This post debates (and leaves open ended) the meaning of the second amendment. Publius concludes the second amendment’s meaning is indeterminate, which I heartily disagree with. But I’ll let an expert (Roy Copperud) address it’s meaning:

[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

The fact is, the collective rights interpretation is a relatively recent phenomenon created with a desired end in mind. No such support for this view existed prior to the 1940s, perhaps even the 1950s.

That aside, Publius states that us gun types aren’t crazy (thanks, though I think people willing to give up their rights are lunatics) and questions whether armed citizens could actually successfully counter the government’s military:

My traditional response had been that these people are living in 1789. First, I had assumed that the notion of armed revolt in the 21st century seemed absurd. Our government would never do anything to justify that. And as a matter of probability, I’d rather take my chances with a narrow Second Amendment rather than allowing urban areas to become infested with lethal weapons in the post-9/11 era where much havoc could be wreaked. Besides, in the age of nuclear weapons, there wasn’t a whole hell of a lot we could do about it anyway. If the government wanted to take us out, it would.

The paleocon [I’m not up to date on my political propaganda, so I don’t know what a paleocon is – Ed] response to my point was that I was assuming that just because things have been a certain way for a long time, there’s no reason to believe they will continue being that way. In other words, just because the government hasn’t grown corrupt yet (and I mean to the point of justifying armed revolt), that doesn’t mean it never will. Just look at history. Second, the point of bearing arms is more about the credible threat than revolt itself. From an economics perspective, it raises the costs of potential abusive policies, thus making them less likely to happen.

A few quick points. First, it seems some people in Iraq armed with small arms are keeping the US military machine at bay. The reason for this is that the US isn’t nuking them, much like they wouldn’t nuke their own citizens. You don’t kill everyone to save them.

Second, an citizenry armed with guns would do a better job than citizens armed with sticks and rocks.

The third, and more critical point, is that just because a right may no longer be popular, or may be an anachronism, or may be rendered meaningless by some technological advances the government makes, it doesn’t mean that I or you should be willing to give it up. Period. Ever.

Posted in uncategorized on September 28th, 2004 by SayUncle | RSS 2.0 |