2nd Amendment-Action and Consequence

Great Debates
41

Haven’t read all the posts yet, but I’d define tyranny in two interrelated ways:

  1. A government you have no say in; where someone else that you are not a part of is saying “Here’s what we’re telling you to do. Obey.”

  2. A government in which a person or group of people use the power of government to guarantee that they will remain in control of the government.

And I agree that the 2nd Amendment was meant more to make it impossible (or extremely risky) to impose a tyranny by force in the first place, than to rebel against one. I would rephrase the intent of the 2nd as follows: “Since arms are needed to defend ourselves and maintain order, and since it’s too risky to liberty to maintain a large standing army, in order to be able to rely on the militia for defense and civil order, no law disarming the people shall be allowed”.

42

[QUOTE=Shodan]
The USA already overthrew a tyrannical government and established a true republic. We did it once; we could do it again. Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Well, I wish that was true but it really isn’t. We didn’t win so much as we didn’t lose; the colonies proved to be a quagmire where the British couldn’t suppress the insurgency. And even then it was probably only because the French navy curtailed the ability of the British to take and hold the ports they had to have to land troops and supplies. But still, being ungovernable is the next best thing to winning.

43

Hasn’t this been done? The south decided the feds were exceeding their constitutional authority and took up arms. That turned out well.

44

[QUOTE=silenus]
What part of “free” are you missing?
[/QUOTE]

I was under the impression that it was customary at least to acknowledge the questions asked in a civil discussion, but frankly you seem to be missing the “civil” part already, so I’m not surprised. I’ll play, though. You’ve not answered my question, but I’ll gladly answer yours.

Let me go through this again. The amendment reads “to the security of a free State.” The modifier “free” applies to the state, whose security’s defense is the task of the militia. It is the militia’s purpose to defend the security of the free state. Not the freedom of the state; not the security of the citizens of the state. Not the liberal constitution of the state – the freedom of the state. The state. Not the citizens.

I suppose if I need to explain to applicability of the example, then there is little reason for further discussion, because you have gone beyond the real world into the realm of hypothetical fantasies – correct me if I’m wrong. You are basically arguing that you need arms in the populace to defend against a hypothetical tyranny that arms will be useful against, which is no tyranny like any previously encountered, that without arms, you will not be able to work against. But we have seen that historically, it is possible to obtain guns for resistance movements – as in France during World War II. So are you saying that you need guns to avoid the government even attempting to install a tyranny? But then, why should not the same reasoning apply: why should 3 million gun owners (or however many) make a difference to the tyrant’s plans – have you any evidence that they would?
The applicability of the example, in short, is that an armed populace is no deterrent to the attempt to establish a tyranny, nor, without foreign aid, likely to prevail against it. Unless you presuppose that it will be, as you seem to be doing.

45

[QUOTE=Enterprise]
Let me go through this again. The amendment reads “to the security of a free State.” The modifier “free” applies to the state, whose security’s defense is the task of the militia. It is the militia’s purpose to defend the security of the free state. Not the freedom of the state; not the security of the citizens of the state. Not the liberal constitution of the state – the freedom of the state. The state. Not the citizens.
[/QUOTE]

I think you have this wrong - the modifier is there because the militia’s defense of the state is proper if the state is free. If the state is not free, the militia should direct its energies toward establishment of a free state.

46

[QUOTE=Enterprise]
ILet me go through this again. The amendment reads “to the security of a free State.” The modifier “free” applies to the state, whose security’s defense is the task of the militia. It is the militia’s purpose to defend the security of the free state. Not the freedom of the state; not the security of the citizens of the state. Not the liberal constitution of the state – the freedom of the state. The state. Not the citizens.
[/QUOTE]

Wrong.

*A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. * –- St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803)

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818).
Kentucky: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792).
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790).
Tennessee: The freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796).
Vermont: The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State(1777).

          *The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  {[In Story's Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840), the following two sentences are also added:] One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.  The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.} …The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.  And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.  How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.  There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. *   -- **Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833)**

          *Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 
          The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 
          The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history.  It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease.  The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation. 
          The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.*   -- **Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880)**
47

[QUOTE=silenus]
Wrong.
[/QUOTE]

You’re slowly getting the hang of this, but you’re still aways away from actually debating anything. I’d be responding point-by-point to your post, if that seemed to be the style you’d prefer; since you pick and choose, I’ll do the main and dismiss the larger part of your post thusly: what Vermont etc. write into their constitutions doesn’t really tell you much about the Federal constitution. You’re obviously implying (it would be oh so helpful if you’d just, occasionally, say what you mean, instead of leaving it to me to ferret it out) that the same sense is meant in the Federal constitution; I’d suggest that the reverse interpretation holds just as much water, especially when the formulation Vermont chose precedes that in the Federal constitution.

I’m happy to note, however, that you seem to have conceded the applicability of the historical parallels provided.

Now, to some more particular points:

I suspect you don’t actually agree with this part of Justice Story’s interpretation, that the duly-constituted, well-regulated militia is the aim of the 2nd Amendment, and that, by inference, without such a militia the right to bear arms has lost its purpose, and Czarcasm’s point is proven?
I’m ignoring Cooley here because of his obvious argument from intent.

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I think you have this wrong - the modifier is there because the militia’s defense of the state is proper if the state is free. If the state is not free, the militia should direct its energies toward establishment of a free state.
[/QUOTE]

Mr. Moto, thanks for giving me something to think about. I see how it would be possible to read the amendment that way; I wouldn’t, but I can’t really deny that you could. I think it’s a bit tortured, comparatively, because it seems to me that in general, when the Bill of Rights wants to speak of the rights of the people, as in the idea that it was the rights of the people to live in a free state, it does so. That the 2nd specifically does not, but endows the people with the right to bear arms to defend not their freedom, but the freedom of the state, makes it different – to me.

48

Enterprise, you know, you just aren’t worth my time. Arguing grammatical interpretation when faced with historical record is disingenious at best. Your interpretation is wrong, it has always been wrong, and arguing such about a document that doesn’t affect you is a waste of air. If you wanted to argue that the amendment is no longer needed, or that since we have a standing army in peacetime it was redundant, that would be one thing. But to hold that you and you alone are capable of gramatically interpreting the amendment is a joke. The founders are very clear as to the meaning. It shows in every other document they wrote from the time, as embodied in the constitutions of the states. The sam men wrote these state constitutions as wrote the Federal one. Their intentions are quite clear.

49

[QUOTE=silenus]
Enterprise, you know, you just aren’t worth my time. Arguing grammatical interpretation when faced with historical record is disingenious at best. Your interpretation is wrong, it has always been wrong, and arguing such about a document that doesn’t affect you is a waste of air. If you wanted to argue that the amendment is no longer needed, or that since we have a standing army in peacetime it was redundant, that would be one thing. But to hold that you and you alone are capable of gramatically interpreting the amendment is a joke. The founders are very clear as to the meaning. It shows in every other document they wrote from the time, as embodied in the constitutions of the states. The sam men wrote these state constitutions as wrote the Federal one. Their intentions are quite clear.
[/QUOTE]

Silenius…well…you lack understanding of what I’m saying, the courtesy to discuss my points (quite apart from the grammatical question, which isn’t really grammatical, as you’d have realized if you’d understood them) and even the necessary grace to bow out with dignity. I’ll know what to make of your opinion and worth in discussion in the future, I suppose, even if I’ve learned little else from you. (I’m especially happy to note that my opinion doesn’t count because I’m not affected; that’s some style you show there.)
You’re still welcome to discuss why you dismiss the applicability of the Revolutionary War experience to Czarcasm’s argument, but I guess I know what will happen there.

Cordially, etc., …