The Second Amendment … Where’s the Line?

The Right to Bear … Drones?

Gun advocates say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms to prevent a tyrannical government from oppressing us.

They quote the Founding Fathers:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
– Thomas Jefferson, 1764

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
– Thomas Jefferson

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
– Ben Franklin

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
–Thomas Paine

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
– George Washington

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
–Patrick Henry.

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
– Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
–Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…
–James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
–James Madison.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
–Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.

To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.
– George Mason

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
–Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888)

[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
– Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Gun control advocates want to ban all arms … or at least semi-automatic, high-capacity weapons.

But George Orwell – author of 1984 – had a different take on the whole issue. Orwell pointed out in the Tribune (October 19, 1945), the effectiveness of arms in preventing tyranny partly depends on whether the average citizen can afford the current weapon of choice possessed by the government:

The connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance. Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon–so long as there is no answer to it–gives claws to the weak.The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans–even Tibetans–could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one …The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon–or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting–not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant.

If he were alive today, Orwell might say that – unless the American people create and adopt high-tech ways to defend themselves – guns will not be able to compete with drones, robots and other high-tech weapons created by the virtually unlimited American military budget.

Max Keiser linked to the following video under the headline,
“Assault rifles are so passe… Say Hello To Citizen Drone Warfare”

Is this going too far … creating a recipe for violence?

On the other hand, is it insufficient to create any real checks and balances in relation to a government that possesses nuclear weapons and military drones?

Where’s the line?

This entry was posted in General, Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carl-Herman/100000930261713 Carl Herman

    Great documentation on the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, GW; thank you.

  • frop

    spread it around

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1131714923 Jack McLeod

    The government, and, therefore, our military work for us, and WE should never let them possess a weapon that we, ourselves, are prohibited from owning. How are the people supposed to defend themselves with hand guns and rifles when our employees possess tanks and fighter jets? I doubt our founders had the foresight to imagine weaponry 200 years after they wrote the 2nd amendment. But I’m positive that they would have agreed with my opening statement.

  • robobbob

    ….to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting….
    the more complex the system, the more dependant it is on highly complex infrastructures and specialized, skilled, and expensive technicians to construct and maintain them. soft, squishy, technicians…. as well as the hard to find, but not particularly well defended financiers who are behind it all.

  • Blair T. Longley

    There is no “line.” The government is ALREADY an out of control organization, covertly directed by the most out of control criminals. The basic problem is that science and technology have made human beings become trillions of times more powerful. There is NOTHING within the established ideas about politics or morality that can cope with organized systems of lies, operating organized robberies, be amplified to such astronomical sizes!

    We need radical paradigm shifts in militarism, because weapons of mass destruction are real, and those genies are never going back in the bottle! That is especially true because there is a COMBINED MONEY/MURDER SYSTEM.

    Money is backed by murder. The debt controls depend on the death controls. In theory, “We the People” should control the uses of sovereign powers to rob and to kill, through the “rule of law.” In reality, the “rule of law” has already degenerated into the bullshit of the biggest bullies, and the sovereign powers of governments to rob and to kill have been 99% privatized.

    We are in an out of control runaway fascist plutocracy juggernaut, that is going to turn most people into road kill. We have not seen anything yet!

    War with weapons of mass destruction is INSANE. Violent revolution with weapons of mass destruction is INSANE. The whole world has been driven insane, by weapons becoming trillions of times more powerful.

    In theory, only paradigm shifts, equal to those which made those weapons possible, are needed in our basic ideas about politics and morality. Of course, in practise, there are NO good reasons to believe that those changes will happen in time to prevent genocidal wars, along with democidal martial law, to happen first.

    Maybe, perhaps, something will survive despite that, and adapt afterwards??? However, at the present time, weapons that are trillions of times more powerful can not possibly do anything than be MAD, and achieve the Mutual Assured Destruction of the majority of people, on all sides, everywhere.

    People should be armed for the sake of deterrence, however, inevitably that deterrence will undergo psychotic breakdowns, since the people who control the government are the MOST dishonest and violent people, who will continue to legalized bigger lies, and legalize backing that up with more violence, and therefore, their systems will continue to automatically get worse faster. Therefore, eventually, more and more people will be forced to adapt to those runaway social insanities in ways that appear equally insane, since there will never be any saner compromises that are actually possible implement. The government is already the WORST out of control gang of criminals, and therefore, the political system is already too terminally corrupt to be fixed by anything that is within it.

    In theory, we need radically different murder systems, where we negotiate radically different death control systems. However, in the real world, we will be driven through an escalating series of psychotic breakdowns, since the people who will control what happens will continue to be those who are the MOST dishonest and violent, and they will continue to set the agenda for everyone else, whether one likes that or not.

    There is no reasonable doubt that there are going to be even much worse false flag attacks staged in the future, to generate bogus rationales for disarming Americans. We are already irredeemably into an irreconcilable state of social polarization, since our society is already controlled by Huge Lies, backed by Lots of Violence, and therefore, that is going to automatically get unbearably worse. Unfortunately, there is NOTHING SANE that can be done about dealing with such an INSANE SITUATION. Rather, we will be forced to cope with the runaway social insanities behind our governments by adapting in insane ways, in proportion to those. Thus, there is no “line” that can be drawn that makes sense, since the force drawing those lines is already terminally insane, and so, everyone else has not real alternative choices but to respond in kind.

  • davidgmills

    As a lawyer, to me, the second amendment is the anti-tyranny amendment. But we always seem to outlaw those weapons that would be most useful in fighting tyranny because they are so deadly. The second amendment is not about self defense or hunting; it is about have a well trained armed citizenry capable of stopping a tyrannical government. The most useful weapons against tanks and drones would be stinger missiles. But those are clearly banned. So Orwell clearly saw it coming.

    Assault weapons and the mentally ill are no more compatible than alcohol and driving. But assault weapons along with stinger missiles could produce an effective deterrent. About the only way I can see the second amendment really meaning something again is to bring back local civilian armories where civilians can store military style weapons.

    Of course the state would try to take them away. But the citizenry would have to be resolute in keeping the state from doing that.

 

 

Twitter