The idea that the II Amendmentexists the right of the people to overthrow its government is a ludicrous myth, perpetuated by the likes of Glenn Beck, who rip a few quotes out of context. There simply is no historical basis for this idea.

The Constitutional Convention was called by Congress in no small part as a result of Shay's Rebellion, in which farmers took arms against the tyrannical government of Massachusetts. The framers, particularly Washington and Madison, vociferously condemned the rebellion, praised Massachusetts for raising a militia to crush it and confiscate the guns of all involved.

There was absolutely no consideration in the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution and the subsequent debates that generated the Bill of Rights to permit a means for the people to overthrow a government by force. The idea is irrational. The guarantee against tyranny lay squarely within ArticlesI-VII.

On the contrary the clear meaning and impetus behind the Amendment, drafted by Madison, reflected the opposite view. Keep in mind that the Founders, Federalist and Anti-federalist, were adamantly opposed to a standing army, and recognized that protection from inside and outside the boarders, depended on calling on a militia of the free citizenry as Massachusetts had done in 1786. The militia was envisioned as a necessary governmental instrument, not as an adversary or check on the government. As the Constitution itself explains, its purpose is to "suppress insurrections and repel invasions," not to allow for insurrections.

Somehow, it's become a romanticized notion that the Second Amendment protects a right to bear arms against our own government. But there is no historic basis. I think it started in the Timothy McVeigh nut job school of Second Amendment history.