One of the major arguments put forth in favor of gun ownership - and conversely against restrictions on gun ownership - is what I would call the defense of liberty (DOL) argument - that it is essential for citizens to own guns so that they can defend themselves against the potential intrusions of a tyrannical government. Indeed, it seems that the wording of the Second Amendment is more obviously consistent with that argument than any other.
What I’m wondering is how does one square the DOL argument with the imposition of ANY restrictions on gun ownership, or, for that matter, any restrictions on the private ownership of any type weaponry that the government has at its disposal - from bb guns all the way up to, it could be logically argued, nuclear warheads.
I consider it acceptable to restrict weapons whose primary advantage is that they reward poor fire discipline, to the extent that this is necessary to limit gun crime. I do not support the 1980s law further restricting the availability of automatics due to it being a solution in search of a problem, but I do not have an inherent problem with anything more broadly harmful than a three-round burst being hard to come by.
The “militia” is supposed to be an arm of the state, not a countervailing force against it.
What you are describing is called the “insurrectionary theory” of the Second Amendment. Bear in mind that what you mean by “defense of liberty” is essentially insurrection, which the Constitution expressly does not tolerate.
Article 1, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power To . . .
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
Article 2, Clause 1:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
My understanding from previous threads was that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure that the militia members had the ability to shoot, because the government couldn’t afford the time or expense to train them, so the amendment stated that the government wasn’t going to limit their ability to own guns (because they expected the militia to buy their own guns and learn how to shoot); also, that this has been updated in several court cases to mean that, although we no longer need a civilian militia, the government is still not going to tell people they can’t own guns AT ALL, without stating WHY they aren’t going to do that.
This does leave open the opportunity for the government to say, “Although we are going to allow you own guns, we don’t want you owning THAT gun, or if you want to own one like THIS, you need to file a bunch of paperwork and pay a fee and submit to fingerprinting and a background check.”
Unfortunately vague terminology from a couple centuries ago has given people the idea that what the Amendment means is “we want the populace to be armed so that if we, as a government, ever go nuts, they can shoot us all.” That’s not actually what it means.
See also Article One, Section 9, clause 2: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
To say armed insurrection or “defense of liberty” has some kind of constitutional sanction is the same thing. Had the Second Amendment been intended to overturn the clauses I cited, it would have said so expressly.
The DOL argument is bogus. By definition, government must maintain a monopoly on violence on those it governs. That is to say, to be effective, government must be able to enforce the law. If armed mobs can use violence to resist a tyranical government, what’s to stop them from resisting a lawful one?
The fact that it’s merely a mob, rather than a large percentage of the citizenry. The DOL argument only comes into play if things have broken down to the point where the citizenry comes to feel can no longer effect significant political change at the ballot box. That’s an unlikely scenario, but not a completely impossible one to imagine.
The argument is quite silly and one that makes it impossible to take its proponents seriously. If the free availability of guns is necessary for liberty, then one wonders how societies where guns are not as easily obtained, like most of Western Europe, are such free societies while places where seemingly every person has a gun (like Iran and Somalia) are such hellholes.
No, if things reached that point the Constitution wouldn’t matter (as it would be obvious to pretty much everyone that it was no longer being followed by the government). As I said, it’s not a likely scapenario, but neither is it a completely impossible one.
Ultimately, that if the laws are passed by representatives of the people (who presumably approve of the laws or they would elect new representatives to overturn them), then enough people support the law to put down a rebellion by those who don’t. I think it’s not a coincidence that the supermajorities needed to pass major legislation are about the same majority needed to win a civil war.
Owning firearms might be considered a tripwire: disarming the people would be the first step of any tyranny. The secret police going out in the dead of night to arrest people would find it irksome if there was a pistol or shotgun behind every door.Maybe disarmament doesn’t mean tyranny but tyranny definitely means disarmament. Any government that needs to disarm the populace just to stay in power could hardly be called a democracy.
Not at all. There are two different things here: one, the idea that armed insurrection is sanctioned by the Constitution; and two, the idea that there is some value to making it possible for the populace to resist a government that no longer operates under the strictures of the Constitution.
The first is plainly false; the second, less so. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, but that’s kind of an irrelevant thing to say when the leadership throws the Constitution out the window.