[ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms
Damien Broderick
thespike at satx.rr.com
Sat Jul 5 17:45:34 UTC 2008
At 04:04 PM 7/5/2008 +0000, BillK wrote:
>With the memory of King George
>III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists"
>feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias
>were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second
>Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming
>the 'amateur' state militias.
This is certainly my understanding. The context of the Amendment is
the wish to establish a countervailing force to central government,
lest that government become as autocratic as the one the Americans
had recently revolted against.
The idea that carrying weapons was handy as a way of stopping
muggers, burglars or terrorists, or in order to enhance politeness
via a local balance of terror (Heinlein's recommendation), might be a
part of that background context, but it can't be what the Amendment
*means*. I don't know if "bear arms" includes carrying swords and
knives for personal protection and status, or if that was perhaps so
taken for granted that nobody thought to mention it.
>The argument that continues today is whether a personal right to bear
>arms is necessary for the maintenance of state militias as a
>counterbalance to US federal militia. It certainly was at the time it
>was written, as the state soldiers used their own weapons in the state
>military service. But is it necessary nowadays????
Is it even meaningful today, with the weapons and communication
systems available to a national army? The kinds of depredations Amara
listed just don't seem susceptible to redress via a popular uprising
of furious citizens armed with handguns and rifles. Does anyone here
really propose that the way to prevent torture (or internet usage
tracking or undue taxation or the teaching of creationism in schools)
is to go in with pistols blazing? It might have been back in the day,
but surely not now, either individually or as part of a state militia.
Please note that this is distinct from the question whether it's a
jolly nice thing to own guns. The question is how the Second
Amendment can reasonably be understood *in the present context but as
arising within the original context.*
Damien Broderick
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list