3 ms·
You're close here, but you're missing the big picture. It's not that the constitution assumes we're good people. It's that many of the founders were suspiciou
by hcurtiss 14y ago
You're close here, but you're missing the big picture. It's not that the constitution assumes we're good people. It's that many of the founders were suspicious of large central governments. The anti-federalists insisted upon a bill of rights as a condition to ratification. I would assert that most of the bill of rights is about protecting the ability to of the people revolt against the government:
First Amendment - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. Ensuring that me and my buddies can get together and talk about overthrowing the government.
Second Amendment - right to bear arms. Ensuring I have the ability to inflict harm on/protect myself from government actors.
Third Amendment - right against quartering troops. Ensuring the government can't put soldiers in my house to listen to me or intimidate me.
Fourth Amendment - right against unreasonable search and seizure. The government can't come in and take my stuff unless and until I do something "wrong."
I could go on, but to my view, is all about revolution. There may be those who think we've moved to a place in society where governments like ours are benevolent and that the majority will is always right. I don't.
Maybe people think that hanging onto such rights is futile given F-16s and M1 Abrams. I think our difficulty in Afghanistan and Iraq is a pretty good refutation of that position.
Privacy is important because, without it, bad guys can make us slaves.
- vacri 14y agoThe second amendment talks about a well-regulated militia. That doesn't sound like it's intended to be protection against one's own government, but against invading armies.
- noblethrasher 14y agoI'd like to point out, for the benefit of others, that the term well-regulated simply meant 'effective' or 'in proper working order'. It did not necessarily mean that it should be controlled by the government. Source:http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
- vacri 14y agoWhat about the 'militia' part? Or the 'being necessary for the security of a free state' part? The second amendment is saying 'we're not going to restrict arms, because we need a body of men to call on who know how to use arms, in order to maintain our independence', not 'fear your government, be prepared to shoot its representitives'.
- noblethrasher 14y agoI am not arguing that the second amendment is a provision for overthrowing the government. I really did just want to make sure everyone knew how 'well-regulated' should be interpreted since it's easy to read it naively.
- vacri 14y agoFair enough, thanks for the clarification. I was reading it still in context to the parent comment.
- stinky613 14y agoIt's both. The second amendment is necessary to maintain the security of a free state against foreign invaders and against a government seeking to take the 'free' from the 'free state'.
- hcurtiss 14y agoTwo points: 1. Notwithstanding that language, it's an individual right. See Heller. 2. Militias were, almost exclusively, the province Of the individual states. There was not until relatively recently a standing federal army. The point was to keep arms in the hands of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a check on large centralized government. It's the whole point. Don't forget that these guys had just been through precisely such a revolution. There are some pretty striking quotes from Thomas Jefferson directly on point.
- dpatru 14y agoThe second amendment is explicitly written to secure a right of the people against infringement by their government: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Protection against foreign armies is already provided for in Article 1 (Congress has the power to fund the military) and Article 2 (the President is the Commander-in-chief of the military.)