 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 6, 2008 at 18:34:32
The Second Amendment Versus The Police State? by Mike Kimball Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
|
1
1
1
I am going to draw on a couple of polls from the OpEdNews website for this piece. One concerning whether or not the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) is relevant in today's society. The other is a poll by Tony Forest on whether or not individuals choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In both polls, the issue of armed resistance of a tyrannical government was a frequent reason for supporting and exercising the right. The conclusion I have drawn is the Second Amendment is still viewed as a keystone of the U.S. Constitution. In the polls cited, the vast majority (82% as of this submission) viewed the Second Amendment as still relevant to our society by the readers. While those who actively exercised the right and owned guns were fewer than those who supported the Second Amendment (58% stated they own guns), very few actively argued against the individual right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, support for the right to keep and bear arms is not a rightwing exclusive. There is still a very real threat of the government disarming law-abiding U.S. citizens, even through supposedly innocuous laws like registration requirements that could lead to confiscation of lawfully owned weapons. There are also laws that restrict the use of weapons, or weapons technology, that are otherwise available to individual soldiers in "militias." (No, we are not talking nukes or crew served weapons like howitzers.) The net effect ensures citizens do not have the equivalent firepower of the government as the police become increasingly militarized. Public police departments were not a part of our nation's origins and did not appear until the mid-1800s. Until the 1980s, police weaponry typically consisted of service revolvers with shotguns as backup weapons. Today's police are increasingly equipped with essentially the same weapons and technologies in use by the U.S. military as part of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) units or teams. These technologies include fully automatic rifles and pistols, body armor (vests and helmets), militarized transportation (armored vehicles and aircraft), and advanced surveillance equipment (radar, thermal vision, night vision and communication interception – listening devices and electronic monitoring). Even the "cop on the beat" now often carries a semi-automatic pistol with "high capacity" magazines (capable of holding more than ten rounds, in California).
Why the change? Unfortunately the militarization of police is largely because of the War on Drugs (and War on Crime) starting with the Reagan Administration and expanded by each subsequent president. click here This has culminated (to date) with the Bush II administration's "War on Terrorism" and the Patriot Act. Three Republican and one Democratic administration, all permitting the transfer of military technology to civilian police in order to combat crime and ensure public safety. . . and ultimately threatening personal liberty through the growing potential for government tyranny and a developing Police State.
The threat of a tyrannical government is not geographically isolated or a part of ancient history. Hitler made use of, and extended, existing gun laws in Germany to prevent Jews and non-Nazi Germans from owning guns as a precaution to armed revolution against the Nazi regime. Stalin disarmed Czarist Russians and slaughtered millions of unarmed dissidents. Zimbabwe's citizens today have been disarmed by their government and are pleading for guns to resist the genocide taking place there.
On our own soil we have seen the police state assault on the Branch Davidians in Waco. We have also seen the New Orleans police seize weapons from law-abiding citizens while they tried to defend themselves from looters after Hurricane Katrina threw the city into chaos. We watched on television while an armed government invaded an unarmed Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints sect in Texas in April of this year. It has happened here; it will happen again.
Can we afford to render the Second Amendment obsolete and completely disarm the private citizen? Our European cousins think us mad to continue to permit private gun ownership. They also thought us mad to oppose British tyranny in American colonies some 230 years ago. If we do away with the Second Amendment, or make it so restrictive through legislation as to be ineffective, we certainly would not be able to resort to armed resistance if deemed necessary.
Opponents of the Second Amendment use the argument that the Second Amendment's original purpose was to provide arms to militias. Although this need is already covered in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution, let's pretend our Founding Fathers forgot the Congress could legislate funding for arms for the militias. Let's pretend they said, "Ooops! Our militias need arms. Well, let's put in an amendment to the Constitution allowing the States or private citizens to buy their own weapons and keep them! It's been done before in England. Citizens need guns for hunting too. And we haven't invented police yet so they need guns for self defense." Using this logic, citizens who are a part of a militia (in the beginning of our nation, any able-bodied male) should be able to own any weapon carried by the individual soldier in the militia – read that as National Guard today. Well that ability has certainly been restricted.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in DC v. Heller that the Second Amendment does ensure private ownership of guns as an individual right, but subject to reasonable regulation.
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." (Supreme Court Of The United States, Syllabus, District of Columbia Et Al. V. Heller, Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit, No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008-Decided June 26, 2008.)
And ". . . when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny." But, "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
This was in deference to the 1939 SCOTUS decision in the U.S. v. Miller that ruled a sawed-off shotgun was not a typical weapon used by militias. The private citizen can be limited to the type of weapon he/she can personally own and carry based on reasonable government regulation. The "reasonable" restrictions were only partially defined in the ruling of DC v. Heller such as: "Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
The SCOTUS tried to play Solomon and split the baby between the individual right to keep and bear arms of the Second Amendment and the right to public safety. (Public safety is mentioned briefly in Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution.)
Alan Dershowitz, clearly not a rightwing gun-nut, stated: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." ("The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence In Religion And Reason", Dan Gifford, Tennessee Law Review Second Amendment Symposium, vol. 62, no. 3, 1995: 759.)
We need to maintain the Second Amendment as the final defense for the rest of the Constitution. Would we offer up armed revolution if the need arises? I am not sure, but I am sure we could not if we abolish the Second Amendment. It would likely take a very egregious series of events to cause ourselves (myself included) to take up arms to resist. Let's pray we never need to exercise our Second Amendment right to its fullest intent.
Before you think I am completely crazy, I am not advocating armed revolution today. Allow me to make a sudden twist. Perhaps we must rely on our First Amendment rights (the pen is mightier than the sword) to combat government abuses. Perhaps the time has come for "we the people" to advance a 28th Amendment to protect all of our rights. Something along the lines of:
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 20 comments |
|
Is there a middle road?
I deeply appreciate some would like to see an end to private gun ownership due to the extensive violent, unlawful use of guns today. I also believe we cannot afford to surrender any right specifically deliniated in the Constitution and its amendments. I am interested in reader comments. by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 7:50:32 PM  (0+)
|
|
Bearing arms
I taught small arms while a part of the military, this included automatic weapons as well as semi-automatic weapons. I have never seen any need to spray the area with small arms fire. Instead any weapon should be a tool, in the case of my weapons, only for defending myself, my family and such other people as may need help. I never thougt I would one day have to think about defending the Constitution from our own government. For that is what I swore my oath as a member of the military to do. Defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. If necessary I will do that because I do not give my word lightly. Nor do I turn my back on those who need help. Even if my health is not what it was when I was active duty, I still can teach and arm others to do the necessary work. I am afraid that it is coming soon to anyone defending the Constitution will be though of as a criminal. A sad day for the nation and for her people. by Robert N Smith (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 153 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:30:08 PM (1+)
|
|
Reply: Same Here
All of us who served swore an oath to ". . . support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." We did not swear an oath so fight for a particular person, regime or administration. I believe our democratic process can preclude ever needing to take up arms against a sitting government. I hope we are never put to the test. With 24 million veterans trained in arms an guerilla warfare I think the government's best interests are to serve "we the people". by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:53:32 PM (1+)
|
|
Thank you, Mike
Just last night my father asked me "why would anyone but the police or military need an AK47 (or generally, an "assault weapon"). My father acknowledges that the 2A protects our right to own guns, but he sees the purpose of it only in terms of hunting and recreation. I attempted to explain to him how many people viewed the purpose and intent of the 2A, which is exactly as you've outlined in your article. Thanks, Mike. I will send your article to my father. by Carl in Chicago (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:40:22 AM (1+)
|
|
Reply: Thank you.
I'm glad the article was what you wanted. I hope your father enjoys it. by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:27:28 AM (0+)
|
|
Guns are toys. They can't defend against a stab in the back
Guns are inadequate and they just serve as a pretext for a police state, just like they do now. Basically, guns are sucker bait for cowards and bullies. by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1762 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 11:47:13 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Missed you, John
I assumed you would probably find this article and comment. Thanks. I must admit I am still confused as to what you mean. by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 12:58:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Second amendment?
But why do you need to rely on the second amendment? Isn't your vote sufficient to protect you from tyranny? In a democracy you get the government you deserve. Have you considered whether or not you deserve the government you have? After all the majority voted for it. You admire rebellion because your country was born as a result of it, but many other countries were birthed without the death and destruction rebellion causes. Canada for instance just signed a resolution of confederation, they didn't beat the he** out of England, they didn't have to. No, I truly believe the second amendment has more to do with the American culture of aggression and brutality than out of necessity. You didn't need to rebel against an old mentally unstable king (who was forced to abdicate because of his mental infirmity), you could have waited him out without bloodshed but you chose the death and destructive way. The same thing in 1812, you needn't have fought against Britain to annex all of North America. You probably would have amalgamated all of the North American continent (at least the northern part) into the greater US if you hadn't been so aggressive. That war turned the Canadians against any potential joining of the north with the south. Speaking of which, the civil war was also not necessary and could have been handled differently if lives were of any value to your culture, but they aren't, and thus we have the situation today. People being killed on every street corner in America in order to protect the Constitution. The Constitution cannot be protected that way. The Constitution is protected by your votes. That's why your votes are so important. Don't you get it? by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1757 comments [112 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:34:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: A matter of perspective
Whether or not the American Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, or World War II for that matter, were unavoidable is a matter of perspective of the people at that time. Could we have waited out King George? Maybe. Could we have ignored British aggression and avoided the War of 1812? Maybe. Could the Union have conceded the issues of "Southern Rights" and avoided the Civil War? Maybe. Could we have avoided the agression of Germany in Eurpope and the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor? Maybe. Could the U.S. have ignored Saddam Husein's defiance of the United Nation's orders to abandon arms escalation? Probably. Can American's ignore the Patriot Act, and other legislation, and the development of a Police State? We are. But about 217 years ago in 1791 we decided to enact a Bill of Rights with a Second Amendment that specifically allowed the private citizen to arm as a precaution for armed revolution should the need arise. Are Americans more violent than most? Pretty much undeniable. Nevertheless, I would hold that an armed citizenry is less likely to become the slaves of those who would choose to impose their will using arms. by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 6:12:54 PM (1+)
|
|
Reply: Forgot to mention
"The Constitution is protected by your votes. That's why your votes are so important. Don't you get it?" Did you read the short second page of the article? An idea for a new amendment to serve as a voting check against inane laws? by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:23:34 AM (1+)
|
|
Yesterday
I arrived late to the SAXET gun show in San Antone. By ten oclock the parking lot was full. When I got inside there were hundreds maybe over a thousand people filling the aisles. I have never seen it so packed as it was yesterday. Today at the flea market we were talking about the govmint and such and a man said he just got back from Alabama, he said there was not a rifle or shotgun left in any Wal-mart in Alabama and ammunition was all gone from the shelves. Something is going on big time. I think people are waking up to the tyranical police state we live in. Some fear an Obama win will mean a gun-grab. Others feel a McCain win will mean more abuses by law enforcement. A few realize dubya can cancel the election and implement martial law at any time at his monkey-like whim. One signature is all it takes. Since 911 we have been under continuity of government. The chimp is dictator supreme. Wake up people,its very late in the game. Be ready not to defend democracy, but to bring democracy to this country, some say we never had it and it appears that is the case. by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 5:24:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: My God!
I pray that you are wrong! We do not need armed revolution or civil war at this point. We can still exert our will by democraic force through voting. Time is still on our side. by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 6:25:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: A Little Purposefully Over The Top
Sorry about the shock and awe. I believe "we the people" will untimately use our democratic process to solve our internal disputes. Nevertheless we still must maintain vigilence of all of our constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment. Thanks for the "heads-up", John. by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:16:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: My God!
I pray that you are wrong! We do not need armed revolution or civil war at this point. We can still exert our will by democraic force through voting. Time is still on our side. by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 6:42:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The prostitute press selects the candidates
and brain-washes the weak. The voting is rigged and the primary process is a farce. You are living in a dream world. Nobody wants violence,but we have been negligent. Jefferson wrote that we need a revolution every twenty years. We have skipped about 10 or so which has enabled the enemies of freedom to spread their filthy tentacles into every facet of our lives. We are looted and enslaved by a corporate machine posing as an elected government. We MUST hope for peace but be prepared for any eventuality. Will You go quietly into the night ? The recent Minneapolis gestapo type raids and imprisonment of protest planners should shake You right out of Your boots. Wake up man. The only thing that will stop total enslavement of this nation is for every able bodied man be prepared to defend his home,his town and his birthright. We need minutemen ready to defeat any enemy,foreign or domestic. The CONSTITUTION demands it. You can be a Ghandi,and I can respect that,but You will be decades effecting any change. I prefer to be a Gideon, when the call is given I will respond. And may GOD help us all. by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 8:33:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I am Neo.
I chose the red pill. I have learned the Matrix is a dream. by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 7, 2008 at 9:41:12 PM (0+)
|
|
guns
I've said several times that I don't want to live in a country where the only people with guns are the ones in government uniforms.... Three things I never leave home without: my lipstick, my checkbook, and my loaded revolver. by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:09:14 AM (1+)
|
|
Hey, Stu -- why do you carry a gun?
When friends or acquaintances find out that I regularly carry a gun, that's the question I often hear. My usual reply is, "Because a cop won't fit in my holster." There is such a huge amount of disinformation out there, either on-purpose, provided by the gun ban crowd, or out of ignorance, that this article is a welcome sight! I would only add that the definition of "militia" was quite different when 2A was written. After all, it's a bit silly to think that we need an amendment to say that the ARMY can be ARMED!!! But the idea was that we wouldn't NEED an army. Our "minutemen" were volunteers; farmers, shop keepers and businessmen who owned firearms and reported for duty with them when called. Originally, it was even thought that our country might not NEED a standing army at all! (Having an armed population makes a country a tough nut to crack for invaders! The example of Switzerland stands out, although it comes with mandatory service in the "official" militia. Even in today's world, though, a good many people get their food from the fields. In the urban jungle, where I live, crime is a daily fact of life. That doesn't make guns LESS necessary! All the cops in the world can't be everywhere at once, and they almost always show-up AFTER the crime. One's safety is their OWN responsibility. Now, like most cops, I sincerely hope that I'll never need any of my guns for anything other than punching holes in paper or busting a few clay birds for fun. Maybe knocking-down a few bowling pins. But to be unprepared for the reality that is today's drug-infested, gang-infested, high-unemployment, desperate world is the epitome of insane. In the face of an armed criminal, I prefer a gun in my hand to a cell phone. I'd rather be alive to explain myself in court than dead. That is the bottom line. Again, thank you for providing more clarity on this topic! by Stuart Chisholm (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:26:30 AM (1+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks
I have had a concealed carry permit in the past when I felt I needed one. Technically California permits unloaded "open carry" but unless you are hunting in the boonies I would not advise trying to do it. You will be stopped by every police officer within eyesight. by Mike Kimball (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:28:37 AM (1+)
|
|
2nd Amendment or Police State, indeed!
In 17th century England, Kings punished their opponents by disarming them, thereby inviting criminals to have their way with them. Without the right to keep and bear arms, local mayors whose police chiefs serve at their pleasure could simply and quietly let criminals know that they can prey on the disliked opponents with impunity. Don't you believe it could happen? It already has happened. They typical scenario is that in flush times the mayor uses unusually high revenue to buy himself votes and to reward financial supporters with fat contracts. Unwilling to scale back the graft in tough times, he tells the voters that they'd better agree to higher taxes or he'll starve the police department -- leaving voters unprotected from criminals. Without the ability to protect ourselves from crime we have no way to stand up to such blackmail. Or, consider the response of cops to complaints of police brutality. Whether or not these complaints are justified -- especially, if cops sympathize with the brother in blue who shot too quickly -- the typical response is "de-policing." Cops stop using their initiative in the complaining neighborhoods, and limit their activities to following specific orders and answering recorded calls for service. Murder and gangsterism rises, but no one can prove that any specific cop neglected his duty. The police are a standing army. It is nice to have them do our dirty work for us, but it is far from nice to be at their mercy -- our sole source of protection. Any firearm that is necessary for law enforcement is necessary for private citizens to be able to own. by Frank Silbermann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:57:01 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
