The "insurrectionary theory" of the Second Amendment is nonsense

[adaher]

@Buck_Godot

But if the government rebels against the constitution then the 2nd amendment isn’t going to offer much protection.

True, if the military sides with the President against their own people. Which I find unlikely. I’m very happy that the military comes mostly from the very states that would be most likely to rebel if the federal government tried something really stupid.

[Lumpy]

@ElvisL1ves

Here’s another thing: The delegates also included a way, right in the Constitution itself, for Us the People to chuck the whole thing and start over if we were all that unhappy with how it was working. No need for an armed revolt and all that needless bloodshed, just summon a new convention.

The Second Amendment is for if the call for a Constitutional Convention was met by federal agents arresting the state officials for treason.

[ElvisL1ves]

Really now? Got any historical references for that one?

[Buck_Godot]

@adaher

True, if the military sides with the President against their own people. Which I find unlikely. I’m very happy that the military comes mostly from the very states that would be most likely to rebel if the federal government tried something really stupid.

Great! So with the military on the people’s side, what is the need for the armed civilian insurrection?

[ElvisL1ves]

The purpose is to *threaten *the security of the free State, no matter that the Second says it’s to *defend *the free State and Article I says it’s to *suppress *insurrections. The free State already has its own well-regulated military force, composed of its own jackbooted henchmen that somehow are *not *drawn from We the People. Try to keep up, please.

“Wolverines!!!”