Thread by @LVTYIMBY

Setting aside the debate over whether less guns = less crime, I wonder how proponents of the 2nd Amendment being an individual right to protect oneself or act as a check against tyranny can defend those positions given the origins of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution's text.

The Bill of Rights was demanded by the anti-Federalists because they felt the Constitution needed more checks against the federal government's powers. Is there any evidence that AFs wanted the 2A because they feared the FG banning firearms use for self defense against bandits?

I believe if one asks that question it becomes obvious how silly that interpretation is, yet that is what the conservative "originalist" Supreme Court justices held in DC v. Heller. The problem is that defining a general right to self defense outside of a state statute is folly.

The state defines the acceptable uses of force between private citizens as it is required to have a monopoly on defining the lawful use of force. How is self defense defined? If someone steps on my lawn can I resort to deadly violence? In my home? In "my" state or country?

For the conservative justices to enact a right to self defense with a deadly weapon without clearly defining the limits of that "right" is irresponsible and runs contrary to their supposed deference to legislatures to make laws that define acceptable uses of force.

But back to the original point, it is unthinkable that the 2A was enacted because the federal government wanted to destroy the "right" to personal self defense. What is obvious is that anti Federalists feared a sustained federal army that supplanted state militias.

If a federal army wanted to "occupy" states against their will, it would be necessary to disarm the militias that protected the state. And what better way to protect state militias against disarmament than to codify an anti-disarmament amendment into the Constitution?

Yes, this is basically the "well regulated militia" counterargument, but it makes sense that the anti-Federalists, fearful of a powerful federal government, would want to protect against a federal army by preventing the federal government from weakening the state militias.

Protecting the "right" to personal self defense from other private citizens makes no sense from an addendum tasked with establishing limits on the actions of the federal government. Protecting the states from federal military domination makes sense from an anti-Federalist POV.

With that in mind, allowing states to determine the limits of
self defense means letting them decide when self defense can be invoked and what lawful actions citizens can take to defend themselves. The federal government wouldn't be able to override the states on these matters.

The federal government would also be injucted from determining how the states' National Guards could be armed, according to the wishes of the anti-Federalists who wanted the 2nd Amendment. Overturning DC v. Heller would reflect a proper understanding of anti-Federalist thought.

Moving on to the claim that the 2nd Amendment was included so that "the people" could have the means to overthrow a "tyrannical" government, it is patently false and can be easily debunked within the text of the Constitution itself in Article I, Section 8.

This section outlines the "Powers of Congress" and one of those powers reads: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Plainly said in the middle is that insurrections are illegal and can be quashed.

Why would the writers of the Constitution intend for the 2nd Amendment to justify insurrectionist activity when such activity is expressly prohibited? Insurrectionist activity is inherently extra-constitutional, so an amendment justifying insurrection is self-contradictory.

In conclusion, the plain text of the Constitution and the anti-Federalist origins of the Bill of Rights argue against the two "rights" claimed by 2nd Amendment supporters: the "right" to insurrection and the "right" of personal self defense against another private citizen.

@threadreaderapp unroll