| TheRealMafoo said:"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson |
Yes, preserving the right to revolt against governmental tyranny was important to the Anti-Federalists. They were responsible for the ratification of the Second Amendment. However, attributing the Second Amendment solely to the idea of revolting against a governmental tyranny overstates the importance of this reason in interpreting the Second Amendment. Preserving the right to revolt against governmental tyranny was an incidental reason. The primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to ensure the continuance of local militias. Local militias were seen as necessary in protecting the people from Indians, Europeans, and similar threats. A personal right to bear arms was seen as necessary in ensuring the continuance of local militias. Honestly, both Rath's and Mafoo's respected reasons contributed to the ratification of the Second Amendment. It is not necessary to argue over why the Second Amendment was ratified.
