OpEdNews
In the wake of mass shootings like those that occurred at Newtown, Aurora, and now the D.C. Naval Yard, the pro-gun lobby reminds us that the 2nd Amendment was created as a safeguard so that ordinary citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government. This rationale, however, is based on myth and ignores the basic facts surrounding the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Although many of the founders waxed poetic about gun ownership, the fact remains that this Constitution of ours was created with incidents of armed insurrection as bookends. It was an angry group of farmers with guns threatening the government of Massachusetts in 1786 that spurned the writing of the Constitution and a similar incident in 1791 reaffirmed the new government's power in suppressing a mob of angry people with guns. In both cases, the angry groups in question were asserting their rights in trying to overthrow or force a change with what they saw as a tyrannical government. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment was not created to protect peoples' rights to overthrow the government, but instead was created to protect the government from those fearful elements of society at the time: farmers with guns in the West, Indians with guns on the frontier and slaves with guns in the south. A "well-regulated" militia was more for protecting the government from "rabble" than it was in giving citizens the right to protect themselves from tyranny.
Also, the militia was seen as a way to instill civic values in the citizenry.
ReplyDeleteRepublics can never successfully survive unless their citizens act in a virtuous manner, eschewing private interests for the sake of the public good, but citizens will not act virtuously except in a republic that fosters such virtuous conduct. Hence, a republic is in effect a logical contradiction, a paradox in its very nature. Creating or maintaining a republic against the constant risk of corruption by particularistic interests is therefore the most difficult of tasks. Republican theory, however, offers some structures to aid in this task, prominent among them the universal militia.
As we today have no such universal militia and no assurance that contemporary
arms-bearers will be virtuous, the Second Amendment itself is-for now-outdated. But republican theory does not, in the absence of a virtuous citizenry, give up. Through the militia ideal, republicanism offers practical guidance on how positively to engender civic virtue, in the form of disinterested self-sacrifice, amongst a nonvirtuous, self-interested populace. Although this militia ideal may seem hopelessly utopian in its conception of the redemptive possibility of politics, it is central to the historical tradition as an icon of the main theme of republicanism-empowering citizens engaged in deliberative politics in pursuit of a common good. It therefore seems worthwhile to consider the present implications of the militia ideal for courts interpreting the Second Amendment, and, more importantly, for citizens seeking to realize the promise of republican government.
See: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1733&context=facpub
That sounds like more of an argument for returning to the militia system, updated for the modern day.
DeleteSometimes, it's the state that needs defended, but as the Founders of this nation knew, most of the time, it's the people who must defend themselves from tyranny.
ReplyDeleteWe need protection from fake professors aka on of the "deliverance" guys to protect men and animals from being attacked.
DeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteWhy then do we find some of the founders talking of the militia as a protection against tyranny? And why does Aymette v. State, which Laci likes to claim supports the collective right interpretation, say that this is one of the important roles of the militia?