The Right to Arm Bears
Mar. 18th, 2008 01:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackofallgeeksSo, This is
an article describing the preparations being made on a Supreme Court case
concerned with the Second Ammendment, the right to bear arms. It's a case
that was brought by a DC cop who argues that the DC ban on personal firearm
ownership infringes his constitutional right to arm and defend himself. The
city argues that the Ammendment was meant for militias only, and not private
citizens. (The city also goes on to say that, even if that weren't so, the
Ammendment doesn't hold the force of law in DC since it's a "federal
enclave," which seems an odd argument to make.)
For my part I find this very troubling. I do not currently own a gun,
though I've often considered getting one (of course, I'd need a lot more
experience and training firing one before I were comfortable owning one).
Defense of myself and my property against criminals is, I think, a noble and
just reasoning, but secondary; more so, I believe and have always understood
the Second Ammendment to be a safeguard against governmental abuses, a
guarantee that citizens can defend themselves against the government, should
it be necessary.
The Founding Fathers were in a position where their government had become
offensive and hostile toward them; further, the declaration of independence
draws strongly on the political philosophy of Locke, who I've read to also
say that a people have a right (and duty) to defend themselves against a
government who no longer serves their interests.
In a country where the government and their agents are the only ones who can
bring force to bear, what assurance do the people have that they will not
find that force directed against them? What resistance can we give,
unarmed, against an armed foe? I don't believe we currently have a
reason to fear the government, but if our right to arm ourselves is taken
away now, what recourse will we have if the government does become a
threat? The Second Ammendment is assurance that such a time will not come
or, if it does, we can be preparred for it.
Many people are concerned with the expanding governmental powers, and many
on the other side of the political fense point to the President's
apparently-monarchial attitude and the questionable activities of certain
government agencies. How much more concerned must we be, then, when they
tell us we have nothing to fear, and we ought to go quietly, disarmed, into
the night?
an article describing the preparations being made on a Supreme Court case
concerned with the Second Ammendment, the right to bear arms. It's a case
that was brought by a DC cop who argues that the DC ban on personal firearm
ownership infringes his constitutional right to arm and defend himself. The
city argues that the Ammendment was meant for militias only, and not private
citizens. (The city also goes on to say that, even if that weren't so, the
Ammendment doesn't hold the force of law in DC since it's a "federal
enclave," which seems an odd argument to make.)
For my part I find this very troubling. I do not currently own a gun,
though I've often considered getting one (of course, I'd need a lot more
experience and training firing one before I were comfortable owning one).
Defense of myself and my property against criminals is, I think, a noble and
just reasoning, but secondary; more so, I believe and have always understood
the Second Ammendment to be a safeguard against governmental abuses, a
guarantee that citizens can defend themselves against the government, should
it be necessary.
The Founding Fathers were in a position where their government had become
offensive and hostile toward them; further, the declaration of independence
draws strongly on the political philosophy of Locke, who I've read to also
say that a people have a right (and duty) to defend themselves against a
government who no longer serves their interests.
In a country where the government and their agents are the only ones who can
bring force to bear, what assurance do the people have that they will not
find that force directed against them? What resistance can we give,
unarmed, against an armed foe? I don't believe we currently have a
reason to fear the government, but if our right to arm ourselves is taken
away now, what recourse will we have if the government does become a
threat? The Second Ammendment is assurance that such a time will not come
or, if it does, we can be preparred for it.
Many people are concerned with the expanding governmental powers, and many
on the other side of the political fense point to the President's
apparently-monarchial attitude and the questionable activities of certain
government agencies. How much more concerned must we be, then, when they
tell us we have nothing to fear, and we ought to go quietly, disarmed, into
the night?
