- Feb
14
2013
P&R Miscellany provokes a vigorous conversation about gun rights with a post on our need for the Second Amendment as a check on our "armed and dangerous" government. The author expresses his fear of tyranny by noting that government has SWAT teams, while corporations do not.
I still contend that if we have any chance against tyranny (and let's also take a moment to tut-tut the hyperbole that equates our current remarkable American liberty with tyranny), it lies more in the vigorous exercise of our First Amendment rights than in the our Second Amendment rights.
But I ask this question about P&R's assertion: if the government is coming to enforce the law, how does exercising my Second Amendment rights help? If an FDA inspector comes to my door to inspect my crops, am I really supposed to meet that inspector with a gun? For that matter, if Monsanto sends a corporate horticulturist to take samples of my crops, what do I do with my gun? Do I just wave that gun to scare away those usurpers? Or am I supposed to shoot? What practical good does the Second Amendment do us in our daily interaction with government and corporations?
30 Responses to “Second Amendment: What For? Whom Do We Shoot?”
"What practical good does the Second Amendment do us in our daily interaction with government and corporations?"
Too bad the Jews of Nazi Germany during the 1930s are not here to answer that question.
or the 25 million American Indians who perished by design under the 2nd Amendment.
I see the Second Amendment as a means to reestablish democratic government when you have Republicans continually chipping away at our democratic institutions. In several states Republicans use the fabricated excuse of non-existent voter fraud to disenfranchise voters. We are nearing the point in some states where such disenfranchisement threatens to overthrown our system of a democratic republic.
My view is we have to use every democratic means at our disposal to prevent and/or reverse these measures. I think such means as protests and court challenges will ultimately prevail. However, at the point where such measures impact citizens legitimate rights to vote and participate in civic life, for example, I believe that Americans have the right and the authority under the Constitution to seek to overthrow the usurpers by any means necessary. I'm a pacifist, so I don't advocate violence against anyone, but I understand that some people seem not to hold my view.
My view is that George W. Bush was a usurper, and the Supreme Court conducted a coup. We were ruled from 2001-2005 by an illegitimate government, and I'm not so sure the Ohio vote in the election of 2004 wasn't tainted as well. If Americans were going to take up arms against our government, that was the time to do it. Our Founders wouldn't understand how we let George W. Bush get away with nearly ruining this country without revolting.
I suppose it is about as practical as the 3rd Amendment.
Barry, you are still alive!
Mike-- Pretty sure I am-- next time I am up your way I will try to look you up :-)
You didn't answer Cory's other questions Sibby? Here some Nazi info,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/09/10/780010/-Let-s-settle-the-facts-about-Nazi-gun-control#
Cory,
I agree with you that America is - by and large - a nation with great liberties. We must remain vigilant, however, to ensure our government doesn't restrict those liberties.
It would be my hope that we never have to exercise our 2nd Amendment right against governmental tyranny, let alone use it in day-to-day interactions... just as I hope we never have to exercise our 1st Amendment freedoms against a government who would seek to silence its citizens.
I'm perfectly happy to let the 1st Amendment do the heavy lifting to help secure our other freedoms from government intrusion and societal misdeeds, but doing so doesn't mean we should forget the other amendments. Nor does it mean those rights are any less important.
I like the pen to be mightier than the sword, but I feel it important to retain the sword for instances when the pen just doesn't cut it. I prefer that instance to be rare.
"or the 25 million American Indians who perished by design under the 2nd Amendment"
I thought the natives had arms, but they were like us using bird guns to stand up to the governemnt's machine guns. And now you liberals want to ban our semi-auto versions? Larry, thanks for giving us another reason why we not only need the Second Amendment, put it is time to restore it. The students at Sandy Hook gun-free zone suffered the same consequences as the Native Americans and the Jews.
"You didn't answer Cory's other questions Sibby?"
Owen, the Nazis targeted the Jews. They were disarmed. Otherwise there would have been a civil war, not concentration camps.
"Do I just wave that gun to scare away those usurpers?"
Yes, most cases the criminals run off if they see a potential victim with a gun.
sib: how should the student population choose their armed sentinels as per the 2nd Amendment?
So wait, Steve. Is the U.S. government targeting any group right now? And are you saying that group's proper response is to shoot whatever government officials come toward them to carry out that targeting?
Wayne, I have a hard time supporting preparation for such extremes in the face of clear and present dangers.
I tend to agree with the notion that weapons ownership is a natural right, Cory. In that context, it doesn't really matter "what you need it for." You just have it, and no one can take it from you. People live their whole lives without having to assert many of the rights granted in the amendments, but it's the social contract that matters. The guarantee of secure liberty, our knowing that the government we have created is comitted to protecting as much personal liberty as possible, with one cavaet. Each liberty we enjoy ends at the tip of the next guy's nose.
Well, Bill. I oft carry my ball peen and yet, as you know, I no longer claim to be a metal worker. But I need not justify my ownership,
What I meant to type was "Well said, Mr. Fleming."
By one estimate 200,000 plus people in Florida were discouraged from voting in the last election by Republican Party voter suppression policies. I'm not sure how many others were discouraged by Republican Party antics in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states. The worst of the attempted Republican voter suppression was stopped by protests and lawsuits. What if the Republicans had succeeded in stealing the 2012 Presidential election by voter suppression? What if they had stolen the Senate like they've gerrymandered the House into an unrepresentative body. What if the Republicans succeed in fudging the Electoral College vote based on their gerrymandered Congressional districts? We have then lost our liberty and our country.
I don't fear police or soldiers or bureaucrats knocking down the doors to my house and carting me away. That ain't ever going to happen to me or anyone else. What is far more worrisome and what actually nearly happened in 2012 and is being plotted right now is the Nazi-like anti-democratic policies of current Republican "elected" "leaders." They are the threat that needs to be checked. They are who we need to worry about.
Beneath my world globe, on a shelf, I find a little red book that has the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution written down.
Amendment II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I see nothing here that implies that the people need arms to defend themselves against their own government.
It seems to me that this amendment would give me the right to own a gun in case, for example, a robber comes into my house by force.
Back in the day that they wrote this Amendment, I suspect that the people of this country saw a very real danger of an invasion from England, and if every property owner had a gun, and some of their wives and children too, in addition to the regular military, the Brits might think twice before taking us on.
Or if they decided to take us on, they might lose.
Which they did.
This stuff about defending against a tyrannical government from within ... It's sort of academic now that our President can order anyone to be killed by a predator drone. I reckon that even a semiautomatic weapon would be of little use against that sort of thing.
But that's about the same as worrying about asteroid impacts or invasions by Romulins armed with disruptors and antimatter bombs.
Seriously, I would rather greet a would-be murderer or robber, forcing his way into my house, with a good look down the barrel of a rifle, than with a fast-flapping set of gums and a lot of intellectual gobbledygook.
If government agents came to my house, I'd greet them with whatever they wanted. Pink slime and green fizz, probably.
Oof. If we have to talk about Nazis, we must remember Donald's point: the Nazis took over with votes, not guns.
Bill, I can agree to a right to protect oneself. But that right won't answer our questions very well, since it cannot be absolute. Protect myself from what? And by what means?
Stan, protecting ourselves from thieves, from individuals working outside the social contract, is a different issue from defending ourselves from a state either enforcing or acting beyond the social contract. I agree that the robber is not as likely to be stopped by personal First Amendment efforts as by personal Second Amendment efforts. But fighting tyranny is different. We can see it coming. We can sound the alarm. We can strive mightily to defeat it in the press and at the ballot box.
"Owen, the Nazis targeted the Jews. They were disarmed. Otherwise there would have been a civil war, not concentration camps."
Wrong Steve. Might want to check your history.
"Wayne, I have a hard time supporting preparation for such extremes in the face of clear and present dangers."
About what clear & present dangers are we talking?
We have a natural right to protect ourselves - and our loved ones - from harm. In it's purest sense, that right is absolute. I'm not talking the legal mincings of Stand Your Ground laws or what have you, nor am I talking about people making poor choices to escalate dicey situations. I am talking about clear & present danger, presented unprovoked. Be it a rapist, a mugger, a burglar, or someone intent upon murdering me, I have a natural right to use any and all force necessary to eliminate the threat to me & mine.
The 2nd Amendment can serve multiple roles at the same time - as a guard against tyranny from the state, and the tyranny of the state of nature.
We enjoy a great many liberties in this nation, but we grow complacent. Government has one power - force - to implement its will. We would be best to remember that. How quickly do we forget the ills our government visits upon its people? Japanese internment camps, slavery, segregation, civil asset forfeiture, and a whole host of measures under the guise of national security. I would think the LAPD shootings of innocents this past week (or the Danziger Bridge shootings in the wake of hurricane Katrina) should demonstrate just how dangerous our government can be, and how tenuous our liberties are.
I don't like to think about those extremes, but I feel having an armed citizenry helps to prevent even more egregious offenses. It is much harder to regain a freedom once lost than it is to preserve it.
I believe that I should have the right to protect me and mine with whatever arms I deem necessary. Even though I hope to never use them, their presence will deter criminals and tyrants from oppressing me.
To that end, and I have recently procured a 20 kiloton nuclear device.
Kyle - you are stupid to ever joke about that.
Wayne, here are the clear and present dangers in my day, in no particular order:
▪car accidents
▪hacking
▪health problems (self or family)
▪health insurance costs
▪politicians taking away wife's and daughter's equal citizenship (happened again today in House Judiciary: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2013/Bill.aspx?Bill=1237)
I may not be able to do much about some of those risks, but I can't do anything about them with a gun.
Michael, it's not a stupid joke. Kyle puts in good perspective the fundamental problem of declaring a certain right absolute. Somewhere shy of his acquiring that warhead, he reaches a threshold where his right to amass power self-defense butts up against the limits of power that we allow anyone to amass within civil society.
Wayne, you mention the Japanese internship camps. That's a good example of government going too far. So how do guns figure into a proper response to that government error? Should the Japanese Americans have shot the soldiers and FBI agents who came to round them up? Should our grandparents have organized a posse to attack Fort Lincoln in North Dakota (http://www.ndmoa.com/prision/index.html) to free the Japanese and Germans unjustly imprisoned there?
I'm sure that argument will work well if his gets visited by the federal agents
I got to thinking about the Monsanto dude coming to check out the crop and what would happen if they did. Nothing would happen. Each one of these trigger happy patriots know one thing, they heard the automatic gunfire that took down Christopher Dormer. That dude was trained and so are the ones that enforce the law against that threat. So, it amuses me very much to hear about the 2nd Amendment and how some folks will defend themselves against the unarmed blacks and Indians that will want to come for their food and women (snark). They will be soiling themselves at the first sign of incoming.
What I am waiting for is when one of these guys meets another of these guys and they do not know what kind of guys each of them are. I hope that they both meet in the middle of the street at high noon. Ah yes, the wild west dreams of wingnuts. Here is a news flash, Clint Eastwood is old, Steven Segal is an old dud and Chuck Norris a dumb dud of an old guy. Your on your own, Omega men, Charleton Heston will not help you either, so you may have to take the gun from his cold dead hands.
Omega men?! Wow -- there's a reference for the cinephiles!
If, on the off chance our government would decide to take over a certain area of the US, exactly what good would your guns do against the military guns, tanks, bombs, and other weapons that they have? The guns that the average citizen has wouldn't do any good at all. That is just a weak excuse made by the gun freaks. As far as that goes, the citizenry and their almighty guns wouldn't do much good against an invading military either.
Michael -
I'm not worried about being arrested for my little joke. After all, my First Amendment rights allow me the freedom to say whatever I want, and my Fourth Amendment rights require that The Man receive a warrant to tap my phones, view my internet history, or arrest me. Plus, even if it does go that far the Fifth Amendment guarantees me a fair and speedy trial that will, of course, prove that I was joking.
And who has ever heard of these constitutional rights being...modified...in the name of public safety.
Oh wait...
Leave a Reply