[ExI] Upon pondering your freedoms

[Samantha Atkins]

On Jul 5, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> 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.
>

It had nothing to do with "state militias" per se as these were only  
formed in an ad hoc manner by free armed citizens when they found it  
needful to do so.  The "state" part of it is irrelevant or was in the  
time of the founders.

> 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 country was founded on the fundamental principle of the right to  
life.  It did not escape the founders, especially Jefferson, that the  
right to life leads directly to the right of self-defense.  Jefferson  
would have found nit-picking over what kind of weapon can be carried  
to defend life, property and freedom quite incredible.   In any case  
let us not quibble about what they did and did not mean.  What do we  
say, today, from our love of freedom and understanding of what it  
requires?   Freedom dies when it becomes mere historical debate.

>
>
>> 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????
>

There was no "state military service".  There were volunteer armies of  
free citizens.

> Is it even meaningful today, with the weapons and communication  
> systems available to a national army?

It should be.  All of that equipment should be available privately as  
well.  Certainly the communication system available privately should  
be every bit as powerful for many reasons outside military parity.    
We must insure that not only the military and select parts of the  
government have really powerful means of communication.   We need to  
insure that the government cannot shut down our communication lines.    
To me this is by far the biggest lack in any real healthy power balance.

> 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.

I don't think it  was not so simple as all that at any time.  What  
needs to be opposed and if necessary by force of arms is encroachment  
on legitimate freedom.   To say that the government is sooo powerful  
that we can be expected to do nothing to secure more freedom is just  
what the Tories said back then.  After all it was very laughable that  
handfuls of amateur armed men could successfully resist the mightiest  
military machine of their day.    Can it still be done and does it  
need to be done?   I think the need for greater freedom is pretty  
obvious.   Whether it can be secured by arms or secession or other  
means today is a deeper question.

>
>
> 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.*

I don't know if guns are "jolly nice" but history suggests that  
disarmed populations often lose far more freedom faster when the  
government does go south.   Even a little resistance slows down the  
ambitions  of would be tyrants.

  - samantha