But a well armed milita would make a government less INCLINED to start acting tyrannical.
I would say a US militia would be more similar to trying to stabilise Iraq as opposed to invade it. As has been shown, the former is a lot harder than the latter.
To properly understand the purpose of the Second Amendment one must go back in history to the time that the delegates to the first Constitutional Convention went back to their respective states with the original draft of the Constitution.
When this new Constitution was presented to the state conventions for ratification, the attending delegates basically said, “This is all fine and dandy, but there is no provision within this document that restricts this central government from infringing upon our “inalienable rights”.”
Thus was born the “Bill of Rights”, ten amendments to the original Constitution, each one a restriction and limitation of power, binding the newly formed “Federal Government” to the few powers enumerated within the Constitution.
The Second Amendment, stated in full, reads as follows:
The word “regulate”, in the lexicon of the 18th century and in context with the Second Amendment, is more closely akin to “trained and equiped”. To use “regulate”, as in to “control the limits of” would be contradictory to the phrase, “shall not be infringed” that resides within the same sentence. Finally, the purpose of the “Bill of Rights”, as intended by the framers of the Constutution, puts regulation of the private ownership of firearms out of the purview of the Federal Government.
Those who support the right to private ownership of firearms point to the phrase, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”, as the defining phrase of the amendment. It is a more correct assessment of the amendment, as it is the phrase that places the explicit limitation on the Federal Government. However, the primary phrase that really gets to the crux of the amendment is, “…necessary to the security of a free State”. And just what was it that the Framers of the Constitution were concerned that the State be secure against and free from?
A reading of most any of the historical documents relating to the Constitutional debates and “the forming of a more perfect union” reveal that the Framers of the Constitution were greatly concerned with a government’s tendency to assume powers not specifically denied it, to usurp powers not delegated it, and to limit individual freedoms and God-given rights.
Some of the founding fathers give quite the impression that this kind of thing was necessary for a government to remain ‘honest’. Many, appear to have fealt that government as an institution was inherently untrustworthy. This is suggested throughout the constitution, as well as in it’s contemporary papers written by the individual lawmakers. You’ll notice that much of the documents focus on limiting powers. Throughout them you see paragraphs that go something like, “This group gets this power; but also receives this limit, and this one, and this one, et cetera.” These limits weren’t necessarily there to keep themselves honest, but to keep those that succeeded them so.
I don’t think that they necesarily intended for us today to be able to privately own nuclear weaponry (or anything irresponsibly destructive); but I highly doubt that they intended (or expected) for the government to have them either. My impression of many of them is that they were wholly against having even a standing army.
Yes.
Yes, if it meant that the citizens were following the constitution and our government was not. Being able to rebel, facillitate an armed rebellion against any tyranny of our government is the reason why we have the right to bear arms.
The main idea of the second amendment was to prevent tyranny from our own government, and fight the united states army to protect our liberty if necessary. The founding fathers were very/extremely clear on this point, and were universally in agreement.
The only part of the second amendment that was even “debated”, was on how our armed citizens could best defeat the united states army. It was also thought that american citizens should be “better” armed than our army.
If we were to assume that the writers were selfish, power hungry despots, then very little of the Constitution makes sense. Why did they include provisions that they would face elections, rather than be rulers for life? Why did they guarantee basic rights such as free speech?
I think a reasonable person could see the difference between writing in provisions which would create and protect the ability for the public to vote a person out or criticise them with speech versus writing a provision intended to allow the public to put a bullet in their head in an armed insurrection.
Enjoy,
Steven
So why the “militia” bit? If they intended to create an unfettered individual right to bear arms so that individuals, if there were enough of them who felt the government was out of control, could overthrow the state, where does the wording about the militia fit into that?
I don’t actually disagree with much of your position, but playing devil’s advocate is often enlightening. My position on this is that it really doesn’t matter because if the government goes totatilarian on us we’d better convince the military not to back them or there won’t be a damn thing we can do about it. Maybe we could annoy them every so often with guerilla/terrorist tactics. All I can see coming out of that is making life worse for those who aren’t actually in the resistance because the Govt will get progressively more totatilarian in response to the resistance.
Enjoy,
Steven
Posted by Susanann:
Cite?
Well, there is plenty of evidence that Washington supported an armed populace, for example,
I’d argue that the Whiskey Rebellion is pertinent in that it was an armed rebellion against the federal and state government brought into actual practice rather than as a theoretical political concept. Those involved in the rebellion had legitimate grievances, but some choose to bring them to the gun rather than the ballot box. Unsurprisingly, the government treated armed insurrection and shooting at tax collectors not as a second amendment issue but as treason. They called in the militia to quash the rebellion, which dispersed like chaff before the wind. I quoted Du Picq in a prior thread, but again ““Four brave men who do not know each other, will not dare attack a lion. Four less brave, but knowing each other well, sure of their reliability, and consequently of their mutual aid, will attack resolutely.” This is the difference between armed men in organized, disciplined units, i.e. well regulated and simply armed men. Those who wrote the Bill of Rights were aware of this, as they had just defeated England using the same time honored principle. An armed populace might intimidate the government against unreasonable action, but once arms are taken against the government, the government will treat it for what it views it as: treason. Washington favored an armed populace, but when faced with armed insurrection, he did the same, though in the end he pardoned those involved.
Clearly they are different; that’s why they’re in separate sections, and not in the “right to vote and to bear arms” section. But they both have the same basic ideas behind them: the government derives it powers from the people, not vice versa, and everyone is equal. When you phrase it the way you have, it seems almost silly. But think of it this way: the Constitution earlier said that Congress has the power to raise an army. And what do armies do? They put bullets in people’s heads (as well as other places). If the Constitution guarantees the leaders the ability to kill the citizens, shouldn’t it also guarantee the citizens the ability to kill leaders?
Suppose you were in a room with a bunch of people, and some of them have guns. The following conversation ensues:
Leader of guys with guns: You know, I think we should collect money from everyone, and use it for the public good.
You: So you’re robbing this place?
Leader: Oh, no! Of course not! We’re all equals here. Everyone should have a say in this.
You: So… umm… if we’re all equals here, and you guys have guns, would you have a problem with me getting a gun of my own?
Leader: Let me this straight. You expect us to agree to a situation in which you can put a bullet through our heads at any moment?
Can you see how the leader’s phrasing is a bit inappropiate?
Posted by The Ryan:
That’s a nonsequitur, The Ryan. The question is not whether the Constitution should guarantee the citizens the ability to kill leaders, but whether it was intended to do that. There was nothing remarkable about writing a clause in the Constitution authorizing Congress to raise an army. Any sovereign state has the ability to use organized armed force against its own citizens in rebellion or against foreign enemies; if it does not have that ability, it is not effectively sovereign. Guaranteeing a right of insurrection, on the other hand, would be remarkable indeed; that has not been a feature of the constitution, written or unwritten, of any other state in history.
Posted by Dissonance:
In context, is there anything to associate this statement with insurrection? It sounds to me like Washington was speaking of an armed populace as necessary to defend the country from foreign invaders – i.e., militia as an arm of the state, not as a countervailing popular force against the state.
Posted by Razorsharp:
Cite? I know that is, in general terms, how the Bill of Rights was conceived, but could you be more specific? Who proposed its particular items? And whose idea was it to include something on the right to bear arms? And did they state any reasons for that at the time?
No, it’s not. It was in response (ultimately) to this post:
The implied argument is that it doesn’t make sense, so it didn’t happen. The argument that it does make sense most definitely does address this.
My assumption here is purely opinion, so please don’t take this as if I am preaching fact (or think I am).
The founding fathers were an ecclectic group of people. Many of them did not like each other, and certainly did not agree on all things. Jefferson and Adams hated each other (well vehemently disagreed at least) and tended to go against one another’s ideas solely on the principle that it was the other’s idea and therefore couldn’t be a good one (exaggeration implied).
Some of the framers of the constitution were wholly against the founding of a national army (read: standing army), because of the years of oppression by the ‘king’s men’. Others fealt that the only way they could prevent a european power from influencing the new world would be to keep an army ready for their arrival.
It is my belief that the ‘militia’ line was a compromise between the two groups. Some probably just wanted to say something like, “The right of the people to bear arms should not be infringed.” While others wanted it to read more like, “Due to the necessity of the protection of the Nation, a National Army should be raised, and kept at the ready. If not as a standing army, than as an Armed and Trained populace ready to be drafted into service at notice.”
That ammendment, like just about everything in that document was a compromise. Luckily for us, the compromises were made by intelligent, and relatively honest men, rather than power hungry-ignorant despots.
Just a note: My personal belief on this, is that the opinions or wishes of the Founding Fathers does not, and should not have any basis on the way we make laws today. First it is impossible for anyone to conclusively prove one way or another how they fealt or thought; and is therefore simply emotional either way. Second, they did not live in the world we live in today; I don’t imagine they would have thought it necessary to create the FAA, or laws governing biological weaponry or cancer research either; the modern world would be in many ways outside the scope of their paradigm. I happen to be against gun control (or at least the more liberal interpretations of it; IE. no guns period) but cannot honestly base that opinion on the thoughts of a guy whose been dead for nearly 200 years, and would probably think I was worshipping the devil by typing into this glowing box.
That’s actually my point, BrainGlutton. The militia is an arm of the ‘state’ in a broad sense, meaning the government at some level be it state, federal or local. Washington favored an armed public, but not for the purpose of armed insurrection. One can debate whether the federal government was usurping states rights with regards to it deciding it had authority over all states militias, giving it the right to call one states militia to quell rebellion in another, but no government is going to stand for actual armed insurrection. The militia was in fact used as a tool to stop insurrection, not to cause it. In the face of an organized militia, Joe public with a gun stood no chance, not in 1791 and not today. The only chance of armed insurrection to work would be if the militia itself was in revolt in large enough numbers to beat what the federal government threw at it.
Federalist No. 29 encapsulates what I think are all the answers to the questions posed above:
They spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out how not to have a permanent standing army. The answer they came up with appears above: a well-regulated militia, which in Hamilton’s view, would be made up of a portion of the populace, and would be large enough to form a formidable resistance to a standing army, should one prove necessary and also prove a threat to the liberty of the people.
So the phrase “well-regulated militia” would appear to refer to a portion of the populace only. It’s purpose was not to rebel against the central government, but mostly to protect the country so that a standing army wouldn’t be needed. In the event of a standing army that attempted to stage a coup, the militia would be large enough to face down that army.
The second part of the second amendment refers to the whole body of the people who might be assembled once or twice a year for a bit of quick firearms training, if you take the above at face value. Given that even back then they had large artillery pieces, but that Hamilton nowhere referred to the right of the people to keep, say, your average siege gun in your backyard, I don’t think anyone contemplated anything above ordinary firearms for the mass of the people.
But if the standing army established an illegitimate government, wouldn’t facing down the army be rebellion against the new government?
see the “patriot act” Oh yeah, taxation without representation.
Sure we are represented, but by whom? (bush argument)
Guns are why we are not england. And also ensured in order to make the corrupt bastards think twice (should be three times, I WANNA TANK!)
Common, this argument is unarguable, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND FORM MILITIAS
So if me and billy bob wanna form a militia we will get cut down, BUT; If enough wrong is being done, and enough form under the same umbrella, the CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHT FOR THE POSSIBILITY.
How is that right arguable?
Mtgman: you are either stupid or naive.
Iraq was a democracy. Saddam got 100% of the vote, with 100% voter turnout, every election day.
The institutions and processes of democracy are not immune to subversion. Our own (recent!) history is replete with ballot box stuffing, strong arm poll tactics, and even in this day and age, I’m sure that in certain districts that there are registered voters somehow casting ballots from six feet under.
It is NOT a “slippery slope fallacy” to see how the great and mighty U.S of A. could go from where we are now to where Iraq recently was regarding “democracy.”
Just listen to the far left and libertarians screeching about potential abuses of government power from the Dept. of Homeland Security, the Total Information Agency, and the long-term implications of the “War n Terror” on civil liberties.
Of course, it’s just the far left and libertarians. They’re just a bunch of nut jobs, right? No need to pay them any heed.
Nope, none at all.
No answers, but a few questions:
In my humble opinion, and to reply to the OP directly, the framers intended to keep the government in check by allowing* armed insurrection–but I believe that their intent is not relevant today, and I believe that a gun-bearing public is no longer a deterrent to government excess.
Let’s take an example. Suppose that a religious demigogue–we’ll give him a name…“Nemiah Scudder” should be assumption free:)–runs for president and is elected. Nemiah uses the influence of his personality and the office to make “Under God” the key consideration of government. Using modern technological techniques (brain-washing, drugs, forensic investigation), anyone who doesn’t agree that God is #1 gets re-educated.
In this scenario, how does a rifle in my house help? Or even a stash of rifles? I would need to leave the country, organize from outside and then make my move. I’m a non-violent guy, so my move(s) would be propoganda, computer invasion, economic pressure (by convincing other governments that their best interests coincide with mine), etc.
*Not “allowing” in the legal sense. They clearly understood that if you begin armed resistance and lose you’re breaking the law and your life may well be taken–literally or by way of imprisonment. They put their behinds on the line when they signed the Declaration. Had their insurrection failed, they most certainly would have been executed.
Oh Tank, you cut me to the quick! Does this mean you won’t be be coming to lunch with us? Anyway, you should know me better than that. Since when does playing devil’s advocate get you the label “stupid or naieve”?
Iraq was never a democracy. They were a dictatorship with forced elections. America could have become, could still become, the same, but it wasn’t at the time the Framers wrote those words, nor did it look likely to become so.
Still, it is reasonable to say the Founding Fathers intended to preserve the ability of the people at large to defend themselves against a corrupted democracy. What I don’t find reasonable, and what my wide-eyed naieve role in this thread has been designed to refute, is the idea that one particular interpretation is unassailable. We’ve had 200+ years since that document was formed and even then there wasn’t some single unified viewpoint on the issue. To have someone come in and say “THIS IS WHAT THEY INTENDED” is just poppycock. None of us was alive then, none of us was one of the framers. My “naieve and/or stupid” postulates for the thoughts that were running through the heads of the founding fathers when they wrote those words are every bit as valid as the next guys. Less likely, I grant that, but still valid.
Enjoy,
Steven