the 2nd amendment that enshrines americas ‘right to bear arms’ really needs to be looked at anew, and with a greater understanding of the context in which it was originally drafted.
when the constitution was put together it was done so in a cultural context wherein people were, rightly so, fearful of too much centralized federal power. so the 2nd amendment basically enshrined peoples right to protect themselvesagainst a federal power if it became necessary.and the 2nd amendment is quite specific about protecting someones ‘right to bear arms’ within the context of a regulated local militia. read it, it’s pretty clear.
and the thing that makes the 2nd amendment so tragically laughable now are the ways in which weaponry and ordnance have developed over the last 200 years. 200 years ago the federal government had a bunch of guns and some cannon. so it was conceivable that an armed militia who also had some guns and cannon could protect themselves if the federal government got out of control.
but now? the federal government has nuclear weapons and satellite guided missiles and submarines and stealth bombers and so on. can you really tell me that any private citizen , with even some really powerful rifles, could hold offthe u.s military for more than 2 seconds? the 2nd amendment has outlived its usefulness, and it should probably be disregarded in establishing and developing and evaluating public policy.
the 2nd amendment made sense 200 years ago. it makes no sense now. if you look at some of the other original 1791 amendments you realize how specific they were for the context in which they were drafted.
just look at the third amendment:
“”no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to beprescribed by law. “”
the 2nd and 3rd amendments really have no relevance as regards the determination of public policy in the united states.
oh, and go see ‘bowling for columbine’.
-moby
