Okay, so there's argument on whether Second Ammendment existing as a means of overthrowing governmen is or isn't bullshit. On one hand, it seems pretty suspect a new fragile government that just finished a rebellion would allow it, especially given wha Washington said-but on the other hand, Jefferson spoke multiple times how a rebellion could be justified. Which is it?
The problem is that the Founding Fathers
1) Were a diverse bunch of people who numbered over 200 different people and so different people had different views. So they didnât have a single agreement
2) Had different views. Jefferson gets into the whole âright to rebel thingâ later in life rather than when the Constitution was formed. Â
3) When the Constution was written, the founders made the deliberate choice not to keep minutes, so that people wouldnât feel like they would get in trouble for unpopular opinions. So we donât have the specifics of the debates
All this means that....maybe? we donât really have a clear answer, most historians argue that it was not designed as a measure to overthrow the goverment but there are some people who do argue otherwise, clearly some founding founders did believe that, but it also seems clear that wasnât the majority. Â
