Let's start with something easy: an amendment that is very popular among our fellow conservatives: the Second Amendment. As passed by the House of Representatives (and as it was printed for its first hundred years, or so, before people began to use the Senate version, which includes two additional and unnecessary commas), it reads, "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."
Many state constitutions protected (and still do protect) the right to keep and bear arms, as did the English Bill of Rights. Unsurprisingly, five of the seven states which requested constitutional amendments when they ratified the Constitution requested that this right be protected. (Massachusetts and South Carolina did not; South Carolina's list of requested amendments was very short, though.)
In the case of the Second Amendment, which is unambiguous on its face, it may not be necessary to take into consideration what the states had requested that prompted the Second Amendment to be composed and returned to them for ratification. After all, these requests were not officially a part of the amendment process, so it cannot be said that the meaning of these requests is the meaning of the Second Amendment. However, they certainly help to corroborate what is already the most eligible interpretation of the Second Amendment: that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms may not be violated by the government.
Although I am not a gun enthusiast, I do not find it difficult to understand the meaning of the Second Amendment and the importance of the right to keep and bear arms.
Additionally, four of these requested amendments help to explain the "well regulated militia" language that gun control advocates sometimes claim is a condition or limitation of the right to keep and bear arms. Of course, that claim does not even make sense grammatically, as no part of the Amendment suggests that the right to keep and bear arms is preserved only if or when a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, or that the right of the people to keep and bear arms belongs only to a well regulated militia. These requested amendments, however, make it even clearer that though the right to keep and bear arms is related to the role of the well regulated militia, that militia is the general population, and the purpose is to disperse and decentralize armed power in the country, to ensure that the only laws that are made are such that most people would obey out of either a sense of duty or of actual support for the laws in question, not out of fear.
This is not to say that an individual would be able to successfully hold the government at bay, just because he owns a gun. That is not the way it would restrain the government. It would restrain the government by eliminating the possibility that the entire population could be governed by fear of force -- first, because an armed population may well win, if it came to that, and second, because it would be difficult to obtain support for any attempt to enforce a bad law against an armed population, considering the likely consequences of such a confrontation. The more flagrant and frequent the injustice of government policies might become, the more credible the threat of resistance would be. By increasing the consequences of making and enforcing such unjust laws, the existence of an armed population reduces their appeal, and makes it unlikely that the actual confrontation would ever need to take place. Americans have always aspired to be a nation with government by the consent of the governed, and a responsible population, "trained to arms," and armed, would be one of the most certain ways to ensure that we have it.
Many state constitutions protected (and still do protect) the right to keep and bear arms, as did the English Bill of Rights. Unsurprisingly, five of the seven states which requested constitutional amendments when they ratified the Constitution requested that this right be protected. (Massachusetts and South Carolina did not; South Carolina's list of requested amendments was very short, though.)
Rhode Island:
XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state ; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that, at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that, in time of peace, no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrates, in such manner as the law directs.
Virginia, North Carolina:
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people[,] trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. [Note: portion in brackets included by North Carolina but not Virginia.]
New York:
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State;
New Hampshire:
Twelfth, Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
In the case of the Second Amendment, which is unambiguous on its face, it may not be necessary to take into consideration what the states had requested that prompted the Second Amendment to be composed and returned to them for ratification. After all, these requests were not officially a part of the amendment process, so it cannot be said that the meaning of these requests is the meaning of the Second Amendment. However, they certainly help to corroborate what is already the most eligible interpretation of the Second Amendment: that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms may not be violated by the government.
Although I am not a gun enthusiast, I do not find it difficult to understand the meaning of the Second Amendment and the importance of the right to keep and bear arms.
Additionally, four of these requested amendments help to explain the "well regulated militia" language that gun control advocates sometimes claim is a condition or limitation of the right to keep and bear arms. Of course, that claim does not even make sense grammatically, as no part of the Amendment suggests that the right to keep and bear arms is preserved only if or when a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, or that the right of the people to keep and bear arms belongs only to a well regulated militia. These requested amendments, however, make it even clearer that though the right to keep and bear arms is related to the role of the well regulated militia, that militia is the general population, and the purpose is to disperse and decentralize armed power in the country, to ensure that the only laws that are made are such that most people would obey out of either a sense of duty or of actual support for the laws in question, not out of fear.
This is not to say that an individual would be able to successfully hold the government at bay, just because he owns a gun. That is not the way it would restrain the government. It would restrain the government by eliminating the possibility that the entire population could be governed by fear of force -- first, because an armed population may well win, if it came to that, and second, because it would be difficult to obtain support for any attempt to enforce a bad law against an armed population, considering the likely consequences of such a confrontation. The more flagrant and frequent the injustice of government policies might become, the more credible the threat of resistance would be. By increasing the consequences of making and enforcing such unjust laws, the existence of an armed population reduces their appeal, and makes it unlikely that the actual confrontation would ever need to take place. Americans have always aspired to be a nation with government by the consent of the governed, and a responsible population, "trained to arms," and armed, would be one of the most certain ways to ensure that we have it.
No comments:
Post a Comment