[invalidOrTaken]

HN is a pretty cold, logical place, so while the topic's raised, I'd like to ask a question:

A year or so ago I watched a 60 minutes segment on so-called "sovereign citizens." The segment made them out to be relatively deranged, on my own cursory research supports this.

One part DID stick in my mind, though: in an interview with someone with weak ties to the movement (I believe a radio host?), the interviewee said something akin to: "The Second Amendment is not so that we can go duck-hunting." I took this to mean, (and in light of the circumstances around the American Revolutionary War, I think there's a strong case to be made) that the Second Amendment was specifically intended to protect the possibility of armed rebellion.

This is a fairly out-there idea, but then, it's called "Revolutionary" for a reason.

However, when I hear debates about gun control, this context seems to be missing. Is it such a...well...revolutionary concept that we now shy away from it? Or am I completely misunderstanding something?

[jtc331]

That's exactly the point of the 2nd Amendment.

In fact, it goes further. The point of the preamble (the part of about the necessity of a militia) isn't there to say that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary so that the state can have an army. Rather, it's positive law saying that citizens should own guns to be able to form a militia in order to fight back against a tyrannical government.

And the start of the Revolutionary War provides more supporting context for this: the British march that begin the war wasn't intended to start a war. The objective was to disarm the citizens. The authors/signers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the state could never do that to the citizens again.

[ISL]

That's the point. It's not an out-there idea.

The Constitution was written by people who had taken arms against a government. It's reasonable to infer that they thought doing so was important and might be necessary in the future.

[invalidOrTaken]

Thanks to all who've replied. I'm glad to hear confirmation. But I don't get the sense that this point is present even implicitly in the gun control debate. If the power to rebel is what's being protected, why limit assault weapons? Is an armed populace seriously supposed to take on the army with handguns?

I worry thatI might be coming across as a sock puppet with an axe to grind, so maybe I should take this question somewhere else. I'd be interested to hear any and all responses though; thank you in advance.

[rdl]

An intent-of-founders-based reading of the 2A would seem to support ownership of military weapons more than handguns or hunting weapons. There are several groups (GOA, vs. NRA) who support this. Yes, I think the "Sovereign Citizen" people on TV tend to be loons, but that doesn't mean everything they believe is necessarily unreasonable.

(Personally, I think our experience in Iraq shows that any real insurgency or attempt to overthrow a government would take the form of "fuck guns, bring IEDs". Most of the time, an insurgent would actually want to be unarmed entirely so as to blend in with the population. It might sometimes be worth having offensive weapons for specific tasks, but generally unless it was truly open warfare on every citizen, you would want to blend in. Small arms, especially personal weapons vs. crew-served, are basically defensive weapons, or are used to fix the enemy in place for larger weapons to destroy.)

[invalidOrTaken]

Thanks for taking the time.

[jQueryIsAwesome]

This is another time; and not even half America would be able to take out the government even if they really wanted to... back then not even tanks existed.

[Turing_Machine]

"This is a fairly out-there idea"

It's not an out-there idea at all. The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about hunting.