# The "insurrectionary theory" of the Second Amendment is nonsense **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597 "2013-09-24T19:57:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/61 "2013-09-25T13:46:52Z")
Was there even a concept of “collective rights” floating around in the intellectual milieu of 18th century America? At any rate, the constitution, in the 10th amendment, clearly recognizes the distinct entities of “the people” and “the states”. If this was a state power, then why doesn’t the 2nd spell it out as such? Instead, it is a right of “the people” independent of any state. As for the “insurrection theory”… whether it is “nonsense” or not in the modern sense, there is no reason to assume that the Founders weren’t capable of a little nonsense now and again. I find it extremely easy to understand their fear, rational or otherwise, of “tyranny”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/62 "2013-09-25T13:54:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > As for the “insurrection theory”… whether it is “nonsense” or not in the modern sense, there is no reason to assume that the Founders weren’t capable of a little nonsense now and again. I find it extremely easy to understand their fear, rational or otherwise, of “tyranny”. Certainly; but whether that found its way into the Constitution is a different question. By a textualist reading, it did not. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/63 "2013-09-25T13:56:53Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > I’ll assume you don’t think I actually said that - I don’t think it’s impossible. But I don’t think it would be all that easy, and more to the point, I think the idea of it ever being necessary is a paranoid fantasy. > > Where the US military fails, it does so because it is generally trying to do good. The vast majority of the time they actively try (to varying degrees) to avoid civilian casualties, even if it seriously limits their ability to attack their enemies. Can we expect the army wielded by the evil Supreme Dictator Hilary Clinton in the bleak, dystopian future of 2018 to show such restraint when crushing rebels? > > This is based on the unlikely assumption that such a situation will come up any time soon. If an American government were to become so unpopular and tyrannical that a rebellion was required, I wouldn’t expect the military to follow their orders. I must admit ignorance on this matter, but I am assuming it would take decades to get the US military to a point where it became such an insular culture that ordinary soldiers would side with such a government over a legitimate popular uprising. > > Something that I’d think would advance the anti-gun control cause is evidence strongly suggesting a legitimate uprising against a tyrannical non-foreign government failed at least partly because of a lack of weapons available to would-be militiamen. Out of interest, is there any? > > All this being said, I should point out that I speak only as a foreign onlooker. What Americans do with their guns in the privacy of their own country isn’t really any of my business. The problem with “Any time soon” if you follow the line of reasoning that the government needs to be forced to govern (versus oppress) it’s populace, is that if you start to take away guns for whatever reason it’ll slowly erode the people who have guns, which means the government is slowly shifting the balance of power away from the populace and into the hands of the government. I can see and understand their argument, as well as see the historical backings they refer to for support, but I’m not sure if I’m convinced of the argument. It works in other places without guns, but they also have vastly different Social/Corporate/Governmental cultures in those places. In reference to your outsider-looking-in perspective, it’s less than helpful that the US is seen as a single entity, even by it’s own citizens, instead of everyone realizing that the US is an interdependent confederation of not only states but also differing cultures between different areas of the country. A common practice near me is to have guns for hunting (including “Assault Weapons”) that are fairly benign. A place like Chicago or NYC doesn’t have that sort of culture. Think of the differences between the UK and France (despite those relations generally warming over the last 25 years). That’s the kind of cultural differences between differing areas of the US. So you have people in the cities who have no need for them versus people in cities that hunt constantly with them versus versus people in cities that protect themselves from people with them versus people that live in rural areas that both hunt and use them as protection from animals/people. This is why it’s so hard to come to any sort of consensus regarding what to do about them. Sane and reasonable in NYC is completely different than sane and reasonable in Helena (Montana). It doesn’t help that the polar extremes of the debate are dominating the political debate in the news media. “Take them all!” versus “Let’s all have howitzers and nukes!” doesn’t help anyone decide anything useful. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/64 "2013-09-25T14:05:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Certainly; but whether that found its way into the Constitution is a different question. By a textualist reading, it did not. Not really. In your OP, you state that the president is the CoC of the militia, but you left out an important caveat. The actual text says (emphasis added): " The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" His authority of the militia of any state is limited. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/65 "2013-09-25T14:24:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Was there even a concept of “collective rights” floating around in the intellectual milieu of 18th century America? They certainly understood the concept of rights that could not be exercised on an individual basis. For example: > [@](#): > > When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for **one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another** , and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. > > 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 of 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. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/66 "2013-09-25T14:52:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Was there even a concept of “collective rights” floating around in the intellectual milieu of 18th century America? Is there even such a concept today? It’s always struck me that “collective rights” were just an Orwellian term for government powers. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/67 "2013-09-25T15:00:26Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > They certainly understood the concept of rights that could not be exercised on an individual basis. For example: Good point. But I’m not sure that’s what being offered up here. I think the term "collective right’ is used in the sense that it is NOT an individual right. That is, the individual does not retain that right unless he is acting as part of a group. Those examples are still examples of rights that each individual retains, even as a single person. Does that make sense? Am I missing anything? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/68 "2013-09-25T15:07:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Those examples are still examples of rights that each individual retains, even as a single person. I don’t think that’s right. The right of revolution is not an individual right in any meaningful sense. Locke’s idea was that individuals consent to a social contract, but that the social entity thereby formed has certain rights and obligations apart from the individual. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/69 "2013-09-25T15:14:25Z")
But in the case of the Constitution, the social entity is the government, which means a collective right isn’t a right at all, but an enumerated government power. It would be very odd to insert such a thing into the Bill of Rights. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/70 "2013-09-25T15:17:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But in the case of the Constitution, the social entity is the government, which means a collective right isn’t a right at all, but an enumerated government power. It would be very odd to insert such a thing into the Bill of Rights. No, I don’t think that’s quite right. The Founders’ view was that “the People” is a collective entity that is separate from the governmental union they form. The People retain certain rights and obligations as to the government, and vice versa. I’m not taking a position as to what this means for the Second Amendment. I’m just saying the concept of a collective right is obviously not foreign to 1789. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/71 "2013-09-25T15:21:51Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I don’t think that’s right. The right of revolution is not an individual right in any meaningful sense. > > Locke’s idea was that individuals consent to a social contract, but that the social entity thereby formed has certain rights and obligations apart from the individual. In order for something to be a “Collective Right” it has to have an individual form. If you have a collective right to a revolution, you must have an individual right to be a revolutionary. You can’t have the collective revolution without the people that are apart of it, after all. So, if people are allowed to bear arms as a collective, they must have the right to bear arms as an individual, unless you can setup some means for a mob of people to acquire guns once they hit a certain member limit, which is…an odd thing to think about. You can give up some of those individual rights to a governing body (“social contract”) but that’s governed by the founding documentation. In this case, the Constitution that gives rights to bear arms. If it’s collective and apart from government, then it’s individual also. If it’s collective and bound to government, then it’s not also individual. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/72 "2013-09-25T15:26:55Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > No, I don’t think that’s quite right. The Founders’ view was that “the People” is a collective entity that is separate from the governmental union they form. The People retain certain rights and obligations as to the government, and vice versa. > > I’m not taking a position as to what this means for the Second Amendment. I’m just saying the concept of a collective right is obviously not foreign to 1789. Like I said, I guess it could be a state right, which would allow for state-level gun control, but it would also bar federal gun control measures completely if that was true. I think it’s more likely that it is an individual right, but not one as absolute as the 1st amendment rights. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/73 "2013-09-25T15:33:38Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I don’t think that’s right. The right of revolution is not an individual right in any meaningful sense. > > Locke’s idea was that individuals consent to a social contract, but that the social entity thereby formed has certain rights and obligations apart from the individual. OK. But it still seems to me that the individual right is simply not practical, but it should theoretically still be there. Would Locke have thought that the government had the right to tyrannize one individual as long it wasn’t tyrannizing a large group of people? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/74 "2013-09-25T15:34:51Z")
As you might guess, there have been gallons of ink spilled about what different conceptions of a collective right to bear arms looks like. And it is not the case that every conception either involves an individual’s complete and independent right to own and use arms or else involves the right of the states. There are many degrees in between that seem to be evading your political imagination. It is true that every collective right entails some individual right. But the nature of collective rights is that the bounds on the exercise of the consequent individual rights are set by analysis of some collective category or indeed by collective action. Thus, for example, the determination of when the right to revolution arises is not and cannot be made by a single individual, nor by analysis of a single individual’s circumstances. It is determined by certain collective analyses and indeed by collective action, even if that collective analysis and action eventually empowers individuals to act as revolutionaries. As Locke said: > [@](#): > > To conclude, The Power that every individual gave the Society, when he entered into it, can never revert to the Individuals again, as long as the Society lasts, but will always [Volume 1, Page 87] remain in the Community; because without this, there can be no Community, no Common-wealth, which is contrary to the original Agreement: So also when the Society hath placed the Legislative in any Assembly of Men, to continue in them and their Successors, with Direction and Authority for providing such Successors, the Legislative can never revert to the People whilst that Government lasts: Because having provided a Legislative with Power to continue for ever, they have given up their Political Power to the Legislative, and cannot resume it. But if they have set Limits to the Duration of their Legislative, and made this Supreme Power in any Person, or Assembly, only temporary: Or else when by the Miscarriages of those in Authority, it is forfeited; upon the Forfeiture of their Rulers, or at the Determination of the Time set, it reverts to the Society, and the People have a Right to act as Supreme, and continue the Legislative in themselves, or erect a new Form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good. Again – not claiming at all that this is the case with the Second Amendment. Just saying it is both within the realm of logic and history for such an animal as a collective right to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/75 "2013-09-25T15:44:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Would Locke have thought that the government had the right to tyrannize one individual as long it wasn’t tyrannizing a large group of people? Here’s what he says: > [@](#): > > If a Controversie arise betwixt a Prince and some of the People, in a matter where the Law is silent, or doubtful, and the thing be of great Consequence, I should think the proper Umpire, in such a Case, should be the Body of the People. For in Cases where the Prince hath a Trust reposed in him, and is dispensed from the common ordinary Rules of the Law; there, if any Men find themselves aggrieved, and think the Prince acts contrary to, or beyond that Trust, who so proper to Judge as the Body of the People, (who, at first, lodg’d that Trust in him) how far they meant it should extend? But if the Prince, or whoever they be in the Administration, decline that way of Determination, the Appeal then lies no where but to Heaven. Force between either Persons, who have no known Superiour on Earth, or which permits no Appeal to a Judge on Earth, being properly a state of War, wherein the Appeal lies only to Heaven, and in that State the injured Party must judge for himself, when he will think fit to make use of that Appeal, and put himself upon it. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/76 "2013-09-25T16:13:42Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > As you might guess, there have been gallons of ink spilled about what different conceptions of a collective right to bear arms looks like. And it is not the case that every conception either involves an individual’s complete and independent right to own and use arms or else involves the right of the states. There are many degrees in between that seem to be evading your political imagination. > > It is true that every collective right entails some individual right. But the nature of collective rights is that the bounds on the exercise of the consequent individual rights are set by analysis of some collective category or indeed by collective action. Thus, for example, the determination of when the right to revolution arises is not and cannot be made by a single individual, nor by analysis of a single individual’s circumstances. It is determined by certain collective analyses and indeed by collective action, even if that collective analysis and action eventually empowers individuals to act as revolutionaries. > > As Locke said: > > Again – not claiming at all that this is the case with the Second Amendment. Just saying it is both within the realm of logic and history for such an animal as a collective right to exist. That is true, but only if the collective is tied to the social contract. If you look at the first amendment to the constitution, “the people” is a collective term that is not tied to government. This form of collective doesn’t fall under the social contract. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/77 "2013-09-25T16:19:24Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Here’s what he says: I wish he would speak English!! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/78 "2013-09-25T16:52:55Z")
This debate highlights the two (I know there’s more, but basically two) different ways of reading things. Suppose we had an amendment that said: “The people shall have the right to keep quill pens and ink at all times.” Then a debate comes up about ball point pens, mass publication, or internet blogs. View #1: The constitution says only “quill pens and ink.” That is all. If you want protection for other stuff, amend the constitution. View #2: The purpose of this amendment is to allow easy dissemination of thought and information. A quill pen in 1792 is the equivalent of an internet blog today. An internet blog is protected. There are good and bad sides to both interpretations. I go with view #1 just so judges can’t inject their own views into debates. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/79 "2013-09-25T16:58:19Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > This debate highlights the two (I know there’s more, but basically two) different ways of reading things. Suppose we had an amendment that said: > > “The people shall have the right to keep quill pens and ink at all times.” > > Then a debate comes up about ball point pens, mass publication, or internet blogs. > > View #1: The constitution says only “quill pens and ink.” That is all. If you want protection for other stuff, amend the constitution. > > View #2: The purpose of this amendment is to allow easy dissemination of thought and information. A quill pen in 1792 is the equivalent of an internet blog today. An internet blog is protected. > > There are good and bad sides to both interpretations. I go with view #1 just so judges can’t inject their own views into debates. I would argue that #2 is best as long as it’s in line with the original sentiment. Otherwise you would have a situation arise where the law is effectively useless. For instance: “We give them quills and ink. Paper is illegal as is transmitting information. But we give them all the quills and ink they can keep.” The intent in laws is very important. Was it important to the framers that people have access to quills and ink for kinky sex games or for disseminating information? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597/80 "2013-09-25T16:58:31Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > This debate highlights the two (I know there’s more, but basically two) different ways of reading things. Suppose we had an amendment that said: > > “The people shall have the right to keep quill pens and ink at all times.” > > Then a debate comes up about ball point pens, mass publication, or internet blogs. > > View #1: The constitution says only “quill pens and ink.” That is all. If you want protection for other stuff, amend the constitution. > > View #2: The purpose of this amendment is to allow easy dissemination of thought and information. A quill pen in 1792 is the equivalent of an internet blog today. An internet blog is protected. > > There are good and bad sides to both interpretations. I go with view #1 just so judges can’t inject their own views into debates. We actually have precisely this debate going on right now: freedom of the press. Freedom of the press refers to the printing press(some mistakenly believe it means the professional news media). The printing press was the state of the art way at the time to disseminate information widely. Today it’s the internet and television. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-insurrectionary-theory-of-the-second-amendment-is-nonsense/669597.md?page=5)