Second Amendment
From RationalWiki
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of a collection of the first ten amendments also known as "The Bill of Rights". It states: "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".
The Second Amendment is what some people believe justifies Americans having a unconditional right to own the largely defensive weapon of gun. 
Contents |
[edit] RationalWiki commentary
[edit] The historical significance of the Second Amendment.
It is obvious that the Second Amendment refers to
- The need for a regulated militia which is
- necessary for the security of the state
- and to maintain this militia an armed citizenry is needed and
- consequently the citizens need to be allowed to both keep and bear arms.
The amendment is frequently quote mined to only include the "rights" part which says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". It is just as frequently quote mined to only include the part that says "a well-regulated militia." Both sides just plain need to chill.
[edit] The need for an armed militia today.
With the existence of the heavily armed National Guard and a comparatively peaceful border situation, it is not clear that citizens' militias are still necessary to deter attacks from Mexico and Canada. (to say nothing of France, Spain, and England! OMGZ!)
But, oh, shit! Mexico and Canada!!! They might attack any day now! And steal our jobs!!!
Even the citizen's militias are subject to control by the President during hostilities:
Article II section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
[edit] The need for a well armed citizenry today
Revolution is not necessary in a nation that fears its citizens. Of course, in order for this argument to carry any weight, the citizenry must be as well- or better-armed than the government (and considering the stuff that the US military has access to it pretty much renders that point moot). There is a saying that "A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny." This can be read as a slightly more legal way of saying "we need guns in case the President ever gets too powerful and we have to shoot him." It deserves some consideration, although one could argue that if people were prepared to use their guns to revolt against the President, it would have happened by now (Now being about 2007, under the rule of George V). This is the same sort of logic that the Romans applied to King Tarquin and Julius Caesar.
Equally one could argue that revolution is not necessary in a nation governed by its citizens. If a true democracy is in place one would wonder what the citizens have to fear. The US is unique among democratic nations in apparently having the idea that democracy requires an armed citizenry - why is democracy deemed to be so fragile in the US that it is felt to need this protection? This question has yet to be answered...
[edit] On the other hand
Gun ownership is widespread; restrictions on individual gun ownership which declare gun ownership off-limits to some people and to some types of firearms, and mandatory minimum sentences under federal law for technical gun violations, would theoretically have the effect of driving gun traffic underground and putting people in prison for no other reason than something in their top dresser drawer being declared illegal. Guns are dangerous, true. Opinions may vary widely on guns, and if one is opposed to guns, don't own one.[1]
Furthermore, it seems kind of weird that liberals would be tolerant and support personal choice except on individual gun ownership, and conservatives who otherwise want restrictions on social issues favor individual choice on this one issue - how did this one issue wind up inverted like this? This could be because liberals tend to gravitate to urban settings[2] where moose hunting is rarely done, but gun crime is rampant. Or, conversely, it could be that urban living tends to "liberalize" people due to the intense communal nature of cities (i.e. lots of people in close proximity, quite interdependent on each other), but in the same way, reduces the appeal of guns due to lack adequate wild game for hunting.
[edit] As viewed from outside the US
To non-'Merkins, it looks a lot like a religious axiom: something that some 'Merkins believe as an idee fixe that has no actual support, and asking what its support is gets a reaction of anger.
[edit] One editor's opinion
One editor of RationalWiki thinks that Second Amendment rights should be interpreted in an "originalist" sense based the views of, and available to, the "Founding Fathers": That is, the right to own and bear arms is extended to - and limited to - muzzle-loaded rifles, flintlock pistols, and heavy cannon - those being the only "arms" known at the time.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Mark Pitcavage's article on the history of the militia in America.
[edit] Footnotes
- ↑ If one is opposed to guns in some circumstances on the basis of their potential harm to others, um, one is free not to harm others with the guns one does not own, of course. However, the issue of how to keep people from getting killed by bullets they don't own is left as an exercise.
- ↑ The Urban Archipelago is an essay written by Dan Savage and staff at his Seattle altpaper The Stranger. While it is an opinion piece, the vote maps from the 2004 election illustrate this point quite strongly. (The map also shows significant numbers of Democratic voters in minority-majority areas such as the Mississippi Valley and mining/industrial areas like the Appalachian mining country.)
