The link below is to a CNN editorial article by Carl T. Bogus a professor of law at Roger William University School of Law. He speaks to the Second Amendment and whether or not it was intended to allow citizens to bear arms only to protect the State against foreign invaders or to allow them to fight with their own government (if and when that government became tyrannical).

As a resident of New Hampshire, I have to point out that our State Constitution is much clearer on these issues. The right to bear arms does not contain any clauses related to the militia. Article 2-a says “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”

And a “right of revolution” is written right into our state Constitution. Article 10 says “Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”

The right to bear arms was added fairly recently (1982), but the Right of Revolution was written in 1784. I submit that Prof. Bogus is wrong.

There’s no right of revolution in a democracy –