The right to bear arms.

[elipson]

I'm starting this thread more out of curiousity than to prove a point or push one side or the other.

Where exactly did this right come from? Yes yes its in the second amendment or whatever, but why was it put in there in the first place? Does this right still bear relevance today (ie: are you still worried about britain invading?)

Serious debate encouraged.

[JonK]

I'm starting this thread more out of curiousity than to prove a point or push one side or the other.

Where exactly did this right come from? Yes yes its in the second amendment or whatever, but why was it put in there in the first place? Does this right still bear relevance today (ie: are you still worried about britain invading?)

Serious debate encouraged.

More than you probably wanted to know.

[elipson]

Actually I was kinda going for what ppl on the forum thought. But thanks for the article, im sure ill read it someday :P

[Southpaw]

The right to bear arms was not conceived to protect us from Britain, but to protect us from our own government (which at the time happened to be Britain).

The idea is simple: people who cannot protect themselves are destined to be exploited.

[elipson]

Shouldn't the government itself fufill that role? Hobbes Leviathan?

[Southpaw]

Sure...but there needs to be checks and balances.

Also...the government itself might be the exploiter.

[JonK]

Shouldn't the government itself fufill that role? Hobbes Leviathan?

The idea was that, if you let the government have a monopoly on the use of force, the government will naturally become tyrannical.

Leviathan wasn't much of an influence for the founders.

edit: to be more precise, it wasn't much of an influence for some of the founders. There was a great volume of heated debates between folks who favored a strong central government and folks who favored a weak central government and greater state power. By and large, those who favored the central government won, especially in hindsight, but the bill of rights remains as a check upon the gov't.

[elipson]

Woa wasnt democracy itself designed to prevent this? A governement for the ppl by the ppl?

And the seond part of my question, is this still relevant today? Do you really feel that your 9mm is gonna stop the government from exploiting you? I'm all for checks and balances, but we already have many many of those in plaes, maybe the most important being a free(ish) media and democratic institutions.

[JonK]

Woa wasnt democracy itself designed to prevent this? A governement for the ppl by the ppl?

Imagine the following scenario, first without a gun:
Teh GUBMENT: I'm going to abridge your freedom of assembly.
You: Nuh uh.
GUBMENT: What're you going to do about it?
You: Petition my congressman to do something about it.
GUBMENT: He's the one who sponsored the bill. Also, we're getting rid of representative democracy. Now what are you going to do about it?
You: ...
You: You're mean.

Now, this time pretend you're packing.

GUBMENT: What're you going to do about it?
You: BANG! BANG BANG BANG! BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG!
GUBMENT: A touch, I do confess it.

And the seond part of my question, is this still relevant today? Do you really feel that your 9mm is gonna stop the government from exploiting you?

I'm not a gun owner, so I can't speak to that.

I'm all for checks and balances, but we already have many many of those in plaes, maybe the most important being a free(ish) media and democratic institutions.

The right to bear arms was considered equally important to speech/press/assembly/jury trial/everything else. That's why it was in there.

Not all of the Amendments retain as much importance now as they did in the 18th century. Hi, Third Amendment, anyone? Whether the Second Amendment is of equal importance now as it was then, I leave to the hippies and the gun nuts to fight out :)

[DubhGhaill]

The right to bear arms is a derivative of the right to self defense. If you have a right to self defense, you shouldn't be limited to using only ineffectual methods.