Gun grabbing argument makes sense, until you read history.

 In an article at Ammoland Dean Weingarten points to A Silly Argument: The Second Amendment Insurrection Purpose. In this latest iteration of attempting to prove that the Second Amendment doesn't really mean what it says, the latest idea is that the founders would never have sanctioned rebellion against the newly formed Constitutional republic. But as Weingarten points out, there is too much of a record that they did exactly that, and for good reason, which Weingarten explores.

One of the silliest arguments about the purposes of the Second Amendment is put forward this way. The newly formed Constitutional government would never have created an amendment with the purpose of destroying the government just created. Here is an example from the far-left eugeneweekly.com:

That newly created narrative included the supposed purpose of arming citizens in order to enable them to rebel against the very constitutional government which the Founders were establishing with its checks and balances. This despite the Founders having defined treason as taking up arms against that very government.

But this glaring contradiction persisted and found a home within the halls of the Supreme Court, whose collective wisdom may have suffered from the influx of unreported gifts by billionaires to a number of justices weighing in on the question.

The writer does not appear to have read the history of the Revolutionary War, the Federalist Papers, the arguments surrounding the Bill of Rights, the rudiments of the political theories the Constitution is based on, or the Constitution itself. Knowledge of any one of these fields provides ample refutation of the argument above.

The rest of Weingarten's article disabuses the writer of this insipid nonsense of his failure to read and understand history. But it is to be expected these days that one simply has to advance an emotion filled argument to win the day. After all, nobody teaches actual history anymore. Facts don't matter in the age of slogans and jingoism. What matters is how you feel about it. And surely, everybody feels bad about violence, right? As it turns out, there was major opposition to the formation of a centralized federal government. These anti-federalists warned that the new government would balloon out of control and wanted additional individual protections beyond the basic Constitution. Anti-federalists represented a loud and substantial minority position.  Without the anti-federalists on board, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

The Bill of Rights was ratified in December of 1791. It was demanded by the anti-federalists as a check on the powers of the new federal government. It enhanced the existing checks and balances of the Constitution. The people who demanded the Bill of Rights were not those who created the Constitution. They were those who warned of the centralization of power in the Federal government. The Bill of Rights was proposed by the anti-federalists and enthusiastically passed by the states with the overwhelming support of the people. It was not those who proposed and wrote the Constitution who demanded, passed, and ratified the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. It was those who were leery of centralized power who demanded more restraints on the power of the new government. There is no contradiction in this action.

The emphasis is mine. With this alone, Weingarten destroys the argument made by Mr. Coffin, but there is more. I urge gentle readers to go to the rest of his article for a masterful take down of a bumbling fool.