Politicspapasquid on 20 Mar 2007 12:51 pm
Some good points on scrapping the pesky Second Amendment via Brookings guest scholar Benjamin Wittes.
On a more esoteric level, the Second Amendment’s protection for militias reflected the importance the Founders attached to an armed citizenry as a protection against tyrannical government. This made sense at the time. The Founders had a lot of experience with oppressive rulers and little idea whether the constitutional order they were setting up would remain free; maybe they would need to overthrow it sometime. After more than two centuries of constitutional government, however, it’s safe to assume that neither an armed citizenry nor a well-regulated militia really is “necessary to the security of a free State.”
All spot-on but I think there’s something Wittes almost gets at but misses.
Although, as Wittes notes, the civilian weaponry available today is “a far cry from muskets,” the state’s weaponry has leaped out of the weaponry stratosphere. All the assault rifles and hollow-point bullets in the world won’t protect US citizens from a tyrannical US Military. When the junta led by General Pace strolls down Flatbush avenue weeding out the immoral Brooklyn gays, my concealed pocket handgun won’t be capable of much revolutionizing.
Weaponry was simply more democratic back in the day; it was muskets all around––at worst, the occasional cannon, or a wooden submarine. Nowadays, in the face of the largest military industrial complex ever assembled, civilian force isn’t likely to topple any government oppressors.
I guess it’s all down to Ghandi and MLK. And I’d much rather have a right to nonviolent revolution and passive resistance written into our foundational document than one protecting the rights of drug dealers and violent criminals.
To put the matter simply, the Founders were wrong about the importance of guns to a free society.
I love me some Founders, but it’s a fair point.