The security of a free state. [View all]

[needledriver]

An OP of another thread had difficulty with the idea that people would actually declare that they wanted access to "combat style stuff". When it was pointed out to him that "The second amendment is about "combat style stuff"", he responded with: "But please help discredit yourself by saying out loud that you want the ability to go to war with the police and the army."

I replied with this, and offer it as an OP:

The 2nd Amendment:

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.

String that all out as one sentence with no wraparound. The right side of the sentence is "shall not be infringed", as in "What part of Shall Not Be Infringed don't you understand?". Those who favor the idea of unrestricted access to arms champion this as proof that the FF meant for "the people" to have the right to keep and bear arms; said right being subject to little restriction. This is pretty much close to the true intention, although the language didacts will come in and explain that "abridgment" and "restriction" are not, in fact, infringements, and point out quite accurately that most of the Rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

The left side of the sentence is "A well regulated militia". Those who favor great or total restriction on civilian access to arms offer this as evidence that the arms referenced in the 2nd Amendment are and should be limited to members of the militia, conveniently ignoring the historic context of what a militia was, and the modern definitions of practically everyone being in the "unorganized militia". The language didacts will quite accurately point out that "well regulated" means well trained - and be summarily dismissed as "splitting hairs".

What doesn't get as much bandwidth is the middle of the sentence:"being necessary to the security of a free state". This is the core sentiment of the 2nd Amendment. This is what it is really about. Not hunting or self defense. It is about the security of a free state. As Chairman Mao put it: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". If anyone tries to bring this up, they are shouted down by high count posters who like to type in ALL CAPS, snarky "zingers" or both. The usual theme is that "the people" couldn't possibly prevail against the Government, what with the Government having tanks and aircraft and drones and nukes and poison gas. They rarely even acknowledge the historic examples of irregular forces prevailing against technologically and numerically superior forces, and they don't even consider that many many many people in the police and armed forces would be very reluctant to fire on and engage their own mothers fathers sister brothers, indeed who might actually even join them in resisting a government that would choose to use force to eliminate a basic right.

So, yes, the 2nd Amendment is about the ability to go to war with the police and the army. The FF had just done exactly that.

Me, I would rather use the ballot box than the bullet box. Things would have to be seriously, irreparably, broken for me to consider rising up in a general rebellion against a tyrannical government.

But-

The 2nd Amendment is the one that guarantees all the rest.