I'll admit that the specter of heavily armed right-wing gun nuts at Obama and the so-called "tea-bag" events gives me pause. It is a very provocative act, but viewed against the backdrop of flag burning and other political stunts, it falls squarely into the mold of our free speech rights, and the 2nd amendment. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a bad idea, but objectionable ideas themselves are often the most important ones to protect.
One of the most fascinating things about the 2nd Amendment to me is the linkage between the personal right to bear arms and the national military. The founder's intent seems to have been to protect the citizenry from the possibility of a tyrannical government in the future, but the actual mechanism was bigger then just allowing individuals the right to bear arms, it included the idea that militias (not the Waco kind) would form the backbone of national defense, not a large professional army.
This has serious implications for the right and left ends of the political spectrum. Had Bush been required to call up a force almost entirely comprised of normal people from all walks of life, I'd wager the Iraq adventure would have been MUCH harder to sell and get away with. The intent to keep the government from fielding a force strong enough to subdue the populace serves double duty as a bulwark against foolish military enterprises.
The linkage between this idea of a strategic reserve and personal gun possession also betrays the fact that the founder's principle aim seems not to have been hunting and home protection, but possible military duty and in a worst case scenario, armed rebellion. At the time of the revolution, an armed frontiersmen was arguably more dangerous than the foot soldier of contemporary European armies, so the idea that today's gun owners should not be allowed (dare I say encouraged) to own firearms akin to modern infantry flies in the face of the actual Amendment.
Bottom line, if we as a nation have arrived at a place where these things are no longer true. If we can say for certain that a big national army has worked super well for us, that the idea of an oppressive government is absurd (I was getting worried during the last administration), then the mechanism to alter the 2nd Amendment stands ready. What bothers me is the way the left and right play fast and loose with those parts of fundamental rights that are not particularly important to them (Privacy, torture, due-process for the right - Gun rights for the left) making end-runs on them instead of addressing the issue head-on.
Sadly, even Ray's article above casts subtle aspersions on the idea of AR-15s (and their ilk) and militia (regardless of type), a sentiment common in Democratic circles. This is in effect a retreat into the comfortable (and false) ground of equating gun rights with a whole host of "legitimate" uses for guns (like hunting) uses all notable by their absence from the language of the 2nd amendment. My hope is that Obama, besides seeing what a political nightmare it would be to field a gun ban agenda, is also enough of a constitutional scholar to safeguard ALL rights, not just those he may hold most dear. I wish my party did the same on a consistent basis.
Ethan
Portland OR
Submitted by EthanPDX (not verified) on September 22, 2009 - 12:13am.
I'll admit that the specter of heavily armed right-wing gun nuts at Obama and the so-called "tea-bag" events gives me pause. It is a very provocative act, but viewed against the backdrop of flag burning and other political stunts, it falls squarely into the mold of our free speech rights, and the 2nd amendment. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a bad idea, but objectionable ideas themselves are often the most important ones to protect.
One of the most fascinating things about the 2nd Amendment to me is the linkage between the personal right to bear arms and the national military. The founder's intent seems to have been to protect the citizenry from the possibility of a tyrannical government in the future, but the actual mechanism was bigger then just allowing individuals the right to bear arms, it included the idea that militias (not the Waco kind) would form the backbone of national defense, not a large professional army.
This has serious implications for the right and left ends of the political spectrum. Had Bush been required to call up a force almost entirely comprised of normal people from all walks of life, I'd wager the Iraq adventure would have been MUCH harder to sell and get away with. The intent to keep the government from fielding a force strong enough to subdue the populace serves double duty as a bulwark against foolish military enterprises.
The linkage between this idea of a strategic reserve and personal gun possession also betrays the fact that the founder's principle aim seems not to have been hunting and home protection, but possible military duty and in a worst case scenario, armed rebellion. At the time of the revolution, an armed frontiersmen was arguably more dangerous than the foot soldier of contemporary European armies, so the idea that today's gun owners should not be allowed (dare I say encouraged) to own firearms akin to modern infantry flies in the face of the actual Amendment.
Bottom line, if we as a nation have arrived at a place where these things are no longer true. If we can say for certain that a big national army has worked super well for us, that the idea of an oppressive government is absurd (I was getting worried during the last administration), then the mechanism to alter the 2nd Amendment stands ready. What bothers me is the way the left and right play fast and loose with those parts of fundamental rights that are not particularly important to them (Privacy, torture, due-process for the right - Gun rights for the left) making end-runs on them instead of addressing the issue head-on.
Sadly, even Ray's article above casts subtle aspersions on the idea of AR-15s (and their ilk) and militia (regardless of type), a sentiment common in Democratic circles. This is in effect a retreat into the comfortable (and false) ground of equating gun rights with a whole host of "legitimate" uses for guns (like hunting) uses all notable by their absence from the language of the 2nd amendment. My hope is that Obama, besides seeing what a political nightmare it would be to field a gun ban agenda, is also enough of a constitutional scholar to safeguard ALL rights, not just those he may hold most dear. I wish my party did the same on a consistent basis.
Ethan
Portland OR