Anger at the government and its taxes spread through western Pennsylvania. It grew until the people refused to go unheard any longer. They decided the time had come to take up arms and fight against this tyranny and reclaim the freedom promised by the Constitution.

The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 had begun.

How did President Washington respond? By quashing the rebellion using 13,000 members of the militias from New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania. Those militias were the “well regulated militias” fundamental to the Second Amendment. This action established the principle the federal government can and will use state militias to put down violent uprisings against its authority.

It’s important we remember this piece of American history because there are those, such as reader Bo Rudzinskyj (Monitor Forum, July 16) who insist the Second Amendment was established to give citizens the right and power to fight against government tyranny.

As this incident illustrates, the Founders themselves clearly didn’t believe that to be true.

Rudzinskyj may be right that, when considering the Second Amendment, the Founders likely thought about the British trying to take away the Colonists’ guns. But they had a far more immediate fear: insurrection.

The turmoil under the Articles of Confederation, where the states held almost all power and the federal government very little, proved unworkable and resulted in many riots and rebellions. The inability to deal effectively with Shays’ Rebellion in 1786-87 held strong influence in the discussions during the framing of the Constitution.

The framers realized relying on average people – farmers, merchants, craftsmen – to defend the country and keep civil order just didn’t work. Training, experience and organization were crucial for military success. However, there were strong reservations about a federal standing army as the anti-Federalist papers “Political Disquisitions” and “A Democratic Federalist” explained.

They wanted to solve the dilemma of needing a trained military to protect against “insurrection and invasion” while also limiting the federal government from maintaining a standing army. They agreed on state militias.

They believed a militia made up of local men whose leaders were appointed by state politicians would be more trustworthy than a distant army isolated from the populace.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 29 indicates the true purpose of the Second Amendment was not to allow “the people” to resist tyranny, but to keep a potential tyrant from disarming the state militias and forming an all-powerful federal army.

Of course, now we have a federal army in addition to state militias (the National Guard).

Since the thing they feared most has become a reality – and their fears proved unfounded – the prime rationale the Founders made for the Second Amendment no longer exists.

To be clear, that’s not saying guns should be banned, only that they shouldn’t enjoy special privileges beyond those of other useful tools.

Even pro-gun Rudzinskyj agrees the Second Amendment isn’t about self defense or hunting. Our professional and well-trained military and law enforcement refutes the argument that our rights and freedom depend on a haphazard collection of armed citizens.

In fact, reason dictates no country could remain stable, let alone thrive, if it planted the seeds of its own destruction by pushing the concept that citizens should feel free to overthrow a democratic government whenever they believe it has turned “tyrannical.”

Recent events in Turkey provide a dramatic, present-day lesson of what happens when a group of people decide it’s up to them to “restore democracy” (a claim the coup leaders made).

Like those in the early U.S., this rebellion failed because governments resist being overthrown and not everyone shares the rebels’ views. What one group sees as “tyranny,” others see as law and order. Violent rebellion is the opposite of democracy.

The cases of Cliven Bundy and Micah Johnson illustrate this.

The Bundys (who some call “patriots”) threatened to kill federal law enforcement officers because they felt the jackboot of government tyranny planted on the throats of their freedom over grazing rights.

Johnson followed through and killed police officers because in his eyes (and many others) freedom needed to be defended from the tyranny of the police.

While the majority of Americans find these acts repulsive, that is the reality of the pro-gun rhetoric about people needing guns to defend themselves from government tyranny. That reality is ugly. One can’t rationally argue one unequivocally supports the police but also wants guns to protect against tyranny. Police are the tyrant’s front-line enforcers.

Fortunately, the Founders worked hard to create what they hoped would be a more perfect Union, one in which people didn’t resort to violence to get their way but instead engaged in discussions and debates. They set up a balance of governmental power to put a check on tyranny and foster discussion.

The very idea of democracy is citizens affect change through voting, not violence. The key to stopping tyranny is not guns. It’s striving for unity through understanding and overcoming the fear and hatred that drives us apart.

It seems a poor commentary on our society that we’re so afraid of a tyrannical boogeyman we gladly accept as a worthy price the thousands of lives lost every year to guns.

Other countries manage to keep democracy alive and free of tyranny while also keeping their citizens alive and free of the fear of being gunned down at school or the movies.

I just wonder if we haven’t succumbed to one real tyrant – the gun lobby – by letting our fears be stoked over a hypothetical tyrant.

History shows us that when we become too focused on the fear of mythological dragons, we’re blinded to the actual damage caused to society by the fear itself.

(Aaron Baker of Pembroke is an Army veteran who served in the first Gulf War.)