…written by old, dead, white, misogynist slave owners who aren’t the boss of us.
We are told that the founders wrote the second amendment with muskets in mind, and that they couldn’t possibly have foreseen the deadly effectiveness of our modern weaponry. The Bill of Rights, the enemy says, should be interpreted with that understanding, which means we should be allowed to have all the flintlock long rifles and muskets we want. Banning effective modern weapons is therefore not only permissible but is the necessary, “right thing to do”.
We’re all very familiar with this argument, but like everything else coming from the Progressives it misses the point entirely.
The purpose of the American Revolution, and of the Constitution, was to secure liberty. The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the people at large would keep any army the government could muster “in awe”. Their words.
That concept makes perfect sense for a people who, not only had just defeated the most powerful military in the world, in part using personally owned weapons, but who saw the purpose of government as being “…to secure these rights…”
The new concept of that time (and it is still very new today – so new that even now very few people understand it) was that government functions at the pleasure of the People – that ultimately the people hold the power, and individuals’ rights having been “…endowed by their creator…” cannot be altered or abridged by anyone for any reason.
The second amendment is a natural expression of these concepts. It defines the force relationship between government and the people. WE hold the power. Rights belong to US and cannot be altered by any mere mortal. Rights can be violated by criminals, certainly, but not altered.
Therefore; if we are going to “update” anything with regard to personal weaponry for the purposes of the second amendment, so as to maintain the force relationship required to secure liberty, we must have weaponry that will truly and efficiently keep the most powerful, modern military in the world “in awe”.
In support of that simple point; I don’t want to see any of you making that silly “Semi-autos are OK because they aren’t assault rifles” argument any more, or its twin brother; “Those media types are trying to confuse people over the difference…” That’s the argument of the loser– he’s already ceded the main point, and is now arguing (pleading) over the details of the violations of his rights and those of his neighbors.
The point is, Young Grasshopper, that semi-autos are OK, and assault rifles and machineguns are even MORE OK. And now you need to ask yourself; just what would the private citizenry want to have, so as to keep a modern army “in awe”? And right there, after thinking about that for a few weeks, you begin to see the meaning of the second amendment.
If liberty is worth defending, then surely it is worth defending effectively and efficiently.
Of course the weaponry is only a part of the equation. The understanding of the principles, and the resolve that comes from that understanding, is the prerequisite. Without that, this conversation is pointless.
Muskets? The second amendment covered warships. If I can afford an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, I should be allowed to buy one.
Yup. They said “ARMS”. Not rifles, muskets, or swords. They fought the revolution with many privately owned canons. They covered Letters of Marque in Article 1, Section 8, which means they explicitly considered and condoned privately owned WARSHIPS. So individual arms that a common soldier would carry, whatever the current version should be, seems to be covered.
I take this tack…
An M16 is what they meant but they’d let me by with an AR.
Conversely; who ever thought it would be a great idea for a government to have absolute power of life and death over the citizens? If you’re not advocating for the principles behind the second amendment, if instead you believe that restrictions on private arms are a good idea, you are by default advocationg for the absolute government power model.
Then we can get into the question of which model is “extreme”. A hundred million or more cotizens were killed by their own governments in the 20th century alone, but maybe we are unable to refer to that as “extreme” being as governments killing their citizens is a fairly common occurence. Liberty on the other hand is “extreme” in that it is rare.
Either way you look at it, people will be using force against one another. So you have to decide whether using force to protect liberty is preferable to using force to destroy liberty. About half of the U.S. prefers the latter right now, and since they regard themselves as the more reasonable, you see that we’re in something of a pickle.
If you are a libertarian, just by drawing breath you are a threat to the authoritarians. If you can articulate the principles effectively, you are an extreme threat. Keep articulating then, with words I mean. Articulating the principles with bullets is a last resort.
THIS is the “discussion” we must have, and this is the first place I have seen that discussion.
The question to be answered isn’t MAY we have the capability to project force to keep the Government’s power in check, it’s HOW MUCH force may we legitimately project, and WHEN do we start projecting it.
My reading tells me that the Founders were down with the ideas of both projecting force, and with the idea of projecting a WINNING level of force, but they offer damn little guidance on where the event horizon is.
BTW, when you get that “brown bess” rubric from the Left, just smile and ask if they think it would be okay to also freeze the Constitution BEFORE slavery was abolished, BEFORE there was any sort of Government safety net, and BEFORE women got the vote. That should end that sophistry on the spot.
“The question to be answered isn’t MAY we have the capability to project force to keep the Government’s power in check, it’s HOW MUCH force may we legitimately project, and WHEN do we start projecting it.”
If you’re guided by principles, that answer will come of its own. Don’t fret over it. In the meantime, just watch. Use “detached discernment”, speak the truth when the opportunity presents itself. Don’t worry.
BTW, when you get that “brown bess” rubric from the Left, just smile and ask if they think it would be okay to also freeze the Constitution BEFORE slavery was abolished, BEFORE there was any sort of Government safety net, and BEFORE women got the vote. That should end that sophistry on the spot.
Nice. I’ve been echoing this by telling people I’m an absolutist when it comes to the Constitution and its Amendments. And follow that up by saying that I can no more abide infringements of the 2nd any more than I could the 13th.
If the second is about muskets, then the first is about movable-type printing presses. Or did the Founders somehow foresee the Internet?
John; careful making jokes. They often come true. As with all things, the Enemy is working diligently, posturing itself for control of the Internet. Before long, self described “conservatives” will be helping in that endeavor. This is how it always works.
While my phrasing may have been “snarky,” I really wasn’t making a joke. Your point about control of the Internet is, however, well noted; since the dawn of power, and whatever protections a government may promise its people, the powerful (public or private) have always sought to stay powerful – and have always worked to suppress the rights of others that they felt would stand in their way.
But to my point: protections for free speech have followed technological progress. Religions that weren’t practiced in this country (or in some cases, at all) at the time of the writing of the Constitution flourish here. Our guarantees against unreasonable search were written when “search” meant a frisking, or pawing through every nook and cranny of a home or office. Today, precedence is being set that police must obtain a warrant before taking hard drives from an individual’s computer; email providers aren’t required to turn over a user’s records without a court order.
These and many other battles are hard fought – in the courts, in Congress, and in the public consciousness. Don’t get me wrong; I’m well aware that the enemies of true freedom oppose the practice of “different” religions, work to suppress disagreeable speech, and find new ways to invade our privacy (with or without due cause). We fight – in the courts, in Congress and in the public consciousness – for all of our inalienable rights, and will continue to have to do so for the foreseeable future.
My point, however, remains true. The Founders do not say “the right of the people to keep and bear muskets,” or “the freedom of speech in the streets” for the obvious reason: who knows what the future might bring? Instead, the basic rights are guaranteed in an expressive, but somewhat vague, form – one that allows for future technologies to remain protected.
The Progressives will use what ever “freedoms” they can to further their cause. They “work within the system” to destroy it. Freedom of speech is upheld when it furthers the Enemy’s cause, but start talking liberty and you’re a terrorist. It’s simple enough, and entirely predictable.