One of the favorite arguments among 2nd Amendment advocates is that it was written into the Constitution to give the people the ability to overthrow an unpopular government. This is incorrect. And no, that's not an opinion. A plain reading of the Constitution proves it.
So let's start with a couple of basic rules of interpretation that are applied when divining the meaning of a statute or Constitution. First, look at the plain language. Second, if the meaning can be derived from the plain language, DO NOT go to secondary sources. Third, if there is an inconsistency that can be resolved within the plain language, do so, rather than going outside. Fourth, every word is given meaning, so if two different words are used in the same phrase, sentence, or paragraph, or even the whole document, give them different meanings.
Okay, here goes.
This is the entire 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So what can we divine from this. First, it does not say, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." No, that right is connected to "a well regulated Militia," and that Militia is "necessary to the security of a free State." Ergo, the right to keep an bear arms exists because those people are part of the Militia.
The 2nd Amendment, by the way, is the only place in the document where you will find the word "arms." So that search is over. Next, let's look for "militia." It appears 6 times:
Article I, Sec. 8:
"15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Article II, Sec. 2:
"1: 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; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
2nd Amendment (above)
5th amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So let's run through those, shall we? We'll go backwards.
The 5th Amendment doesn't give us much information about the role of the Militia. It just tells us cases arising in the Militia are an exception to the grand jury requirement. For those who aren't familiar, the grand jury is a citizen body that charges people with crimes. It is a buttress between the government and the people, assuring us that if somebody is charged, the people are involved. The Militia actually gets LESS protection, not more, because a person can be criminally charged for a crime in the Militia without the involvement of a grand jury. So, nothing there helps the argument that the Militia is a preferred entity. In fact, it is held to a higher standard of obedience to the law.
Next, the President's powers. Nothing there about the role of the Militia, just the President's role as CinC when the Militia is called up for service to the country. But it does tell us that the Militia can be called up for service to the country, which we'll get to in a minute. Note, it does not say the Militia may be called up for service against the country. It doesn't even authorize the President to call it up for service against Congress. Just FOR the country.
Article I, Sec. 8 addresses Congress' powers. Still going backwards, para. 16 doesn't describe the Militia's role, just how it's funded. Congress pays for the whole Militia, but leaves to the States the discipline and training for the part not in federal service. This starts to get important, you see, for it says nothing about a privately funded citizen militia. The Militia is an entity paid for by Congress, and controlled by the federal government or the State, depending upon assignment. (If this sounds a lot like the National Guard to you, and not like a bunch of gun aficionados running around in the woods wearing camp and shooting at paper targets, you're catching on.)
And now, we get to the heart of the matter, Article I, Sec. 8, para. 15. I'm going to rewrite it (actually, copy and paste) in its entirety:
"15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Congress pays for the Militia, to perform its role. And here, its role is defined. The Militia has three tasks:
1. to execute the Laws of the Union:
2. to suppress insurrections; and
3. to repel invasions.
Number 2 is important for this discussion. "Insurrection" means "a violent uprising against authority or government." Dictionary.com.
So the Militia's role is to put down revolution. Not to support revolution against an unpopular government, but to put it down. With force.
There is only one conclusion. The Militia doesn't exist to keep the government in check. It exists to keep the people in check.
I know a lot of people won't like this, because it doesn't fit the argument that supports their desire. But they will be wrong. Perhaps you have something from the Federalist papers, or contemporary writings, that say otherwise. Sorry, irrelevant. You see, that not only violates the rules of interpretation (if the meaning is clear from the language, don't go to outside sources), it also ignores the fact that the Constitution was a document written through compromise. An important contemporary writer, even major delegate to the Constitutional Convention, may have had a different opinion, but it didn't prevail in the final writing. The only rules are in the final writing.
"But hey," you may ask, "what about Jefferson and that tree of liberty stuff?" Good question. 1. It's not in the Constitution. 2. Jefferson was in Paris when it was written. 3. He was talking about monarchy. 4. The Founding Fathers created a new and different way to get a new government - elections. And in times of emergency, impeachment. The whole damned idea was to create a government of compromise, that could be changed by the people. There's no place in there for some of the people, the ones who didn't get what they wanted, to take up arms. And to prevent that, our Founding Fathers created the militia, ordered Congress to fund it, and authorized the President to use it.
The argument that the Militia exists as a threat to "keep the government honest" is made up from whole cloth, an attractive argument that is only credible to those who want it to be, who find it convenient support for a position they already hold dear. But it's not part of the Constitution, and it is, to put it plainly, wrong.
Do with this what you will. Argue about it. Share it. Ignore it. But the facts will remain the facts, the plain language of the Constitution will remain the plain language of the Constitution, and the only possible interpretation will not change.