As someone who grew up overseas, the notion that gun ownership is a right extended to the American people in order to keep the government in check horrifies me - at least in these modern times. However in the same breath that I express my horror, I can freely admit that such attitudes towards gun ownership are in all likelihood exactly the same notions that the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the amendments. I suppose I can even agree that gun ownership among the general population as a deterrent against abuse of power by the government was a reasonable approach.
I humbly posit that a lot has changed since then.
the most glaringly obvious and insurmountable difference is the
imbalance of fire-power we see today. Go ahead, start your uprising
against unwanted taxation and see how long your high-capacity ammo
magazines, semi-automatic rifles and youtube combat training stands up
against an assault by the masterfully trained career warriors that will
roll up in acronym laden black armoured trucks, equipped with years of
experience and the best armour and weaponry money can buy. And if somehow
you are still free after that experience, then please, tell me how you
plan to take on the most expensive fighting force ever devised by man.
see in these modern times we have a whole myriad of terms for this sort
of Second Amendment rights use. We typically use terms such as hostage
crises, siege, rampage and so on. Designating gun ownership as a
legitimate and protected means of ensuring safety from the government
gives legitimacy to anyone who disagrees with the government and wants
to do something violent about it. If the right to bear arms is necessary
for the security of a free State, than anyone who believes that their
free State is being threatened and starts to fight for his free country
is technically acting in accordance with the Bill of Rights.
course you might say that lone players represent the fringe and not the
well regulated militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers. However at
what point does a violent fringe group with a vendetta against the
Government become a well regulated militia with a noble mission to
protect freedom? The ambiguity sounds messy.
is this ambiguity that creates the environment that brought us the
likes of Randy Weaver, David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh and all those other
historical boogiemen. They all lie somewhere along the continuum
between lone, murderous madman and member of a legitimate militia
uprising against the government.
lets face it, in the history of this country not one person who has
ever taken up arms against the government has been successful. Not one
has been labeled by mainstream society as anything other than a
psychopath. This, however, is the eventual result of operating politically by 18th
century moral standards pertaining to might and violence.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights are in impressive documents, but
they are by no means comprehensive. They had the limited scope inherent
to their time and therefore we can expect them to have considerable
deficiencies when brought up against 21st century circumstances and
Nor could they have possibly anticipated the 21st century's resources and solutions.
the Internet, for instance. It has only existed prominently for the
past 20 years or so and in just that historical blink of an eye, it has
managed to become ubiquitous and influential beyond even the wildest
notions of any past futurist. No longer can secrets be easily kept and
no longer can an individual be so easily silenced. If you are looking
for a means for you, as an individual, to best affect the inertia of
your government - to preserve your free State - then look no further.
Think of the case studies of the Arab Spring. Think of all the Youtube
videos uploaded that have caused public outrage and then change. Think
of all the words written by ordinary citizens and have then gone on to
find an audience of National scale.
these instances are rare and you are not guaranteed to be effective,
but it does happen - and on a whole it is quite common. Much more common
than successful armed uprisings, at least. So why is the NRA so
powerful? Why do we still care so much about the Second Amendment. Why
do we not see with clarity what our most valuable asset really is. At
the very least the unprecedented equality of influence made possible by
the Internet should be guarded with equal vehemence, hopefully more.
Perhaps, then, a superior wording would be:
access to the market of ideas, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and freely use the Internet,
shall not be infringed.