Two Pervasive Myths Surrounding the Second Amendment

There are two pervasive myths surrounding the Second Amendment to the
United States Constitution of 1787: the first being that it was
appended to the constitution to protect against an oppressive
government and, secondly, that such was (or might be) needed.

Most of the discussion of the idea of citizens rising up against a
government that had become oppressive was post facto.  Were one to
read the minutes of the Richmond Ratification Debates, one would find
that the idea of popular defense against rogue governmental factions
was never even mentioned.  The discussion centered *entirely* on
slavery.  Virginia (the clear leader of the South) demanded
constitutional protection of slavery, while the North opposed encoding
slavery into our founding document.  The second amendment reflected a
compromise that allowed ratification of the 1787 constitution without
explicitly mentioning slavery.  Later, many of the southern slave
traders (Thomas Jefferson, for example) would wax eloquently about how
a demagogue wouldn't even attempt to take over such an armed society.
This, of course, set the stage for the War Between the States about 60
years later.

The second myth is that demagogues rise by armed force.  A cursory
study of history will show that democracies usually die by popular
vote.  The people well know, or should know, that the person they're
raising to power intends to eliminate the democracy and to govern by
dictation, yet, they elect this person, anyway.  Since such a person
usually comes in with great popular support, armed citizens will
usually work in that person's favor.