Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment (long-ish)

[B!ngo]

I pose the following as a thought experiment. This post is not intended to question the interpretation or ongoing support of the 2A. But rather, to initiate a discussion on the value of it in this day and age, and how the founders of our union would interpret it in these times.
So, as I understand the interpretation of the 2A, it is designed to allow all citizens to own and maintain arms, with the ultimate intent to, if needed, enable the formation of a militia to overthrow an ill-willed government once again, as was done during the Revolution.
In those times, it was a relatively fair fight. Though outnumbered, the colonists had weapons that were of the same size and scale as those of the British. When it came time for an uprising, with some brave and clever strategy, and acknowledging that for the Brits, it was an 'away game' which was a much more severe constraint in those times, the colonists ultimately had their way.
Today, our situation is nothing like those days. The government possesses weapons that would present an overwhelming force to citizens armed as we are today. It would in no way be, as it was a few centuries back, a fair fight.
So, what is the value, and interpretation of the 2A today?
Do people see it as an anachronistic artifact that allows some minimal way of some and personal defense?
Should federal and state law be modified to allow citizens the same access to weaponry as the government? (given sufficient wealth, should a citizen be able to purchase and maintain and air force? RPV's with laser missiles?)
Is there an interpretation of the 2A that maintains the intent of the founders but is pragmatically reasonable in our times?
I should add that I don't have a good answer here. I very much prize the value of the 2A, and how it separates our citizens, and our freedoms, from those in most other law-abiding countries. But I don't see how the 2A any longer fulfills the intent of the Founders.
B

 

[Nushif]

Today, our situation is nothing like those days.

Yes, I absolutely agree.

But! (Knew that was coming, didn't you?) That is precisely because it has not been followed in spirit.
Were every citizen who feels the inclination to do so to own a SAW, BAR, Thompson, M2 or whatever they want to own, this gap between military firepower and civilian firepower wouldn't be quite as large as it is.
Now, clearly an M109 or somesuch is out of reach for the average citizen, but to really present the kind of opposition I think the founders wanted to see (which runs more along the lines of guerilla/terrorist tactics anyways) there's no "need" tactically for heavy and lumbering weapons.

In short, what I'm saying is that without the restrictions of full auto and silenced weapons the true intent of the founders can still be realized.

 

[B!ngo]

I hear you, and it addresses a sentence or two that I was going to add, but didn't. That is, the issue here is parity. Much short of that, you are simply catering to the desires of hobbyists or disaster-scenario lovers. Look at what the U.S. is doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why risk a pilot when your satellite and RPV can place a perfectly shot missile in to a village kitchen window. Unless that can be met with equivalent capability, there is no parity. And I for one am not lobbying that is should.
So, I understand the response, but I'm not sure it answers the question of how we should look at and interpret the 2A.
B

Yes, I absolutely agree.

But! (Knew that was coming, didn't you?) That is precisely because it has not been followed in spirit.
Were every citizen who feels the inclination to do so to own a SAW, BAR, Thompson, M2 or whatever they want to own, this gap between military firepower and civilian firepower wouldn't be quite as large as it is.
Now, clearly an M109 or somesuch is out of reach for the average citizen, but to really present the kind of opposition I think the founders wanted to see (which runs more along the lines of guerilla/terrorist tactics anyways) there's no "need" tactically for heavy and lumbering weapons.

In short, what I'm saying is that without the restrictions of full auto and silenced weapons the true intent of the founders can still be realized.

 

[Nushif]

Well, what you would consider parity here isn't what I would (given even my very limited tactical and strategic training) ..

Simply put, that missile launched from three countries away won't do the same thing as boots on the ground. It's not a measure of parity.

Initially, supposedly, maybe, the second amendment was to be interpreted as the citizenry posing a lethal threat to a tyrannical government, or so we are told.

But a tyrannical government can't solve its unruly citizen problem with bomb strikes and satellites, ultimately, as we are seeing in Afghanistan right now boots on the ground deliver the most effective way of human behavior control via arms. And on the personal level a citizenry (or rather populace, I'm inclusive like that) equally armed to the average infantryman makes any kind of "boots on the ground" impossible when said populace is actually revolting.

So what I am saying here is that your measure of parity is misguided. I used to think the same thing, that a missile will do the same job as a grunt, but in terms of actually dealing with a populace that is patently untrue, as every COIN manual will show you.

How should we interpret the second amendment? I won't tell you how to interpret it, I'm too much of a Liberal for that. But I do still interpret it as the means for a populace to form an effective resistance against the standing military. And this makes (in my mind at least) any measures that restrict the populace from carrying the same weapons any soldier does against the second amendment.

Is that more clear?

 

[Certaindeaf]

Of course there's not parity. However, certain oaths are taken by certain people (our military) to defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. These oathtakers are the ones that have their hands upon the uberweapons and or are in a position to make a difference, perhaps, were it to come to question.
That's the essential equalizer.

 

[B!ngo]

I think your grunts versus laser missiles is a good one and I tend to agree. But I don't agree that the simple arming of citizens with the weapons cited (above) would enable a revolution.
I, being a liberal (often at least) as well but not an anti- pose this because it is all so perplexing.
B

Well, what you would consider parity here isn't what I would (given even my very limited tactical and strategic training) ..

Simply put, that missile launched from three countries away won't do the same thing as boots on the ground. It's not a measure of parity.

Initially, supposedly, maybe, the second amendment was to be interpreted as the citizenry posing a lethal threat to a tyrannical government, or so we are told.

But a tyrannical government can't solve its unruly citizen problem with bomb strikes and satellites, ultimately, as we are seeing in Afghanistan right now boots on the ground deliver the most effective way of human behavior control via arms. And on the personal level a citizenry (or rather populace, I'm inclusive like that) equally armed to the average infantryman makes any kind of "boots on the ground" impossible when said populace is actually revolting.

So what I am saying here is that your measure of parity is misguided. I used to think the same thing, that a missile will do the same job as a grunt, but in terms of actually dealing with a populace that is patently untrue, as every COIN manual will show you.

How should we interpret the second amendment? I won't tell you how to interpret it, I'm too much of a Liberal for that. But I do still interpret it as the means for a populace to form an effective resistance against the standing military. And this makes (in my mind at least) any measures that restrict the populace from carrying the same weapons any soldier does against the second amendment.

Is that more clear?

 

[Sam1911]

We've had similar discussions before (here's just one of them: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=552182) that dig into the questions of what military armaments are covered by the 2nd Amendment and what aren't, and also whether US citizens in 2012 are in any meaningful way an unorganized "militia" capable of resisting tyranny in the face of the overwhelming firepower, support, tactics, organization, communications, and training of our standing military.

The answer to the first question usually is best determined through an analysis of the definition of the word "arms" -vs.- the word "ordinance." That may be the most practical delineator any of us can cling to (though much ordinance at the time of the American Revolution was actually in private hands).

The answer to the second question is also complicated. Clearly, no unit of American civilians will be able to offer meaningful tactical opposition to a similar sized combat unit of our military. But that's not the totality of the answer. The bigger picture is that we the people possess arms (in widespread and vast numbers) and that makes some of us able to offer enough resistance that a tyrannical government would have to exert highly unpopular levels of force (i.e.: bloodshed of American civilians by American soldiers) in order to squelch an uprising. That's not to say that a truly tyrannical, murderous regime would not be able to impose martial law in some apocalyptic scenario, but that no attempt to subjugate "us" would be bloodless and easy -- and hence (hopefully) not politically "worth it."

 

[Sam1911]

To put a finer point on it, when the populace is unarmed a tyrannical government can put soldiers or paramilitary police into town and go door to door with the batons and guns and other compliance devices and simply say, "get in the trucks, now." Any resistance offered by the citizens is relatively minor, relatively non-lethal, and easy to keep out of the spotlight.

When the citizens are armed (in numbers approaching 50% of house holds, and those house holds often holding more than one firearm) the resistance offered can be far more effective, far more bloody, carried out from greater distances -- and facing and crushing that resistance involves death on both sides. That's something that DOES get lots of attention and spreads the awareness and alarm of the general population throughout the rest of the country.

Further, our soldiers come from our citizenry. They are obviously willing to follow orders, to one degree or another, but there is quite a psychological difference between controlling rioters and forcibly detaining and even displacing other American citizens, and shooting them dead.

If the citizens in revolt are armed, those young men in uniform will have to be ordered to kill them, and that's a VERY big deal.

 

[Nushif]

Sam says things I agree with. *le nod*

 

[B!ngo]

I think you make good in both of your points. It does seem to be a modern re-interpretation of the 2A, likely unanticipated by our founders. Just as live broadcast/internet video to capture such abuse was not anticipated.
But, and again 'thought experiment here', I am torn with many aggressive 2A'ers citing seemingly very literal interpretations of the amendment, while a practical and pragmatic analysis of it can only make sense in one such as yours.
I struggle to reconcile both of these notions.
B

 

[Sam1911]

The funny thing is that "my" interpretation of it relies on LOTS of folks giving their last full measure in the more traditional interpretation.

This is not easy stuff to contemplate. The final test of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment requires the sacrifice of people's lives.

And, the truth be told, I don't know that the two "views" are all that practically different. When the British colonists rose up to resist the British regulars (and mercenaries), MUCH wailing and gnashing of teeth occurred in the mother country over Englishmen killing Englishmen. The war years were not a happy time for the government in power -- and this was violence against backwoods type provincials thousands of miles (and months' travel time) away.

In the end, almost no wars are lost (or won) because there is no longer any ability to fight, but because one side realizes that the cost to continue violence is too high (financially, politically, socially, etc.) for any expected gain. When we, the people, are armed then the price that must be paid is that our representatives (elected from among ourselves) must send our soldiers (our sons and neighbors) to kill (not to detain, inconvenience, arrest ... but to kill) our neighbors and fellow citizens. And we the people have to face the fact that some of our citizens are so affronted by whatever is the pressing issue, that they are willing to kill and to die for that cause. All of this is real weighty stuff. It tends to make people think, and tends to make them talk, and to put pressure on their representatives.

So the more effective weapons are available to the civilian citizenry, the more effectively public pressure can be brought to bear on any government to cease using violence against the people, because such issues will be brought to a head much more immediately. Deer rifles make very effective tools of resistance (especially guerrilla/subversive resistance). But a few GPMGs and artillery pieces couldn't hurt!

 

[floorit76]

That was well written.

 

[B!ngo]

The funny thing is that "my" interpretation of it relies on LOTS of folks giving their last full measure in the more traditional interpretation.

This is not easy stuff to contemplate. The final test of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment requires the sacrifice of people's lives.

And, the truth be told, I don't know that the two "views" are all that practically different. When the British colonists rose up to resist the British regulars (and mercenaries), MUCH wailing and gnashing of teeth occurred in the mother country over Englishmen killing Englishmen. The war years were not a happy time for the government in power -- and this was violence against backwoods type provincials thousands of miles (and months' travel time) away.

In the end, almost no wars are lost (or won) because there is no longer any ability to fight, but because one side realizes that the cost to continue violence is too high (financially, politically, socially, etc.) for any expected gain. When we, the people, are armed then the price that must be paid is that our representatives (elected from among ourselves) must send our soldiers (our sons and neighbors) to kill (not to detain, inconvenience, arrest ... but to kill) our neighbors and fellow citizens. And we the people have to face the fact that some of our citizens are so affronted by whatever is the pressing issue, that they are willing to kill and to die for that cause. All of this is real weighty stuff. It tends to make people think, and tends to make them talk, and to put pressure on their representatives.

So the more effective weapons are available to the civilian citizenry, the more effectively public pressure can be brought to bear on any government to cease using violence against the people, because such issues will be brought to a head much more immediately. Deer rifles make very effective tools of resistance (especially guerrilla/subversive resistance). But a few GPMGs and artillery pieces couldn't hurt!

Very thoughtful. I agree with your sentiments. Well, maybe not sure of the last one
B

 

[Sam1911]

Ahh well, that last part is where it gets muddy -- if you're not adhering strictly to the arms/ordinance distinction.

The idea in my concept is that those who feel they must take up arms to defend their cause must have the ability to effectively do their oppressors significant harm. So their best weapons must not be mere heated words, pointed sticks, and other low-effect tools. A portion of society that feels all hope of peaceful redress of greivences through the legislative process is lost, must have the ability to act effectively in violent concert.

On the other hand, the goal of insurrection as promoted by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence and other documents is not that ONE person could have the power to force his will on others, and/or destroy towns, and kill mass numbers of people. So there is a practical reason for why ordinance (and the sorts of mass-effect weapons that have been developed, from nerve gasses to nuclear weapons) are not in the hands of the individual.

There is a balance here. We don't want one man to have the ability to wipe out a city because he's not happy. The individual with his rifle, or with his machine gun, grenades, and other anti-personnel weapons doesn't present a credible threat to society at large, and is not a compelling force for governmental change and/or resistance. But a large number of individals all dedicated to one goal and armed with conventional arms may be so.

 

[Gato Montés]

Does anyone think that maybe the 2A has less to do with the private ownership of firearms and more with the legality of standing armies?

I look at our humble beginnings, small enclave of settlers fighting against an empire, and then look at ourselves today and cannot get over the irony of our situation.

If every adult in America constituted the armed force of the nation, then the threat of a tyrannical takeover would be nigh impossible for there would be no armed force to do it. You could never order a group of people to commit violence against their family, friends and neighbors; they just wouldn't comply. Hell, imagine all those frivolous conflicts we could have avoided if it meant that voting to go to war meant YOU going to war.

So yeah, private ownership would be there, but only as a side effect of the structure of the armed forces as a whole. I don't know, I guess I never thought that the Framers had an American Empire in mind when they drafted the Constitution and therefore never dreamed of a need for a military force the size of ours today.

 

[Sam1911]

There was tremendous opposition to the creation of a standing army during the formative years. But I'm not sure how I see the 2nd Amendment as anything BUT a declaration of the primacy of private ownership of firearms.

 

[Gato Montés]

True, true, just musing is all.

If one had to sum up the constitution in a word the word would be autonomy, complete and utter autonomy of the individual so long as that individual does not interfere with the will of another. For us to have true autonomy we must be able to adequately resist the imposing wills of others, whether that be the will of a government or that of a thief. Weapons have become much more advanced since our formative years, but the need for protection remains the same. So it matters little to me how advanced our personal arms become, for the populous still has the right to adequate protection no matter what the technology.

Times change, weapons change, but the right and the principle behind it remains.

 

[Skribs]

I haven't read through all of this thread, but if our soldiers are ordered by a tyrannical government to against the civilian population, then soldiers will desert and lead the civilian population in the revolution.

On another note, part of the state constitutions that were used as a basis for the second ammendment including things like "for the protection of oneself and the state" or something to that effect (written in old legalese), in other words it wasn't just for the defense against tyranny. Of course, that's not in the US 2A.

 

[Sam1911]

If one had to sum up the constitution in a word the word would be autonomy, complete and utter autonomy of the individual so long as that individual does not interfere with the will of another

Well, I see where you're coming from, but I see it more as a declaration of how a fairly loose coalition of soverign states are supposed to work together without stepping on each other and with the ability to perform certain limited tasks as a unit. So call it near autonomy of the individual STATES, with certain protections recognized for all citizens of the the various states under the banner of the United States.

Had the US Congress followed the true intent of the Founders, I imagine we'd have an even wider disparity of legal priviledges and restrictions between various states than we do now.

Of course, I'd like to think the 2nd Amendment would be more widely and broadly upheld, but I'm not certain. Interesting thought exercise!

 

[1894]

I've thought about this for a long time. I still haven't come to any conclusions. If it were an issue of parity, then Gates, Zuckerberg, Trump would all have to kick in together to build and maintain a carrier group to defend the rest of us from the government. This would essentially create a new government to which we'd be subject. And, we'd still be outnumbered 10 to 1.

Without having kicked back a few beers with Franklin, etc. I have no way of knowing what their true intentions were. I do infer, however, that they meant for a final response from the people when the government became too controlling. Though, in their time, I believe their intentions meant for a direct opposing violent response. (My opinion is worth what you paid for it).

As Sam stated, the true power given unto us by the 2A is not in the ability to own firearms, but in that last hope to defend ourselves - by making it too ugly for a suppressive government to physically control us. They gave us the limited ability to take the blood of our brothers; worse, to force our brothers to take our blood; and let it be known that they followed orders. The saddest part of this is that some of us / them will have to die before this tactic becomes effective.

I don’t care if you have a .22lr single shot or a full auto .50bmg. Your best weapon is your vote. Research for yourself and put your name on the line for whatever you desire.

 

[Gato Montés]

Well, I see where you're coming from

What? Oops, sorry. Didn't know the crack of my ass was showing.

 

[robert garner]

1894"I don’t care if you have a .22lr single shot or a full auto .50bmg."
Some people wouldn't be armed even with a 50BMG.
Others would be well armed with a 22.
Some people are whipped before the fight starts,
others you can't whip at all.
Franklin said "A Republic ma'am If you can keep it."
He and his peers gave us THAT chance.
robert

 

[Twmaster]

This is an interesting discussion. Sam, Thank you. some of your points have given me much to think about and have perhaps changed some of my beliefs.

If it ever came to violence to deal with tyranny here in the US we can look at recent events in the middle east. Specifically Libya and Syria as a potential clue to how things might go. Both militarily and politically.

In the revolutionary war only 3% of the population went under arms to repel the British. I wonder if we could muster a force that large these days? Or would too many people be so far asleep to not give a hoot?

 

[Sam1911]

3%?

You realize that would be almost 9.5 MILLION people now? Compared to less than 3 million US military personnel, counting active and reserve... That would be REALLY something.

 

[SleazyRider]

Philosophy notwithstanding, as a practical matter I maintain that most of us own firearms for protection against each other, and as a distant second, for the overthrow of a tyrannical government. That is the major difference between then and now.