2nd Amendment question
- Thread starter ronc0011
- Start date
Don't leave out the concept of natural rights
or "God given" rights. The individual right of self defense is one of these, a concept very important to the Founders.
If the 2nd Amendment isn't clear enough for you, concerning these concepts, refer to the 9th and 10th amendments. Just because something is not specifically listed in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not mean that it does not exist as a right of the people (the individual). The 9th & 10th amendments cover that.
or "God given" rights. The individual right of self defense is one of these, a concept very important to the Founders.
If the 2nd Amendment isn't clear enough for you, concerning these concepts, refer to the 9th and 10th amendments. Just because something is not specifically listed in the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not mean that it does not exist as a right of the people (the individual). The 9th & 10th amendments cover that.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Vanya said:
Thanks for the compliment but there are many knowledgable folks on here but this is a subject I like to discuss.
My readings tell me that the Second Amendment was created to preserve the right of the States to arm and train their miltias. The COTUS had given unprecedented power to the Federal Government to control the militia and the anti-federalists wanted the states to maintain their militias as a bulwark against tryanny that might occur by the new federal government through a large standing army which the Founding Fathers feared. However, implicit in the 2A was the God-given right of self-defense against criminals. Therefore IMO Heller correctly ruled that the 2A gave the individual citizen the RKBA unconnected with service in the militia (which is no longer in existence today) for self defense.
johnwilliamson062 said:
Actually, I believe the militia that existed in 1789 which the 2A speaks of WAS intended to be a bulwark against the tyranny of a large standing army, however, that miltia is today the National Guard since it soon became clear that the exigencies of war required such a standing professional army. Today, the idea of a 1789 type citizen militia being our main defense against foreign enemies would seem to most to be rather silly.
Where I part company is with those who claim that an armed citizenry, namely just people who own guns with no other organization is today a bulwark against tryanny. In fact IMO I believe that bulwark to be our democratic institutions such as the courts, legislatures and elected officials.
Today with the militia now the National Guard, the real applicability of the 2A to most of us is self-defense against violent criminals of the domestic type.
HarrySchell
New member
I have to go with 44 AMP. I think the key thought in the Founder's deliberations was the human right of freedom...or stated another way, the right of self-defense appropriate to the threat to individual freedom, at whatever scale that threat appears. Big threats bring individuals into a militia, but the starting point is the individual. You don't have a militia if you lack individuals. Little threats, a mugger, that is something you should be enabled to deal with AS YOU CHOOSE.
If you want to bunker in your home with bars on the windows and watch the sunset through them, that is up to you. I cannot deride that decision. I dislike it, thinking you should be free to sit on the front porch, whatever. But you have to choose what you want to do, follow that choice to its conclusion.
Armies are nothing but individuals aligned to a single goal. Absent any individual skill to achieve that goal, the army fails. Absent proper leadership, a fish rots from the head down and the goal is lost. Great leaders, incompetent troops, you lose. It's like gravity... you can talk all you want about whatever you think is going to delay the outcome, razzle, dazzle and "empathy", but gravity always wins.
And "well regulated" does not mean "well legislated"...it means, in the language of the day, well trained in the use of weapons at an individual level and in coordination with others to produce an effective militia.
I have always taken "state" to imply a territory, but it makes perfect sense that it may refer to the state of a human being to be free in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness (although these may elude us in our lives), which is by necessity only assured if one can defend oneself. The rule of law is one defense, but if that rule is bypassed, as by the local mugger, there is but one alternative solution...self-defense.
That may be tossing a fake wallet and running, or shooting somebody. 2A contemplates the universe (maybe) by using the word "arms". Not guns, but "arms". NRA has done a disservice in phrasing some parts of the debate as "gun rights". The question is much bigger, IMO, and "arms" might mean phasers, at some point. The sanctity of the individual is the issue, not the means of defense. Hence, the use of the term "arms".
The essay on why being armed is more civilized than not comes to mind, overlooking its contested origin. (With a nod to Arthur C. Clarke)
The thought is, if I am armed adequately, you have to persuade me in a civilised manner to go along with your plan. This is not jungle law, where main force decides what happens. We have to sit down like adults and work things out. Or somebody gets hurt, and rational, honorable people prefer to work things out. Life is tough enough without looking for a fight. Or so I think.
"Progressives", to the extent they support civilian disarmament, are regressive, as jungle law is what results, either from criminals who fail to disarm or the political class, which gathers all the guns they can.
Who you fear the most determines what you do. Not what you individually want, but what those forces will allow you to do, through their action or inattention. Maybe today you are fine. Tomorrow you are on a train for the camping trip of a lifetime. I don't see anything progressive about a system that produces that kind of outcome, no matter what oratory that is laid on.
I apologize for substituting my understanding for good cites. Heller is a good place to start. I would follow the cites of Heller to get to source documents in the Federalist Papers and other thoughts of Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, so many others who understood that individual freedom comes from choice.
You decide what you want to do. Some choices are negative, and in taking them you need to accept what happens, just as the benefits of positive choices should accrue to you. This is not Darwin's idea, eat or be eaten, because life is too complex and what you sow, you do reap (gravity, again).
I will qualify this, in that I run a business in CA, we have never cut corners, and it is hard to keep going if you look at the numbers, which I do, as a CPA. But when a product goes out our door, it will do what we say it will or better. For that we have businesses who trust us and return. CA is trying to pay off their employee unions so the taxes are going up, regulations going up, business really not welcome here. Doing it right, if I can claim that we are, does not always lead to a happy outcome.
When you look in the mirror in the morning, though, at least you are not looking at a thief. You choose what you want to do.
Individual freedom, that is.
Cheers,
Harry
If you want to bunker in your home with bars on the windows and watch the sunset through them, that is up to you. I cannot deride that decision. I dislike it, thinking you should be free to sit on the front porch, whatever. But you have to choose what you want to do, follow that choice to its conclusion.
Armies are nothing but individuals aligned to a single goal. Absent any individual skill to achieve that goal, the army fails. Absent proper leadership, a fish rots from the head down and the goal is lost. Great leaders, incompetent troops, you lose. It's like gravity... you can talk all you want about whatever you think is going to delay the outcome, razzle, dazzle and "empathy", but gravity always wins.
And "well regulated" does not mean "well legislated"...it means, in the language of the day, well trained in the use of weapons at an individual level and in coordination with others to produce an effective militia.
I have always taken "state" to imply a territory, but it makes perfect sense that it may refer to the state of a human being to be free in their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness (although these may elude us in our lives), which is by necessity only assured if one can defend oneself. The rule of law is one defense, but if that rule is bypassed, as by the local mugger, there is but one alternative solution...self-defense.
That may be tossing a fake wallet and running, or shooting somebody. 2A contemplates the universe (maybe) by using the word "arms". Not guns, but "arms". NRA has done a disservice in phrasing some parts of the debate as "gun rights". The question is much bigger, IMO, and "arms" might mean phasers, at some point. The sanctity of the individual is the issue, not the means of defense. Hence, the use of the term "arms".
The essay on why being armed is more civilized than not comes to mind, overlooking its contested origin. (With a nod to Arthur C. Clarke)
The thought is, if I am armed adequately, you have to persuade me in a civilised manner to go along with your plan. This is not jungle law, where main force decides what happens. We have to sit down like adults and work things out. Or somebody gets hurt, and rational, honorable people prefer to work things out. Life is tough enough without looking for a fight. Or so I think.
"Progressives", to the extent they support civilian disarmament, are regressive, as jungle law is what results, either from criminals who fail to disarm or the political class, which gathers all the guns they can.
Who you fear the most determines what you do. Not what you individually want, but what those forces will allow you to do, through their action or inattention. Maybe today you are fine. Tomorrow you are on a train for the camping trip of a lifetime. I don't see anything progressive about a system that produces that kind of outcome, no matter what oratory that is laid on.
I apologize for substituting my understanding for good cites. Heller is a good place to start. I would follow the cites of Heller to get to source documents in the Federalist Papers and other thoughts of Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, so many others who understood that individual freedom comes from choice.
You decide what you want to do. Some choices are negative, and in taking them you need to accept what happens, just as the benefits of positive choices should accrue to you. This is not Darwin's idea, eat or be eaten, because life is too complex and what you sow, you do reap (gravity, again).
I will qualify this, in that I run a business in CA, we have never cut corners, and it is hard to keep going if you look at the numbers, which I do, as a CPA. But when a product goes out our door, it will do what we say it will or better. For that we have businesses who trust us and return. CA is trying to pay off their employee unions so the taxes are going up, regulations going up, business really not welcome here. Doing it right, if I can claim that we are, does not always lead to a happy outcome.
When you look in the mirror in the morning, though, at least you are not looking at a thief. You choose what you want to do.
Individual freedom, that is.
Cheers,
Harry
Let us not speak of jungle law, unless you live in the jungle. That not withstanding, my opinion of this forum, or rather, the participants on this forum, is always raised mightily after reading threads like this and many others. Of course, that opinion is tempered after reading some of the others.
But returning to the founding fathers, if I may interject some trivia here about guns, I'd like to mention that Jefferson stated that he went armed. How often or where I don't recall. But his arms are on display at Monticello, not at the house but at the visitor's center, behind glass. It has been quite a few years since I saw them but they were (I think there was a pair) of small caliber pocket pistols, flintlock, of course. You usually don't think of Jefferson and guns but it shouldn't be surprising. Lee's revolver is likewise on display at Arlington House. It is a Colt sidehammer .31 caliber, probably. Apparently these people were happy with smaller caliber weapons.
But returning to the founding fathers, if I may interject some trivia here about guns, I'd like to mention that Jefferson stated that he went armed. How often or where I don't recall. But his arms are on display at Monticello, not at the house but at the visitor's center, behind glass. It has been quite a few years since I saw them but they were (I think there was a pair) of small caliber pocket pistols, flintlock, of course. You usually don't think of Jefferson and guns but it shouldn't be surprising. Lee's revolver is likewise on display at Arlington House. It is a Colt sidehammer .31 caliber, probably. Apparently these people were happy with smaller caliber weapons.
I have been reading as much as I can on this topic researching my current project and one of the things I have seen is that several of the states were unwilling to accept the constitution without the Bill of Rights of which the 2nd Amendment was a central componant. Here is an example of what I mean http://www.rightsofthepeoplecalifornia.com/guns/gun_facts/original_intent_2nd_amendment.php
By this I would have to say that the word “State” refers to the individual states and that they saw themselves as ceding their power to this newly formed federal government.
By this I would have to say that the word “State” refers to the individual states and that they saw themselves as ceding their power to this newly formed federal government.
There is a very good book by W. Cleon Skousen titled The Thousand Year Leap Which provides an in depth and contextual look at our founding fathers and their beliefs, which of course led to the founding of this, the finest and freest (I think that's a word) country in the world. While it discusses much more than the limited scope of issues being discussed in this forum, it provides a very well written and cited discourse on the concept of natural rights and given rights, or God's Law and Man's Law. The OP may find the first 3-4 chapters this book interesting as it also includes references to many of the federalist papers which shaped the COTUS.
I think one has to remember that "State" can refer to one of "the several states" of the union, a soverign nation-state or it can refer to a state of freedom (which I prefer, but that's neither here nor there). In 1775, each of the States was a soverign land of it's own, with little direct allegiance to the others. Trade disputes and tariffs between the states were not uncommon. So State can refer to any of the above meanings and still be coherent to today's world.
In the era of our nation's founding, the experiences of the founding fathers played heavily in determining the form of the constitution. The enlisted ranks of the British Army included a high percentage of criminals sentenced to serve in the army as enlisted men. Because of this, many British troops, when not on-duty or under the watchful eye of the Sergeant, would drink & carouse hearitly (and often much too heartily). And many officers were fairly petty and punitive in their actions against colonists for minor offenses.
In addition, the King of England (amongst other European rulers) had a long tradition of using the army to put down "rebellions" when people protested about high taxation, corrupt local leaders and poor treatment by the "elite". England was often no different than Europe, where the ruling elite viewed the citizenry with contempt.
Thus, no standing army was envisioned for the U.S. except in wartime. Only that which was needed to guard the borders, secure order in new territories and a Navy that was more Coast Guard than real Navy. In time of invasion, insurrection or major unrest, it was felt that an armed citizenry, trained as a militia, would be the first line defense until any regular troops could arrive.
The Militia Act of 1792 required members to provide their own weapons, bayonets, powder & ball, knapsack and other equipment. By keeping their weapons at home, this allowed them to use firearms as a military arm, a defensive arm and a hunting weapon where practical.
I'll disagree with Tennesse Gentleman that the intention was merely to arm the State Militias. The object was that every man be armed, according to Patrick Henry. And Jefferson's quote above bolsters this idea.
While Congress, the Executive and the Courts form 3 pillars of the foundation, the armed citizenry formed the 4th. With the majority of citizens armed, if any of the 3 pillars of the republic were to ignore the constitution, the people themselves could overwhelm any number of troops sent to contain them.
Between the founding up through about 1890 (and later in the west) the carrying of firearms for protection was a routine matter and little notice was taken of a man or woman carrying a gun with them. Most were worn openly in holsters, though women frequently had a small pistol in a purse or concealed under a cloak or coat so as to appear more like a lady of breeding.
This means firearms - handguns and long guns - have always been prevalent in American life since the founding. Mostly carried openly and most were never used to kill another person, but to serve as a warning to criminals and as a symbol of a free man.
As Jefferson wrote to his nephew, Peter Carr in 1785, that while the gun gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind... . He could hardly have said these words if he believed in an official militia-control of their arms.
In the era of our nation's founding, the experiences of the founding fathers played heavily in determining the form of the constitution. The enlisted ranks of the British Army included a high percentage of criminals sentenced to serve in the army as enlisted men. Because of this, many British troops, when not on-duty or under the watchful eye of the Sergeant, would drink & carouse hearitly (and often much too heartily). And many officers were fairly petty and punitive in their actions against colonists for minor offenses.
In addition, the King of England (amongst other European rulers) had a long tradition of using the army to put down "rebellions" when people protested about high taxation, corrupt local leaders and poor treatment by the "elite". England was often no different than Europe, where the ruling elite viewed the citizenry with contempt.
Thus, no standing army was envisioned for the U.S. except in wartime. Only that which was needed to guard the borders, secure order in new territories and a Navy that was more Coast Guard than real Navy. In time of invasion, insurrection or major unrest, it was felt that an armed citizenry, trained as a militia, would be the first line defense until any regular troops could arrive.
The Militia Act of 1792 required members to provide their own weapons, bayonets, powder & ball, knapsack and other equipment. By keeping their weapons at home, this allowed them to use firearms as a military arm, a defensive arm and a hunting weapon where practical.
I'll disagree with Tennesse Gentleman that the intention was merely to arm the State Militias. The object was that every man be armed, according to Patrick Henry. And Jefferson's quote above bolsters this idea.
While Congress, the Executive and the Courts form 3 pillars of the foundation, the armed citizenry formed the 4th. With the majority of citizens armed, if any of the 3 pillars of the republic were to ignore the constitution, the people themselves could overwhelm any number of troops sent to contain them.
Between the founding up through about 1890 (and later in the west) the carrying of firearms for protection was a routine matter and little notice was taken of a man or woman carrying a gun with them. Most were worn openly in holsters, though women frequently had a small pistol in a purse or concealed under a cloak or coat so as to appear more like a lady of breeding.
This means firearms - handguns and long guns - have always been prevalent in American life since the founding. Mostly carried openly and most were never used to kill another person, but to serve as a warning to criminals and as a symbol of a free man.
As Jefferson wrote to his nephew, Peter Carr in 1785, that while the gun gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind... . He could hardly have said these words if he believed in an official militia-control of their arms.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
BillCA said:
I do believe that initially Folks like Jefferson believed in the Republican (not GOP) ideal of government which included the obligation of all able bodied men to serve in the defense of the nation. However, Hamilton, Jay and Madison soon saw the impracticability of it;
It was clear that the Jeffersonian ideal of a citizen militia (indeed as many other of his ideas) was not practical and over time we have instituted the current system we now have with the burden of our nations defense being borne by a professional military.
Patrick Henry's problem and why he urged Madison to write the 2A was that as stated before the COTUS had given Congress unprecedented power to control the State Militias and folks like Patrick Henry wanted that power shared more with the states. Most historians agree that at least part of the meaning of the Second Amendment was that it specifically guarantees the the right of states to ensure the arming of their militias in the face of fears that the federal government might effectively deny to arms to a state controlled militia. However, those fears never came true. The Second Amendment has been largely irrelevant to the history of the militia since 1792 and remains so today.
I believe there to be a great great difference between a "well-regulated militia" and just an armed populace. A militia was a system to create organized armed forces for the State and the Nation. It was not ever to be simply a group of people with guns. It was to be organized with leaders, compulsory service and a clear unit structure who answered to proper elected authority.
Futhermore I do not believe the 2A was ever written to a used for what is called by some as "The Insurrection Theory" which is anathema to Contitutional Government.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
The framers of the constitution almost certainly meant nation state. The several states of the union were considered to be separate nation states. I think anyone who says the founders intended for anything like the sprawling national government we have now is full of non-sense. They were attempting something more like the EU, probably a little stronger bond(the EU is of course trending towards a more central unified government). Calling the 50 political bodies which make up the "United States" states is just a traditional thing going back to when they were considered to be separate nations. If the founding fathers had intended for our current system government they would have called them territories or provinces, which is what they have become. The 50 states is the only place I know of the word "state" being used in this manner and I think that alone shows they meant them to be separate nations not territories. In a lot of ways moving towards more central government makes sense as very few people see themselves as "Ohioans" or whatever before "Americans" and the gap between different locals is shrinking as travel and communications technology progress. Remember, Washingtons proposed pledge of allegiance was first resisted b/c members of the continental army would not pledge allegiance to a power above their state. In some ways going to one National government might remove a lot of overlap and cut governmental costs to a large degree and at present everything "local" depends enough on federal grants that they have to do what the fed says anyways..
I think that really depends what the role of the military is going to be. We had a very small standing Army until WWI, and it wasn't all that big during the interwar period. Purely defensive operations and logistics are very simple and can, even in modern times, be carried out by citizen militias with out all that much training(there are quite a few modern examples, some occurring as we speak). Policing the world takes an entirely different level of training and logistics. Not saying we should or should not, just that there is a huge difference.
As far as the insurrection theory being without a doubt not what the founding fathers meant
Great Britain is and was a constitutional monarchy.
I find it hard to believe they would totally dismiss and remove for future generations an option they had recently exercised.
Last edited:
There's a lot of really good commentary in this thread. I'll throw in my $0.02US on Rule #2:
"A well regulated militia"
In context of the period, this means the citizenry are armed and know how to use those arms
"being necessary to a free State"
The freedom of the people under any government requires that the people retain the power to oppose that government.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
To insure that the people always retain that power to oppose the government, the government shall in no way keep the citizenry from arming itself.
You are correct, there is nothing specific about self-defense against crime. Your ability to defend yourself against an attacker could be defined as a defense of freedom, but the real intent of the 2nd is to insure that the people always have the power to oppose the government.
"A well regulated militia"
In context of the period, this means the citizenry are armed and know how to use those arms
"being necessary to a free State"
The freedom of the people under any government requires that the people retain the power to oppose that government.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
To insure that the people always retain that power to oppose the government, the government shall in no way keep the citizenry from arming itself.
You are correct, there is nothing specific about self-defense against crime. Your ability to defend yourself against an attacker could be defined as a defense of freedom, but the real intent of the 2nd is to insure that the people always have the power to oppose the government.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
johnwilliamson062 said:
I am not sure the role of the military, that of preserving the peace and if not possible protecting our country by force, has changed that much at all in the broad sense.
johnwilliamson062 said:
Which (along with a national foreign policy of isolationism) left us woefully unprepared for the threat we faced in WWII. Fortunately we were able to recover and win the victory. President Eisenhower talked about the need for a large standing military in his farewell address. We have never gone back to that Pre-WWII model for those reasons.
johnwilliamson062 said:
I disagree and so did many of our Founding Fathers long ago. Anyway, today that need is superfluous since we possess nuclear weapons no nation would dare attempt an invasion.
johnwilliamson062 said:
Not any of them are superpowers as we are.
johnwilliamson062 said:
That train left the station in 1945. We are the leading nation of the free world. Fighting enemies in other countries is not policing the world but rather defending forward which I prefer over fighting in Tennessee. This I assert is no longer a choice but a necessity and no "citizen militia" could ever meet such a requirement.
DaveTrig said:
How then would you reconcile that view with Article One Section Eight of the COTUS?
and Article III section II
johnwilliamson062 said:
They rebelled because they had no democratic institutions or representation to protect their interests and rights and therefore had no other choice. We do, thanks to the government they gave us. The 2A is not a suicide clause for the Nation and the Founding Fathers never intended it to be. The checks and balances of our "wonderful experiment" of republican democracy has done that for the last 230 years. Not armed citizens.
Last edited:
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
And they wanted to make sure that if the citizens were put in that position again they would have the arms to deal with it. Many of those colonists were born in Britain and started life with representation. They were represented in the colonial parliaments, which for a long period of time ruled the colonies with less interference than we now suffer from the UN, NATO, NAFTA and other international organizations. They realized that the face of government could change in a relatively quick period of time.
I highly recommend you spend some time studying the foreign policy of China, the dominant power in the world from before Europeans could write until the Brits introduced opium into their economy. Most of the terrorists we face come from Saudi Arabia, an ally of ours. Why is that? The Saudi Royal family is one of the most oppressive and hypocritical regimes on the planet. The Saudi people hate them and realize that without the support of our extensive military units stationed there, the royal family would not be able to stay in power. Of course, our units keep the region relatively stable and the oil flowing.
Nuclear weapons is exactly why we need a standing army for defense less now than ever before in history.
vranasaurus
New member
The founders went the revolution route only after they had exhausted all other means available to acheive their goals.
They had no representation and the king refused to make any effort to redress their greivances.
The only point at which an insurection theory would be applicable is if all of our democratic institutions broke down and we no longer have a vote.
As long as we can vote and change our leaders it is far easier to convince the number required to acheive your goals at the ballot box than at the point of a gun.
If you can't convince enough people to vote for your ideas how can you convince enough people to pick up arms and follow you to revolution?
They had no representation and the king refused to make any effort to redress their greivances.
The only point at which an insurection theory would be applicable is if all of our democratic institutions broke down and we no longer have a vote.
As long as we can vote and change our leaders it is far easier to convince the number required to acheive your goals at the ballot box than at the point of a gun.
If you can't convince enough people to vote for your ideas how can you convince enough people to pick up arms and follow you to revolution?
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
vranasaurus said:
Wisdom indeed. I suspect that many who advocate "insurrection" do not even vote.
johnwilliamson062 said:
Actually, what they did was put in place a marvelous system of government that was answerable to the people it governed by election and whose powers were divided and checked by the other branches. The arms against tryanny were meant for the State militias and since that threat never emerged the States did away with the miltias and replaced them with the National Guard.
johnwilliamson062 said:
I take a little issue with your historical view. The colonial parliaments had no voice where it counted and that was THE Parliament in England. They could tax us as they willed (which had a greater impact on life than today) and we had no say so in it. As to the UN, I am not sure what you are talking about as we haven't paid our full share of dues to them in many years and we routinely act in our national interest against their wishes.
johnwilliamson062 said:
I recommend you study why we dropped the Eisenhower policy of Massive Retaliation in favor of the Flexible Response Policy starting with the Kennedy Admnistration which carries on in large part today. When all you have to defend your interests is nuclear weapons then your options to agression are quite limited. Nukes however, do pretty much guarantee that you won't be invaded and that is why France left NATO and built nukes. That is also why we no longer need a "citizen militia" to defend the homeland.
John, I sense you might be an isolationist and I would recommend more study of history that could show you why that strategy won't cut it for a world power and a global economy.
Last edited:
vranasaurus
New member
Judge Alex Kozinski
vranasaurus
New member
Silveira v. Lockyer:
All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (2003)
Judge Alex Kozinski dissenting
Judge Alex Kozinski dissenting