Second Amendment Post (From my early writings, pre-Heller)

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Especially in light of the currently pending Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller, I have been thinking a lot lately about the rights secured by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I will ignore 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine concerns and assume the D.C. handgun ban law must be consistent with the 2nd amendment in order to be legal. If this is so, no judge can rule to uphold the law unless they interpret the 2nd amendment as not protecting an individual right.

The argument from the left is usually the same. They argue that the wording of the amendment implies that the right to keep and bear arms is reliant on the need for a well regulated militia. Thus, in our modern society, with no need for militia training on the village green, ready at a minute's notice to engage the Redcoats, the right to bear arms is no longer a necessity. The government has enough guns to protect us, therefore we no longer need them (because, of course, we are likely to only use them for criminal acts). These last few straw man arguments, albethey representative, have so many components that make me want to vomit that I will have to avoid dairy for the next several hours. What is worse, when I hear this rationale, the morons spewing it believe it to be so obvious and acceptable that I can barely contain myself. Let's start at the beginning.

If we can say that the amendment really meant that the right should only stand so long as a militia is necessary, then perhaps we can settle the argument in favor of the gungrabbers very easily. Let's look at it rationally. The first Amendment enshrines some of our most fundamental individual rights, including speech, assembly and press. The third protects individuals from the quartering of soldiers, so perhaps it is conceivable that the second amendment was intended to be some sort of a military provision, something like the 3rd. Regardless, every amendment in the Bill of Rights, save the 10th, clearly protects some right of the individual. Beyond simple logic, any cursory analysis of contemporary documents or quotations of the Founders makes it clear that, not only is the RKBA retained by individuals, but they found it to be fundamental to all other rights. George Washington, in an address to Congress, said "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the peoples' liberty's teeth." Jefferson wrote simply that "No free man shall ever be debarred of the use of arms." Clearly the original intent of the Amendment was to ensure that no free man was ever to be deprived of the ability to protect his life, his family and his property by whatever means he sees fit. The argument should end there, but it rarely does.

Still people think that, even if that were the original intent, there is no way the founders could have thought we would need the new brand of weapons currently available. Why do I need an AK-47 to hunt or protect my home from crack-addicted burglars? In rebuttal, the first Amendment protects modern forms of speech far beyond the understanding of our Founding Fathers. So too, does the Fourth Amendment protect agains modern forms of surveillance. The next reason that we need not own of military-grade weapons goes like this: Even in the event of war or Armageddon, the army has enough assault weapons to keep us safe. Therein lies the scary truth. Jefferson also said "The stronger reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Many will call you a kook if you say you need to be armed against your own government, which means you so well, but they are quick to forget the Nazis prohibited the Jews to be armed, and that didn't seem such a good deal on the end. Almost since the moment of its conception, our government has moved towards tyranny. Once guns are gone, there is little standing in their way. Or maybe I'm not even worried about the government turning on me. Maybe some sort of unforeseen apocalyptic event occurs. In the unlikely chance I need an assault rifle to defend myself, and I don't have one because of the government, they won't be around to apologize and make up for it. Until they can guarantee I will never need to defend myself from an enemy, and they find some convincing way of guaranteeing I'll never need to defend myself from them, they should not be able to tell me or anyone else that we cannot prepare for the remotest of possibilities. In the event that their responsibility to protect me, as agreed upon in the social contract, fails, then we revert to a state of nature, where I may defend myself however I see fit, grenade launcher and all. Who is the government to tell me how safe I ought to keep my family.

Post Script - The SCOTUS decided in favor of the Constitution, on very many of the points that I laid out here. Do yourself a favor and read the majority and dissenting opinions. They clearly show that, while we can have good faith arguments on the philosophy of gun contol, in order to legitimately impose it, you need to amend the Constitution or have a liberal justice like Stevens try to change the Constitution himself.