Insurrectionist theory

"Insurrectionist Theory" is a belief system that took shape in the United States, often relating to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that highlights the argument supporting the right to bear arms. Simply stated, it is a proposition arguing that “the possession of firearms by individuals serves as the ultimate check on the power of government”.[1][2] Its proponents assert a right of revolution, which entails armed revolt premised on resistance against a perceived tyrannical government. The theory holds that individuals should bears arms as a "check" on the power of the government, invoking the constitutional concept of "consent of the governed". This theory is not accepted in American jurisprudence or case law, but relates to many popularly-held American values about sovereignty and has roots in the anti-monarchical character of the founding of the United States. This theory is often associated with the American militia movement and other anti-governmental groups.

See also: Right of revolution and Gun politics in the United States

Terminology

Followers of this theory believe that civilians should have nearly-unlimited access to weapons and the ability to keep private arms as a check on governmental power. Insurrectionist theory applies primarily to gun owners who arm themselves against perceived governmental tyranny to resist (or overthrow) it.[3]

Insurrectionist theory can be divided into two components:

  • Individuals should keep arms and armor as a check on government tyranny.[1][2][3]
  • Individuals have a duty to act against tyranny with arms.

It differs from the right of revolution, maintaining that individuals should be armed in the absence of a tyrannical government and should oppose any governmental attempt to regulate firearms. The right of revolution advocates rebelling against a government which is actively working against common interests or threatening public safety.

History

John Locke

In his Two Treatises of Government, John Locke wrote that governments are instituted among men for the protection of life, liberty, and property. Locke believed that a social contract existed when governments upheld those protections and people consented to governance. If a government becomes tyrannical (violating the social contract), Locke said that the people were no longer bound by the contract and could revolt to regain their rights:

Whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.

To further the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property, Locke supported the individual right to gun ownership for personal defense and against government tyranny.[4] He did not consider this right unlimited, however, and believed that a government has the right was to enact laws for the common good.[5]

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson has been cited as a supporter of the right of revolution and the right to bear arms as a check on government tyranny: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."[6] Jefferson was supportive of rebellion to prevent tyranny, writing "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."[7] and "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."[8] His beliefs were in line with the anti-Federalist fears of his era, opposing Federalist Party ideals which sought to increase the power of the federal government. Anti-Federalists believed that a strong central government would lead to the regulation of firearms and a large national military which could oppress the people.[9]

In modern American right-wing politics
See also: American militia movement § Opposition to the government, and Boogaloo movement

Insurrectionist theory has regained some popularity in recent years with the rise of the American militia movement, a variety of groups which may[lower-alpha 1] oppose the Federal government, or sometimes even state governments. While such groups sometimes align with one another, they are largely independent, and of a non-national character. Despite this, these right-wing or liberty activist groups are assessed collectively by many national security theorists. These groups assert that they are carrying on the tradition of the American founding fathers, often claiming to organize for the purpose of "checking" or "resisting" the power of a tyrannical government. The Boogaloo movement in particular is often more aggressive in this stance by advocating for a second civil war or an armed revolution.[10][11]

Extremist groups

Adherents often are associated with anti-governmental extremist organizations, some with far-right standings, such as the III%ers, Boogaloo Movement, Oath Keepers, and Light foot militias, often under the umbrella of the American militia movement. Since the Trump era, some—predominantly the Three Percenters and the Boogaloo movement—are associated with domestic terrorism incidents such as Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, and anti-government standoffs such as the Bundy standoff and the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Notes
  1. Some groups may continuously oppose the Federal government vis a vis various policies. (See opposition to the government.) Some may become more active or oppositional depending on the current-day policy objectives of the Federal government, or who holds the office of President.

References
  1. Dunlap USAF, COL. Charles J. "Revolt of the Masses". Duke University.
  2. Henigan, Dennis A. (1991). "Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment". Valparaiso University.
  3. Horwitz, Joshua (2009). "Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea" (PDF). University of Michigan.
  4. Tunick, Mark. "JOHN LOCKE AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." History of Political Thought 35, no. 1 (2014): 50-69. Accessed April 7, 2021. JSTOR 26227264.
  5. EDU, ILLINOIS (12 April 2018). "John Locke and Gun Control".
  6. "Strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms (Spurious Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello". www.monticello.org. Retrieved 2021-04-07.
  7. "The tree of liberty ... (Quotation) | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello". www.monticello.org. Retrieved 2021-04-07.
  8. "Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 30 January 1787". founders.archives.gov. Retrieved 2021-04-07.
  9. "Interpretation: The Second Amendment | The National Constitution Center". constitutioncenter.org. Retrieved 2021-04-07.
  10. League, Anti-Defamation. "The Boogaloo Movement". ADL.
  11. League, Anti-Defamation (2021). "The Militia Movement". ADL.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.