is, in court, you cannot cite the Declaration as an authority on any point of constitutional law. And Jefferson’s opinions are relevant **only** if he had a hand in drafting or campaigning for the Second Amendment. Did he? I don’t know. The Declaration and the Constitution are different documents with very different purposes. In 1776, the Continental Congress was embarking on a radical course: rebellion against a generally recognized and duly constituted authority, the British Crown. They could justify this only by appealing to a “higher law” of “Nature and Nature’s God.” But in 1787, the delegates of the Constitutional Convention (not identical with the earlier Continental Congress although some men were members of both) were drafting a body of positive law to create a completely new government. And the Bill of Rights was not added until 1791, and was likewise a body of positive law whose relationship to any conception of “natural law” or “natural rights” is highly debatable. The point is, what seemed like good revolutionary thinking in 1776 might not have seemed like good constitutional legislation in 1791. Posted by **Razorsharp:** > [@](#): > > Interesting that you should refer to Michael Bellesiles’ book. > > Do you not realize that Bellesiles resigned from Emory University because his “research” on that particular book was determined to be fraudulent? Yes, I know. I only ever read the first chapter or so of _Arming America,_ and I have not researched the ensuing controversy enough even to form an opinion on whether Bellesiles’ research was in fact fraudulent – or, more importantly, whether his conclusion (that personal ownership of firearms in colonial America was much less widespread than popular culture and Hollywood have represented) is substantially true or untrue. I reserve judgment on that point; if you have information to add that could advance this debate on the purpose of the Second Amendment, it would of course be appreciated. I merely thought it appropriate to point out that we should not simply assume, for purposes of this debate, that most colonial or post-Independence white male Americans owned firearms, because the question has been controversial – and, I am sure, remains controversial. Posted by **Dissonance:** > [@](#): > > Washington seemed to consider this act [the Whiskey Rebellion] to be treason and not to be the reason people were allowed to bear arms. Once again, Washington’s opinion on the matter does not settle the question of the intention of the Second Amendment. I don’t even know whether Washington **approved** of the Second Amendment. I’m sure he didn’t write it. _The Federalist Papers_ (I forget which one) argues against the very idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution, on the grounds that a complete enumeration of a person’s ethical rights would be impossible, and a definitive enumeration of constitutional rights would imply that the government has the legitimate authority to infringe on any rights not so enumerated. Washington, although he made a point of holding himself above “faction,” appears in retrospect to have been more a Federalist than anything else. The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, was (I **think** ) proposed by the same suspicious faction that later evolved into Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. As I noted above, that does not mean that Jefferson’s opinion should be taken as definitive either. We need to focus on the actual climate of debate that surrounded the proposal and adoption of the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment in particular. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-second-amendment-meant-to-facilitate-armed-rebellion/191774.md?page=2)