[ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms

[Damien Broderick]

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