Well, since no one else has commented about it:
[QUOTE=Lumpy]
my 2¢
I’ve been trying to compose a good response to this thread; the problem is that a whole book could be written on the subject, and the replies are piling up faster than I can read them. So here’s what I’ve got for what it’s worth:
The Second Amendment, like the other nine amendments collectively known as the “Bill of Rights” came about because of concerns over the expansion of federal power when the current Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. The new Constitution consolidated war-making power to the new federal government and forbade the states from having their own independent militaries (Article One Section Ten Clause Three). All the states were permitted to keep were “militias”- armed citizens who could be summoned to defend against attack or to enforce the rule of law, and who would NOT be full-time professional soldiers. The new constitution also gave the federal government joint authority with the states over the militia, and that was a sticking point on getting the new constitution ratified: couldn’t a despotic federal government potentially disarm or disband the militias? So although the rest of the new constitution was largely about empowering the federal government, the first ten amendments (modeled after the original English Bill of Rights) were intended to expressly limit the federal power by declaring what actions by the federal government would be considered despotic overreaching. Since obviously the states needed some way of enforcing security and order (before the invention of professional police forces), the Second Amendment states the justification for the provision (“necessary to the security of a free state”) and then what the federal government was forbidden to do (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”).
Now you could take the position that the Bill of Rights is strictly a matter of jurisdictional bookkeeping, but it has traditionally been taken to be more than that; that the provisions of the Bill of Rights are broader statements of general principles, of what features are or are not inherently part of being a democracy of free people. As the Master himself pointed out (What does “the right to bear arms” really mean? - The Straight Dope) the other provisions of the Bill of Rights- freedom of speech and the press, freedom of assembly and petition, freedom of worship, freedom from summary imprisonment or seizure of property, freedom from the unjust exercise of law- have long been held to be broad principles, binding on any government claiming to be a democracy. Yet for the longest time the Second was the odd man out, to the point that one scholar on the subject entitled his work “The Embarrassing Second Amendment”. Ironically it wasn’t a tyrannical federal government that passed most gun restrictions but the states themselves, progressively banning the possession of guns by negroes, poor people, immigrants, leftist radicals, striking workers, and eventually almost any person in public. While other provisions of the Bill of Rights gradually gained protection against state encroachment, it wasn’t until the US Supreme Court’s Heller decision that the Second gained similar protection. Does this mean that the people couldn’t choose via their elected representatives to ban guns? Certainly they could, but such a move would have to be the will of an abiding supermajority, a constitutional-level change in other words.
The Second Amendment wasn’t intended to give the people the power to revolt against the government so much as the government wasn’t supposed to have the power to impose measures without the support- ultimately, the armed support- of the people. It isn’t that the public has been disarmed so much as the government has been granted enormous military and police power, far beyond anything originally intended. History has not been encouraging on the subject of what happens when weapons are reserved to the government and the populace at large is forbidden to possess them. It’s sort of the principle of the thing; to quote one pro-gun slogan, “Owning firearms is an affirmation that freedom and liberty are not gifts of the state”. A government that would ban guns is perilously close to one that would say “Shut up and do what you’re told, you goddamn peasant”.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent post. I was trying, badly, to say the same thing earlier. As to The Master’s article, the only thing about it I never liked is the drawing…it always seemed a pointless slam that didn’t really have much to do with the actual written article. Other than that, Unca Cecil’s take is pretty much in line with my own.
Anyway, good post, FWIW.
-XT
