4 ms·

It was also used, as I understand, as sort of legal allowance to form paramilitary parties with sort of like police powers. So you, as a citizen, could enforce

It was also used, as I understand, as sort of legal allowance to form paramilitary parties with sort of like police powers. So you, as a citizen, could enforce laws when there was no police or army able to do so for you. For instance, in the days of slavery, the 2nd amendment was used to justify groups of armed thugs [1] that hunted black slaves on the run. I've never understood the logic behind Republicans of the 20th century [2]. AFAICT, they think the 2nd gives them "the right to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government". That's clearly bullshit. First, because what constitutes tyranny changes a lot from person to person, and only legislation can define it clearly and "democratically". Second, because the former means you're legitimizing political violence in a democracy, precisely the system where that kind of shit should not be allowed. So in fact you're just making terrorism, or at least the kinds of terrorism you like, legal, with all the contradictions that would bring. Timothy-McVeigh-like bullshit ensues. [1] Of course, back then they were considered to be respectable persons that followed the law. [2] They're not the only ones, of course (cf. Black Panthers, which I personally am more sympathetic to, since IMO there was clearly oppression there), but they're the loudest.

bmelton 14y ago
To everyone who assumes that "tyrannical government" is always read to mean "our" government, here's a primer. 1) Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private weapons, we wouldn't have had anywhere remotely enough arms to have won the war. 2) The provision allows us to defend against government tyranny, foreign and domestic. This means that we are allowed the right to bear arms to aid in the nation's defense, just as our framers did, in the event that we are attacked on our own soil. To those that would claim "like anybody's going to target the world's largest military" - who is to say that we'll always have a large military? In 100 years, who is to say that someone isn't elected that dramatically repurposes military spending. Arguments that may not be true now are not necessarily always going to be true. 3) Historically, disarming a populace has in many cases resulted in the unfair abuse of those citizens. History is replete with stories where a population, or a segment of a population was disarmed, and those people were subsequently subject to tyranny, or abuse, or genocide. Having a right to keep and bear arms isn't our only defense against tyranny -- in reality, a reasonable people should exhaust all civic means of defending against it first. When a persons rights are trampled, we have civic and legal recourses for those. As in DC v Heller and Chicago v McDonald, we learned that despite the state's belief that the 2nd amendment may be restricted in certain ways, there are legal recourses against those restrictions. Nobody in DC (to my knowledge at least) was launching an armed protest of handgun laws there, as they should not have. That said, in the event that the system does not work, or if in 200 years time, it has been perverted to the effect that it does not respect the rights of its people, the 2nd amendment may be the last defense against tyranny.
- tome 14y ago
  Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private weapons, we wouldn't have had anywhere remotely enough arms to have won the war. Do US Americans really think it would have been terrible if the British Empire had remained in control and their country turned out like Canada, Australia or New Zealand?
  - curiousdannii 14y ago
    Well we in Australia are so very disadvantaged in that not only are guns hard to buy, but our banks are strongly regulated too. Oh, and don't forget about Medicare, all those doctors being paid by the government. It's depressing.
  - drone 14y ago
    Do US Americans really think it would have been terrible if the British Empire had remained in control and their country turned out like Canada, Australia or New Zealand? Absolutely. We didn't then want to bow before your King then, and we do not wish to bow before your Queen today. We did not wish to put down as poor and malnourished servants as you did with Ireland, nor did we wish to be slaughtered en masse, or divvied up and split like you did with India. We choose to lead ourselves, to make our own decisions, come good or bad. And, last I checked, we've faired better historically from an economic standpoint than all of the other former colonies of Britain, and even Great Britain its self - all of which took great instruction from the lessons we taught on self-governance. I find it shockingly surprising that someone would come and defend any of the European colonies as being good for the rest of the world.
    - tome 14y ago
      I appreciate your response, and I also appreciate the wonderful spirit of freedom embodied in American culture. However, I can't help but find it ironic that the United States' celebration of freedom harks back so strongly to a war with a country that has been its closest ally for the best part of a century.

bmelton 14y ago

To everyone who assumes that "tyrannical government" is always read to mean "our" government, here's a primer. 1) Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private weapons, we wouldn't have had anywhere remotely enough arms to have won the war. 2) The provision allows us to defend against government tyranny, foreign and domestic. This means that we are allowed the right to bear arms to aid in the nation's defense, just as our framers did, in the event that we are attacked on our own soil. To those that would claim "like anybody's going to target the world's largest military" - who is to say that we'll always have a large military? In 100 years, who is to say that someone isn't elected that dramatically repurposes military spending. Arguments that may not be true now are not necessarily always going to be true. 3) Historically, disarming a populace has in many cases resulted in the unfair abuse of those citizens. History is replete with stories where a population, or a segment of a population was disarmed, and those people were subsequently subject to tyranny, or abuse, or genocide. Having a right to keep and bear arms isn't our only defense against tyranny -- in reality, a reasonable people should exhaust all civic means of defending against it first. When a persons rights are trampled, we have civic and legal recourses for those. As in DC v Heller and Chicago v McDonald, we learned that despite the state's belief that the 2nd amendment may be restricted in certain ways, there are legal recourses against those restrictions. Nobody in DC (to my knowledge at least) was launching an armed protest of handgun laws there, as they should not have. That said, in the event that the system does not work, or if in 200 years time, it has been perverted to the effect that it does not respect the rights of its people, the 2nd amendment may be the last defense against tyranny.

tome 14y ago
Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private weapons, we wouldn't have had anywhere remotely enough arms to have won the war. Do US Americans really think it would have been terrible if the British Empire had remained in control and their country turned out like Canada, Australia or New Zealand?
- curiousdannii 14y ago
  Well we in Australia are so very disadvantaged in that not only are guns hard to buy, but our banks are strongly regulated too. Oh, and don't forget about Medicare, all those doctors being paid by the government. It's depressing.
- drone 14y ago
  Do US Americans really think it would have been terrible if the British Empire had remained in control and their country turned out like Canada, Australia or New Zealand? Absolutely. We didn't then want to bow before your King then, and we do not wish to bow before your Queen today. We did not wish to put down as poor and malnourished servants as you did with Ireland, nor did we wish to be slaughtered en masse, or divvied up and split like you did with India. We choose to lead ourselves, to make our own decisions, come good or bad. And, last I checked, we've faired better historically from an economic standpoint than all of the other former colonies of Britain, and even Great Britain its self - all of which took great instruction from the lessons we taught on self-governance. I find it shockingly surprising that someone would come and defend any of the European colonies as being good for the rest of the world.
  - tome 14y ago
    I appreciate your response, and I also appreciate the wonderful spirit of freedom embodied in American culture. However, I can't help but find it ironic that the United States' celebration of freedom harks back so strongly to a war with a country that has been its closest ally for the best part of a century.