01-09-2013, 08:00 PM
Just had some thoughts on this...
In the 2008 supreme court ruling it was held that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, i.e. not that states could arm militias, but free men could arm themselves. Now, unless you're a lawyer trying to convince a judge, it's a pitifully weak argument to suggest that we should have the right to weapons just because the constitution says so. That's, in effect, saying "Some dead guy with influence said we could, and that's good enough for me!"
So the question is, why did those dead men write that, were they right, and are there any new arguments to be had on the subject. As I have heard so pithily noted, they didn't write the 2nd amendment to protect quail hunters. I just finished reading Federalist 29. Mind you, this predates the bill of rights, but I think it provides important insight. In it another dead guy argued that standing armies are a threat to liberty, and therefore the primary means of defense should be the militia. (He was defending the power of the federal government to call up the militia). This also explains why, under the Powers of Congress, they can "provide and maintain" a navy, but "raise and support armies". And note funds for the army can't be appropriated for more than two years (the very easy work-around is to simply refund every two years...). The point of arming the people wasn't (OK, I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I beg forgiveness if this isn't strictly true) so they could defend themselves against the government per se, but so there would be no legitimate reason for a standing army, and therefore the people would both be protected from their government (who, without an army, hadn't the means for oppression) and from invasions. Makes a lot of sense to me.
But we have a standing army, so does the argument still hold? I suppose you could argue that the whole pretense for an armed society is gone, so we should just be rid of the second amendment. I suppose you could argue that, since we do have the standing army, the threat to our liberty, we need arms more than ever.
Personally I favor the latter argument. Christ, just look at a picture of Governor Cuomo. 95% certain that guy is with the mafia. Look at his haircut, all the evidence you need. How much safer is NYC for the mafia, who don't have any trouble getting illegal weapons, with all the citizens disarmed? Hard to beat a man, who owes you money, in front of his family when his wife can pull a 12 gauge out from under the sink.
That being said, if you believe in natural rights, we all surrender liberties to the government for the general welfare of society. Might the right to bear not also be surrendered to prevent mass murders? I say, if you're going to take away my liberty, two things: 1) repeal the second amendment; don't debase the constitution, and 2) Make sure it's really the only way. I think there are things we can do to curtail school shootings that don't involve restrictions on liberties. I favor training and arming administrators, some people favor armed guards.
In the 2008 supreme court ruling it was held that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, i.e. not that states could arm militias, but free men could arm themselves. Now, unless you're a lawyer trying to convince a judge, it's a pitifully weak argument to suggest that we should have the right to weapons just because the constitution says so. That's, in effect, saying "Some dead guy with influence said we could, and that's good enough for me!"
So the question is, why did those dead men write that, were they right, and are there any new arguments to be had on the subject. As I have heard so pithily noted, they didn't write the 2nd amendment to protect quail hunters. I just finished reading Federalist 29. Mind you, this predates the bill of rights, but I think it provides important insight. In it another dead guy argued that standing armies are a threat to liberty, and therefore the primary means of defense should be the militia. (He was defending the power of the federal government to call up the militia). This also explains why, under the Powers of Congress, they can "provide and maintain" a navy, but "raise and support armies". And note funds for the army can't be appropriated for more than two years (the very easy work-around is to simply refund every two years...). The point of arming the people wasn't (OK, I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I beg forgiveness if this isn't strictly true) so they could defend themselves against the government per se, but so there would be no legitimate reason for a standing army, and therefore the people would both be protected from their government (who, without an army, hadn't the means for oppression) and from invasions. Makes a lot of sense to me.
But we have a standing army, so does the argument still hold? I suppose you could argue that the whole pretense for an armed society is gone, so we should just be rid of the second amendment. I suppose you could argue that, since we do have the standing army, the threat to our liberty, we need arms more than ever.
Personally I favor the latter argument. Christ, just look at a picture of Governor Cuomo. 95% certain that guy is with the mafia. Look at his haircut, all the evidence you need. How much safer is NYC for the mafia, who don't have any trouble getting illegal weapons, with all the citizens disarmed? Hard to beat a man, who owes you money, in front of his family when his wife can pull a 12 gauge out from under the sink.
That being said, if you believe in natural rights, we all surrender liberties to the government for the general welfare of society. Might the right to bear not also be surrendered to prevent mass murders? I say, if you're going to take away my liberty, two things: 1) repeal the second amendment; don't debase the constitution, and 2) Make sure it's really the only way. I think there are things we can do to curtail school shootings that don't involve restrictions on liberties. I favor training and arming administrators, some people favor armed guards.