An armed populace is useful in that it is a reminder that the people are the sovereign nation. The state cannot be defeated unless you can defeat the people.
But the premise of “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” does seem to be in doubt in the contemporary world. I do wonder how much of that is due to the overwhelming military advantage the US currently has. Would an armed populace seem so anachronistic if our state were less secure against foreign threats? I don’t know.
But it could be defeated if the people only had the kind of arms the 2nd amendment protects. When China invades, we’re not going to thwart them with hand guns and hunting rifles!
Certainly. So are several of the other Amendments, as well as some of the original Constitution itself. If it were to be rewritten today, my guess is it would simply say that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’ would suffice. We don’t need to quarter soldiers in folks houses anymore, and our ‘militia’ is pretty much ‘well regulated’ already.
Well…sort of. The idea of the citizens of the US fighting alone against regular forces is certainly laughable, although the Iraqi and Afghani insurgents would probably disagree that it’s completely unfeasible, but I doubt that in any scenario one could think of that brought US citizens into confrontation with the US government that they WOULD be fighting alone and unsupported…some non-zero number of the military and even military command would be fighting with them, since our military is composed of citizens who live here too. Same with any sort of external threat…your average American isn’t going to have to grab his squirrel gun and head into the hills to fight the Chinese or Russian hordes all by his or her lonesome. However, in the aggregate, thousands or tens of thousands or possibly millions of armed Americans ARE going to have an impact, even if merely as a nuance to an invading army or rampaging government…or whatever. And, of course, in the event of a catastrophic disaster, armed citizens could fend for and defend themselves in the immediate or even prolonged absence of regular or guard support, which is by and large a good thing (it has good and bad aspects, but I think the good outweighs the bad…or would, if such a thing ever came to pass).
Obviously YMMV…that’s how I see it.
I don’t think that ‘legal’ really comes into play here.
I don’t believe that’s the primary reason to protect US citizens right to keep and bear arms.
We need something like the 2nd Amendment to protect gun owners from the obvious intention of the anti-gun folks from simply legislating the ability to keep and own the things out of existence. That’s pretty obviously the goal, since it’s something that they have been trying to do for all of my adult life. If they weren’t trying to do so, then it wouldn’t be a problem…much as Free Speech wouldn’t need to be protected if some folks didn’t want to try and infringe on it, etc etc.
This is because we actually lost the 2nd Amendment in the 30’s. Once they severely restricted the rights of people to keep and bear arms like machine guns, mortars, anti tank weapons, howitzers, surface to air missiles, they killed the 2nd Amendment. All we debate these days is how deeply we’re going to bury the corpse.
It’s like saying you have freedom of speech when the government doesn’t let you use all the good words.
Edited to add: I’m not a gun owner, and don’t want to see the law go back to the pre NFA rules, I just think the situation is amusing.
But so what if the duly elected legislature outlaws guns? That’s the will of the people. You might as well argue that “gambling” should be a protected right because legislatures want to outlaw it.
Why is there a right to own a gun, but not a knife?
I’d say that’s a problem with our implementation of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The prohibitions against more effective armaments is defeating the purpose of the amendment. How can the security of the state be maintained if the people don’t have the arms necessary to defend it?
Of course, that points to it being anachronistic compared to our current society. No reasonable person thinks it’s good policy to allow the public to arm themselves with tanks or fighters or missiles.
But I don’t think defense against external threats is the only “security of a free state” that is intended by the amendment. Defense against internal threats like crime and revolution are also a part of it. I think it’s reasonable for a person to have small arms to defend themselves against crime.* Like an external threat, I’m not sure how much small arms would protect against a revolution, but while an invasion would certainly have heavy weapons, a revolution could conceivably not.
*Note that I myself do no have any firearms because I think the risk vs benefits make that a wise decision. But I believe that is a choice reasonable people can disagree on.
But so what if the elected legislature outlaws certain books or ideas…or certain religions? I mean, it would be the will of the people, correct? The reason certain things are protected is because the will of the people can shift in the short term or even the long term. If it shifts long enough and far enough then there are ALREADY mechanisms by which those things protected in the Amendments can be changed. Witness the fact that we don’t have prohibition anymore.
I don’t believe that ‘gambling’ is on par with either Freedom of Speech or the right to keep and bear arms, but it COULD be…if there were Amendments to protect it. Will of the people and all that.
Well, that’s an excellent question John…after all, it’s not the ‘right to own a gun’, but the ‘right to keep and bear arms’, and while the bears might object in many cases it doesn’t really have ‘gun’ in it.
That must be why both the NYPD and LAPD have decided to abandon firearms. They no longer have a need for them because guns are not useful tools for defense. Or are we going to get into a semantic debate over what defense means?
Not the same thing. We recognize the need to have a free press and free speech to be a free society. Guns aren’t in the same category. I don’t need a gun to be free.
My point is that there needs to be a reason for the right in the first place. “The legislature might outlaw it” isn’t a reason. Maybe the legislature should outlaw it.
I don’t see any aspect of a revolution in the 2nd ammendment. The Founding Fathers had a strong revulsion to a standing army; the Redcoats. (See also the housing of troops ammendment and other complaints). Our means of defense was various militias raised by colonies/states. The FF could forsee future conflicts with Britian (perhaps after dealing with the French), Indian incursions and wars, Spain at our southern doorstep, and those shifty cannuks;). Guaranteeing individuals rights to arms and enshrining the ideas of regulated militias were prudent measures to raise a military force in short order without resorting to a large standing army.
Changes to the world situation, food supplies, advances in munitions and weapons, hell even the rise of the military-industrial complex called for a standing army. Militias became reserves. Individuals needing to have arms is actually outmoded.
I support the right to bear arms though for an entirely different reason. Our FF thought that individuals having arms was a matter of personal responsibility for citizens. I see no reason to belive citizens now are any less responsible and should retain the right. As with any right, there are limitations; no mortars, tanks, grenades, etc… Restrictions on violent felons, metally challenged individuals, ageism are valid.
I find the idea that our founding fathers wanted us to consider our own government to be a probable enemy we must always guard against, and that they actually provided a legal means to violently overthrow the legal government that is supposed to protect those legal means, to be at best to be puzzling, and at worst nonsense.
I’m sorry John, but it IS the same thing. Because YOU don’t recognize that possession of firearms is considered a ‘need’ in a free society does not mean that everyone agrees with you. I think it IS necessary to a free society in the same way that free speech and freedom of religion are necessary.
There was a reason in the first place…gun ownership wasn’t a protected right under the Crown, and among other things we wanted to differentiate ourselves from them and protect, formally, certain things. Such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion…and the right, protected in writing, of free citizens to keep and bear arms. You might think that this is not needed anymore, and many, especially on this board might agree with you, but many Americans don’t. And here’s the thing…if a majority of Americans agree with you that it is no longer relevant to protect ownership of arms as a right, then there are already mechanisms in place to remove the Amendment and remove that protection. Obviously, if the anti-gun movement thought there WERE enough Americans to make it fly they’d have thrown down. They haven’t, which sort of puts into perspective your earlier assertion that gun ownership isn’t part of being a free citizen of this country.
