Skip to comments.Second Amendment Reform?
Posted on 10/08/2005 11:23:32 AM PDT by Whyarentlibsred
Amendment II: 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.
Upon reading the above, it is clear to me that the first part of the Second Amendment A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, no longer applies to the situation in America today and should be changed to better reflect valid reasons for allowing citizens to keep guns in the United States. While things may have been different in the 1700s, the days when ordinary citizens armed with light weapons (rifles and handguns) can assemble and defeat a professional military are long over. There is now a vast disparity between the amount of firepower that the average gun owner on one side, and the U.S. military on the other, could bring to a hypothetical fight, and historically even the successful guerilla movements that drove away professional armies possessed more weapons than just long arms. For example, the Afghan guerillas who defeated the Soviets possessed recoilless rifles, RPGs, and Stinger SAMs, all weapons that are banned by law from U.S. citizens today. Besides, the National Guard already fulfills the function of a State Militia, and the existence of the National Guard has almost nothing to do with guaranteeing a citizens right to bear arms. Because of these reasons, it is clear that using a well-regulated militia to defend the state as a reason to allow people to keep guns is outdated.
A much better reason to allow people to keep guns is so they can defend themselves from criminals, as demonstrated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. After Katrina, it wasnt the government people were worried about, it was armed gangs of their fellow American citizens looting and raping that were a threat to them. The government has enough checks and balances in place to take care of itself; if some Commie dictator did win the presidency I cant see the mainly conservative military following any orders to disarm the people or send all conservatives to reeducation camps. However, when it comes to defending his family from the ravages of his fellow citizens, a man has no choice but to rely on his own weapons. The police wont always be there for you, but as long as concealed carry is legal, your gun will be. I think the Second Amendment should be changed to reflect this fact, that the security of the state is up to the military, but personal security is up to the nations individual citizens. I think a better Second Amendment would read An individuals ability for self-protection being necessary to a secure society, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Sure, the original intent of the founders may have been to allow citizens to form militia, and to protect against the government, but I think this bit of Constitutional reconstruction to reflect the reality that fellow citizens are more of a threat than the government ever will be is justified.
And if you honestly believe that the Second Amendment isn't mean to keep governments in line, then perhaps you'd care to explain why the first move of every tyranny is to disarm the civilian populace?
Bottom line: "the People" in the Second Amendment means "the People."
Deal with it.
And as an aside...welcome to FR. Enjoy your stay.
Welcome to FR. OK if we keep an eye on you for a bit?
The Second Amendment is fine the way it is.
Self-defense is a subset of that.
What's happened between the Vietnam War and today in terms of military science?
"And if you honestly believe that the Second Amendment isn't mean to keep governments in line, then perhaps you'd care to explain why the first move of every tyranny is to disarm the civilian populace?"
In fact, New Orleans comes to mind.
Actually, I can think of one improvement on the Second Amendment...that the phrase "shall not be infringed" be beaten into every congresscritter who thinks that it's okay to sacrifice liberty in the name of liberalism.
But watch them bitch & moan whenever Bush brings up 9/11. Then it's "political opportunism"!
Other people are always a threat. Personally I favor the government arming the people with the latest and greatest of weapons.
And careful not to make any sharp moves. The kitties have been kinda hair-trigger lately.
* Quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. (57)(58)(59)
Pretty much invalidates the "militia only should own firearms" set wouldn't you think.
They way I see it, the second amendment tries to guarantee the right to protect our families with firearms or what ever means possible which is in actually a God given right long before there was a Constitution.
how about tacking on "under penalty of being tarred and feathered and removed from office" right after "shall not be infringed".
Besides, if there ever was a revolution roughly 10% of the 80 million gun owners in this country would be sufficient to prevent the feds from doing something we don't like (like say disarming us).
However, the basic intent of the 2nd am is to restrain and discourage any tyrannical government. Whether that be a Bush tyrannical government or a Clinton tyrannican government. And never discount the deterrent effect of millions of deer rifles against a superior force; one has only to look back at the Warsaw ghettos to see that resistance is NOT futile.
Now really, I don't foresee any US citizens ever having to fight against a tyrannical government. But the reason we won't have to, is because of the 2nd am. Otherwise that fight could come as soon as 2008.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.