General Categories > Information Arsenal

A different view of the Second Amendment.

(1/2) > >>

Mudinyeri:
Recently, I was reading the Heritage Foundation's Guide to the Constitution.  (A little light reading before bed.)  :D  As I read through the section on the Second Amendment, I saw the old, familiar verbiage in a new light - in a way that I've never seen elsewhere.

For reference, you can find the article here: http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/2/essays/142/to-keep-and-bear-arms  (Click on the text of the Second Amendment to read the essay.  The Essays button doesn't work.)

Now, on to the alternative view:

In general, the Founding Fathers were suspicious of standing armies, especially the anti-Federalists.  They believed, based on their knowledge of English history, that central governments were prone to using armies to oppress people.  However, they also recognized that a centrally commanded army was necessary to the defense of the republic.  (A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...)  In other words, an army - or well regulated militia - was a necessary evil, if you will.  Such a militia/army had the distinct potential for misuse as well as the potential for legitimate use in the defense of the State (country).

Since this evil (the well regulated militia) was necessary, so too was a counter-balance.  The people, armed and able to defend themselves against tyranny and oppression, were the counter-balance.  As such, it was necessary for individuals to retain their natural right to self-defense.  Moreover, it appears to have been the intention of the Framers to allow individuals to be armed in such a way as to be able to defend themselves against any current standing army - at the federal level or otherwise.  Obviously, this has far-reaching implications.  This would mean that civilians would have the right to own fully automatic firearms (without limitation), grenade launchers, missile systems, jet fighters and large-scale ordinance and associated systems.  Essentially, whatever weaponry was available to the standing army would also be available to the citizenry.

As such, the Second Amendment is not about arming individuals to participate in militias but rather arming them to counter-balance the potential for a well regulated (centrally commanded) militia to be used by its masters to impose the wishes of an oppressive and/or tyrannical government.  The Second Amendment mirrors the three branches of government - providing a system of checks and balances if you will.  On one side of the scale is a standing army (well regulated militia) necessary to the defense of the nation.  On the other side of the scale is a similarly-armed citizenry necessary to the defense of freedom.  As long as the scale is balanced, we have protection from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Thoughts?

bkoenig:
I can't argue with that.

Mudinyeri:

--- Quote from: bkoenig on August 27, 2013, 12:25:10 PM ---I can't argue with that.

--- End quote ---

I guess I'm nowhere near as good as Thomas at starting an argument. :D

pianoman:
That's exactly how I read the intentions of the original documents.  It's not just about personal self defense like so many people assume today.  I really wonder how government officials would act and work if they really believed they could and would be held accountable by armed citizens in the defense of freedom as described in the original documents.

JTH:

--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on August 27, 2013, 12:30:21 PM ---I guess I'm nowhere near as good as Thomas at starting an argument. :D


--- End quote ---

If you'd said something like "The 2nd Amendment enshrines the right of all Americans to compete in shooting sports!" then you'd have an argument.  :)

Everyone knows that competition stuff is useless, and Serious Shooters (tm) wouldn't ever do it.  Guns are to protect us from the tyranny of our government!  And to shoot bad guys!

Oh.  And hunt, too. 

I do note that this idea that the "militia" was NOT the sum of the able-bodied populace, and was instead an official government-run-and-commanded body is a new one to me---and one, I'll note, that runs counter to my knowledge of the original writings that discussed the formation of the second amendment.

In particular, the point that the militia was "necessary for the security of a free state"--seems to be the opposite idea of that from the article you linked.  My understanding was that the militia itself (the able-bodied populace) was the check on the government, as opposed to the people being a check on the militia (as a government entity itself).

I'll note that the terminology difference doesn't really make for a substantive difference in actuality, though.  In either case---the free people's right to arms is the check on the government's powers.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page