Under modern conditions, the United States Army could defeat all the National Guard units together, assuming it were even possible for all of them to be united in revolt against the Army. As for contemporary private unofficial “militias” in America, such as the Michigan Militia or the Montana Freement, in military terms they are hardly even worth mentioning. And if they won, the result would be worse than any tyranny Washington could throw at us!
Good luck with the Constitutional amendment, guys. I’m SURE you won’t have ANY trouble getting 37 states to agree that the Second Amendment doesn’t really means what it says, but rather, what latter-day liberals want it to say.
More mind-blowing is the suggestion (one I see regularly) that, “Well, the Founders only meant the occasional flintlock or coon-hunting rifle. They couldn’t have anticipated Uzis or AK-47s, so the Second AMendment doesn’t apply.”
Well, by that token, the Founders didn’t anticipate the Internet or telelphones or television. Do you like the idea that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to those spheres?
Ironically, liberals are usually the ones who REJECT the idea that the Bill of Rights must be read in light of the Framers’ original intent. Indeed, when Robert Bork said the Framers’ original intentions were paramount, such folk called him a fascist pig. Why do you suppose the Second Amendment, and ONLY the Second Amendment, is to be given Borkish reverence by liberals?
BrainGlutton, I really, really don’t agree, but such debates have been had here before, and even if I’ve not participated in them, I was still quite swayed. What you’re talking about isn’t some monolithic entity slapping down peasants in a few days but civil war. Calling out the army against a revolting state won’t happen in an ideological vacuum.
The potential for revolt is, by any stretch of the imagination, a check on government power when other mechanisms become corrupted or useless. Militias provide that.
Because we need free speech to be a healthy democratic society, but we don’t need guns in our homes to be a healthy democratic society.
Which is something that must be avoided at all costs. Hasn’t our history taught us that?
It didn’t teach me that. I’m glad the union won, I’m sorry it took a civil war for such things to be clear, but that a civil war should be avoided at “all costs”? If history taught me anything, it is that federal-level government can create some damned heavy costs, including incapacitating their citizens so effective revolt becomes nearly impossible. That, frankly, is what I want to exert all costs to avoid, not civil war. YMMV.
It is better that effective revolt becomes nearly impossible, than that effective revolt becomes nearly possible. Consider the consequences.
Has history taught you the conditions under which revolt happened? Because that’s exactly why I accept the consequences I do.
And I mean “historically” happened, not just the US’s war of independence, but revolts all over the place, from the overthrow of tsars, various peasant revolts, and so on. If you have a legitimate government the people respect and desire to be living under, revolt is democratically quelled without draconian legislation. Surely this is a rational option in free countries.
While that was extremely poetic, it doesn’t really say what you were trying to say.
If effective revolt is nearly impossible, then by definition it is more than nearly possible… It’s possible.
And a “free country” is what we are now, whether we have firearms at home or not. Under present conditions, and any conditions likely to arise in the near future, the only conceivable revolt against the federal government would be one led by right-wing militia types. And if they won . . . Best-case scenario: The U.S. fractures into 50 (or more!) independent republics (or, in some cases, independent dictatorships), not all on good terms with each other. Worst-case scenario: The Turner Diaries brought to life. Does any Doper on this board consider either of these outcomes preferable to registering your guns and filing your 1040 every year?
If you’re so worried about a small number of men taking over the country by force, there’s a group in Washington I’d like to introduce you to. They number just over 500. Frankly, I don’t think either is likely so long as the other is there, but then, I like a balance of power rather than trusting people to be nice guys.
You make it sound like I’m arguing against registration and education. Interesting.
Not “education” – by “1040” I meant, paying your federal income tax – which some militiamen regard as unbearable tyranny. If you’re not in that camp, good for you.
And are you particularly concerned about these folks creating a national revolution? Were they moments away before automatic weapon bans went into effect in just a nick of time?
The historical critique is much appreciated, 2sense , and the State Guard link is invaluable to me. Thanks again!
Of course, when the 2nd amendment was framed, a militia WAS vital to the security of the state. They had just used such forces to defeat THE world power and win their independance. They also saw private gun ownership (at the time) as well as local state militias as a check on federal power…something all the original framers worried about. Hell, thats why they didn’t HAVE a large standing army until fairly late in the game…because they all saw large federal armies as a tool of oppression.
Now, you could argue that today such things are no longer the case and that a new amendment needs to be written that is more modern. However, this falls into a problem…namely that the majority of Americans STILL support the right of individuals to keep and bare arms. Being as we live in a democracy, how do you propose to get around this?
From American Voters Overwhelmingly Agree with Justice Department:
Now, perhaps you are saying that its ok for people to keep and bare arms, but that such things should be regulated and the weapons registered. I’m all for that myself. If thats what you are saying we are in agreement. But if you are saying that a new amendment should be written that takes away completely the right of private citizens to keep and bare arms, then this goes against the majority opinion of the citizens of the US.
To make a quick analogy, the majority of the US citizens support the right of a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion. How would you feel if the minority got its way and outlawed this, taking away that right? And I’d say the numbers are closer on pro-choice/anti-abortion than on the right of private citizens to keep and bare arms/no private ownership side. But even if the numbers on abortion are closer, the majority STILL feel that a woman should have the choice…and so its the law of the land until thing shift back the other way (something I find extremely hard to see ever happening). And the same should be true of the right of private citizens to keep and bare arms…until and unless the majority ever change their minds on the issue.
By all means though, I think the amendment should be amended…if for nothing else to clairify the damn thing, as well as putting regulation and registration right into it. But amending it, if you hold true to the will of the people, wouldn’t result in taking private gun ownership away from the citizens…democracy and all that you know…
-XT
I don’t think anyone here has suggested that a new amendment would take away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Given the weight of public opinion, any member of Congress who suggested taking away all guns would do so at the risk of life and limb, What has been suggested here, and earlier by Cecil ::I rise slowly and bow slightly at the waist, hand over heart:: is that the Second Amendment be clarified. For me that would be removal of the reference to militia, followed by specific regulations as to the type of arms allowed and the qualifications for their ownership. Wait a minute. . .we’re right back where we started!
Incidentally, when I exercise my right to bare arms, I try to remember the sun screen. 
I agree. However, some people DO feel that private citizens shouldn’t be allowed to keep arms, so I just wanted to clarify my own position, as well as BG’s position on that. I read Cecil’s article and am mostly in agreement with him on it…the 2nd Amendment definitely DOES need to be amended to reflect modern times…as well as to clarify the thing so that its understandable, and clearly defines ownership and sets for regulation and registration rules.
English is just SO wierd. I assume that ‘bare arms’ is not correct? Or does ‘bare’ mean several things (like a lot of english words seem too). I know ‘bear’ is a big hairy animal, so it can’t be ‘bear arms’…and if it is, thats too funny. 
-XT
Check out the spelling in the Amendment. It’s “bear.” The difference between that and a big, hairy animal is that one (the animal) is a noun and the other (to carry or wield) is a verb. Without looking it up, “bare” is an adjective and can mean “uncovered” or “mere” among other thin. . .but wait a minute. I’m being whooshed here, aren’t I? :smack:
Believe it or not, I was not intending to start GD #43,821,416,772 on gun control.
I just want to know why some have a problem with the “well regulated” bit. I’m pretty sure the original framers really, truly meant “well regulated” when they wrote the amendment, yet some people continue to argue that “shall not be infringed” is the only part of the amendment that really matters and discount “well regulated”.
I wasn’t aware that Cecil had written a column on the matter (thanks, RandomLetters!) and I think that’s about as good of an answer I’ll ever receive.