O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Putting a personal interpretation on what they meant and wanted the amendments to cover would be ignoring the rather large amount of writings by the guys who wrote the Constitution in regards to tyranny of government and the fact that one of the major reasons they went to war against the British government was due to what they felt was a tyrannical over bearing government. I won’t even go into the implications of the massive amount of checks and balances our system of government has in its framework or the fact we have the “First 10 Amendments” is because a lot of the people responsible for the Constitution didn’t buy into the argument “we don’t need to spell out what rights are absolutely protected because we don’t ever have to worry about the government trying to infringe upon them.”So, you are saying the insurgents are winning in Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems like they are taking huge losses and the only reason that it isn’t worse for them is the reluctance to risk civilian casualties. If a tyrannical government exists, then I wonder if it would care one way or another on civilian casualties.
It doesn’t state in the actual 2nd amendment that it is there to guard against a tyranny, just that it is necessary to have a well-regulated militia for the security of the state. It may be some’s interpretation that it is to protect against a tyrannical government, but it doesn’t say so, and I generally dislike the insistence of some to use the personal interpretations of some of the Founding Fathers as a guide to what it meant, as, if that’s what it was supposed to mean, they should have just said so.
Personally, I think it is very difficult to put this amendment in a 21st century context because the founding fathers as a whole were very weary of standing armies. When a crisis arouse, a new army was formed and that was generally acceptable. I’m not sure we can really understand how they would interpret the idea of spending almost a trillion dollars a year on a standing army and that army could basically destroy anything it felt like anywhere in the world within minutes of deciding to destroy it. I honestly think they would all be initially horrified at the military we have today until they understood the context to why it exists and I’m not sure they would draw the same conclusions today that they did at the end of the 18th century.
As for the effectiveness of armed civilians against a military powerhouse, note that the Iraqi military ceased to exist (to a large degree literally) less than two months (being generous here) after we invaded Iraq. The insurgency lasted how long? Even after we wised up and started co-oping the insurgents’ support base (i.e. we started to “pay off” Iraqi tribes and armed groups [some of them insurgent groups] to help us fight the insurgents)? How about Afghanistan? We’ve completely neutralized the insurgents there right?