The Occasional Observer

...our best defense against a tyrannical government is the democratic process itself and our separation of powers. That's why I think it's worth examining the 2nd amendment in the context of the time it was written, compared to today. As we discussed a few weeks ago, a major difference between then and now is that back then, there was no standing military or military contractor companies. As such, if the government wanted to subjugate the people by force, it would need to: (1) draft willing volunteers to fight their own countrymen, (2) raise funds to support the army, and (3) start a process to provide weapons and munitions. Today, all three of those already exist, thus substantially lowering the barrier (although one could argue that you might have significant if not complete military defection if an order to violently overtake the US was given).

That said, I think the following quotes are insightful. They basically indicate that at the time of the 2nd Amendment, a well-regulated militia was seen as a more-than-reasonable counter to any federally-raised army. The question is, would those same quotes and opinions hold true today, given points (1)-(3) above are no longer valid and all the advances in weaponry? I think not.

First quote from James Madison:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops/

Second quote from Webster:

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. 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 band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Both of these pre-suppose that points (1)-(3) are valid, yet today they clearly are not. In addition, the quotes pre-suppose that both sides (gov't and militia) are fighting with equivalent weaponry.

I thus have to believe that if the founders were drafting the 2nd amendment today (with the goal of preventing government tyranny), there would only be two possible positions. Position 1 is that we can't possibly prevent a government tyranny, so skip 2nd Amendment and hope that our democracy and separation of powers prevents such a situation. Position 2 is that the people should have the rights to the same level of arms as the government; that is, all forms of weaponry.

Now, a wholly different issue (which I think is valid) is that the 2nd amendment should also cover people's security from any threat. That is, not just from the government but also from your neighbors, or another invading country, etc. In that case, where society fails to protect you since police and army can't be in all places at all times, you have a right and mechanism to defend yourself. So I think even if the 2nd amendment is read to only refer to situations where you have a militia that is fighting a government, I think there should be an individual right to bear arms inasmuch as it allows people to defend themselves from a variety of threats.