I haven't commented in this thread up to now because, frankly, gun rights v gun control is pretty far down my list of topics of importance/interest.
Wade, you said a LOT of things that the 2nd Amendment is not. When I finally got to what you said it IS, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's about the right of the citizenry to use those guns to keep the government in line? Not to be taken lightly, as Jefferson said, but for "Revolution, revolt, resistance"? If that's your position, I'd say it is just a little bit extreme. Can you say "throwing out the baby with the bath water" or "the operation was a success but the patient died" or "fucking up a wet dream"? Actions have consequences - big actions have big consequences. Yeah, I know, inaction can have creeping consequences too, but it seems to me that what you're talking about stands a strong chance of really messing up the GREAT situation we all have.
Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker
I was angry, as I too often am these days. (Another one of the reasons its good that I personally choose not to bear arms, by the way, another reason I don't trust myself with firearms.)
But, to come back to you point, Tex: I'm not calling for revolt or revolution. As for "resistance", that can mean lots of things, most of which don't require a gun. And the fact of the matter is that the state will always have more and bigger guns than private citizens. The biggest "whackjob survivalist arsenal" out there pales in its firepower to the armory of even a small city's police force.
But, and here the but is the heart of the thing, but the last is exactly why the private keeping and bearing of arms is essential to keep that very "great situation we all have". An American with arms can't hope to stop the state after the state's armory has put in play because some official decides that American needs to be put in his place. Just ask the ghosts of Randy Weaver's wife and dog. But an armed populace can put the fear of God into that official.
Those who would regulate every aspect of our lives to the tune of a hundred thousand pages of new rules every year know damn well we're pissed off. But they also know they have highway funding, education funding, the IRS, and, ultimately the FBI/DEA/ATF/etc to make us obey all those rules, and they can sit safe behind their counters in their "gun free" public building.
The second amendment was all about balancing the threats of large and petty tyrannies by reminding those petty political/bureaucratic tyrants and true believers that they could as individuals be threatened, and that the more their rules and regulations pissed off people, the bigger the risks would be.
In a bureaucratic system like ours, the pettiest of bureaucrats can hold all the cards when you go to get a license or a building permit. And think of all the different things we now need government permission to do.
Why is it do you suppose that the biggest restrictions on gun possession are always applied where lawmakers gather and where bureaucrats work and where those lawmakers and bureaucrats have to deal with ordinary citizens?
It isn't because they're worried about Al-Queda. It's because they're worried about the Tim McVeighs out there. And they're worried about Tim McVeighs because they know each of their manifold rules and regulations and permits are pissing a lot of people off. Because they know they've got those regulations and permit requirements made into "the law of the land" without the great majority of the citizenry even noticing, much less participating in the rule-making process.
We object, vociferously, whenever we find out about a new rule that takes more of our wealth and freedom. We bitch endlessly about taxes being too high and politicians being a lot of nasty things. We bitch about bureaucratic requirements that can double or more the length of time it takes to build a new house or factory, or that triples the prices we pay for health care. Some of us like a particular bit, and so won't complain about that government benefit, but all of us bitch -- a lot -- about a lot of other bits.
Yet we also grant these lawmakers, politicians, and bureaucrats special protection from our anger. We can't sue them without their permission. We can complain when standing at the bureaucrat's desk, but will that bureaucrat (or his or her superiors) act on our complaint.
We allow police to carry arms into "no gun" buildings, even though we know there are always going to be some police persons who abuse the power that their gun and nightstick. But we restrict the millions of ordinary people from carrying arms into those same buildings because one of them, in anger arising out of one to many government interference with their life, might unlawfully pull and shoot.
Governments hate having the populace armed, and save in the case of an actual invasion, their approach is always going to be to find ways of restricting and reducing the ability of the populace to "hold and bear".
The Founders, having been students of history, knew this. And that's why they put the second amendment in there. They wanted to remind future "leaders" and their bureaucratic minions to avoid the temptations of power. They wanted to remind people that the things listened as"insults and usurpations" could bring about personal danger to the insulters and usurpers.
I don't think its any accident that the last fifty years has seen three things happening vis-a-vis the individual's relationship with the state:
(i) ever-expanding legislation, litigation on political issues, and regulation,
(ii) more of which can be analogized to or even be the same as, the "insults and usurpations" that Jefferson listed in 1776, and
(iii) the lncreasing "movement" for more and more gun control or, to use a more appropriate name IMO, citizen disarmament.
Has anyone ever asked themselves why "keeping and bearing arms" would be listed second by James Madison, George Mason, or whoever else did the drafting of the Bill of Rights? In a document concerned first, foremost, and throughout about protecting individuals from state coercion and prohibiting certain actions ("infringements") by the state, whyever would they put something designed to limit the actions and choices of citizens in the name of providing a national guard against invasion?
So back to your worry, Tex. IMO, the biggest threat to the greatest country in history is not going to come from isolated whackjobs like McVeigh, and its not going to come from isolated angry citizens who go nuts and shoot up a courtroom or assessor's office. Bombings and shooting sprees are bad, no doubt. But by the scale that is a nation of 310+ million people, the long run effect of the few that occur is small.
No, the biggest threat comes from it being too easy for us to restrict our neighbors in the name of this or that "policy goal". And every time we do so, we create more anger among the "losers" who prefer to not have that particular restriction. And more anger means more whackjobs and more whackjobs means more risk of violence against the state's minions.
If you want to save the country, you're going to need to stop this solving every problem through state legislation, adjudication, and regulation.
Citizens with guns aren't the problem. Doing too much stuff that pisses citizens off -- *that* is the problem.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)