One of the central problems, I think, is that many people think of the 2nd amendment like one it's neighbors (the 1st) and not like the other (the 3rd).

The 3rd Amendment is about the quartering of soldiers in citizens homes; in other words, it is a bulwark against the military state. The second is also, I would argue. In those times, an armed population could be called up quickly in times of emergency, mitigating the costs and concentrations of power inherent in a standing military.

Seen in that light, the 2nd amendment is largely anachronistic. We aren't going to allow civilians to have heavy military hardware. Even if we did, we wouldn't consider it an alternative to a standing army (I think we'd be more likely to consider it a justification for a strong standing army). The second amendment as a guard against a military state has outlived its usefulness, so we're left flailing for a rationale for dealing with a more qualified good. I think the article does a solid job in that regard.

There are people who, I feel wisely, don't find the concerns about tyranny to be totally outdated.

That we don't permit civilians heavy military hardware isn't a good reason that we shouldn't. The real problem is that heavy military hardware has become so hard to maintain and operate that civilians would have a hard time managing it. You can't drill on an F-15 2 weekends a year. Heck, you can't even stay up to date on an M1, and even with one, the civilians wouldn't be able to take on the standing army. =/

So the question is how to solve that problem - how to return that level of power to the local communities, so they could conceivably veto an ill-conceived suite of federal laws.

I can whuup up the British anytime I gotta mind to all by myself.

Foobs:

an armed population could be called up quickly in times of emergency, mitigating the costs and concentrations of power inherent in a standing military.

Not all government-paid men-at-arms wield weapons of mass destruction. The police are also a kind of standing army. The more the people can rely upon themselves and their neighbors for protection, the less need we have for expensive and intrusive police surveillance.

Therefore, even if we are to deny private citizens the right to own bombs and artillary, the original argument still holds with respect to allowing private citizens the same kinds of weapons used by domestic law enforcement.

You're right, BenK: The principle of individual citizens having military empowerment is a good one, even if there are large practical difficulties with implementation in the modern age. But while a perfect solution may be impossible, it should be obvious that any movement in the direction of individual disarmament is clearly wrong-headed.

Also, I want to register my disagreement with your "civilians wouldn't be ble to take on the standing army" position. If "take on" means unequivocally overcome, then you're correct. But in most modern situations (involving outside armies, or armies of internal tyranny), the role of the army is to CONTROL the populace, not to destroy it. Tools of resistance are very effective in fighting control--even if they are ineffective in fighting invasion or short-term occupation.

What we more or less now possess--semiautomatic rifles and pistols with large capacity magazines, freely owned and carried--can serve as a very considerable measure of empowerment by individuals and communities against most "real-world," heavy-handed oppression.

[of course, the real problem of tryanny now rising is in the TECHNOLOGY of control of populations. If a simple order to a computer program can stop all financial transactions of a citizen, or mark that citizen's location and send force to arrest him, then different sorts of citizen weaponry may be needed--in addition to guns.]

That's an interesting proposition.

After all, in theory, all the civilian populace really needs to mount an effective resistance to oligarchy is a good supply of sniper rifles. And against the financial world, the equivalent measure of dumping the tea into the sea, or burning the ledgers, would be the incapacitation and destruction of computer systems/records.

StevieN:

Also, I want to register my disagreement with your "civilians wouldn't be ble to take on the standing army" position. If "take on" means unequivocally overcome, then you're correct. But in most modern situations (involving outside armies, or armies of internal tyranny), the role of the army is to CONTROL the populace, not to destroy it. Tools of resistance are very effective in fighting control--even if they are ineffective in fighting invasion or short-term occupation.

This is an excellent point, one that bears repeating.

Historically, only nobility were allowed to bear arms. So this was another way for the framers to dismantle the old, nobility-based society.

However, today this right can be used similarly to ensure that the people are not oppressed by their government the way the people used to be oppressed by the nobility.

So, should we take view of the 4th in light of the 3rd? That is, are protections against search and seizure only valid against the military? And how exactly will we take the 1st in light of the 2nd?

The second amendment as a guard against a military state has outlived its usefulness

You must not be paying attention. Seven years of secrecy, torture, and erosion of civil rights under the Bush administration, and you think tyranny is out of fashion? The threat to the freedom of American people from our own government is very real, especially in the light of the fascist leanings of the current president.

In truth, I don't find the current president detectably more oppressive, intrusive and fascistic as other recent presidents - or Congress. Vast engines of regulations, something like 20% of the workforce being in the 'public sector', centralized bureaucracy controlling everything from farm prices to hunting licenses and residential development on private property...

In truth, I don't find the current president detectably more oppressive, intrusive and fascistic as other recent presidents - or Congress. Vast engines of regulations, something like 20% of the workforce being in the 'public sector', centralized bureaucracy controlling everything from farm prices to hunting licenses and residential development on private property...

Granted.

I didn't mean only the Bush presidency, just used it because it's such an obvious example.

You and other anti-2As always fall back on "heavy military arms" to press your weak case of "irrelevance". Armor, mortars, Phalanx, TOWS, field artillery etc. are irrelevant and do not apply. For an object lesson in relevance, read up on the WWII history of The Warsaw Uprising. There a guerrilla militia that started with nothing heavier than sporting arms, or a rock or a heavy stick, gave German divisions, with armor,artillery,heavy machine guns etc. a real hard time for quite a long while. Viet Nam, Algeria, Yugoslavia etc. ALL have lessons in how a lightly armed populace may successfully resist the heaviest equipped armies that great powers may field.

A mustered "militia" is light infantry. It was relevant then and it's relevant now. Know anybody serving in Afghanistan or Iraq? What kind of field units do they serve in? Small, lightly armed patrols, Right?

The "shoehorning" of "heavy military arms" into an opposing viewpoint re: 2A is a red herring and a spin exercise of wanker weakness.

Let's play a game. You and your "heavily armed" oppressor bastard fellows set up a mortar nest and start shelling my position. Me and my lightly armed mates vacate the position you're hitting and flank you left and right with scoped deer rifles. Result? Your asses are grasses !

The handguns will be used for coup d'grace because even patriot militia don't like to see dumb beasts suffer.

I'm glad you qualified that Raven, even though it was in error. The most recent Administration to trample the hell out of the Constitution via abuses perpetrated by his Justice Dept. Where 9 of 10 of the Bill of Rights were allowed to be treated like so much used toilet paper. Citizens were tried and died...(Waco & Ruby Ridge) without the benefit of arrest or court hearings! The 3rd Ammendment was the only one of the 10 in the Bill of Rights that was not violated under the Administration of none other than.....Bill Clinton!