Second Amendment is not license for treason, armed revolt
According to some, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that citizens have enough firepower to overthrow the federal government, should it become necessary to do so. If the government ever loses its fear of such a revolt, the theory goes, our liberty ends and tyranny begins.
Let me be blunt: That is mythological claptrap. But like a lot of mythological claptrap, it can push weak-minded people — the Timothy McVeighs of the world — to do stupid and dangerous things.
It is certainly true that when the Second Amendment was drafted back in the 18th century, it was plausible to believe that an armed citizenry could be a check on overweening government power. Back then, there wasn’t much difference in the weapons available to private citizens and the weapons available to the military. It could have been, and sometimes was, a more or less even fight.
Today, that is no longer the case, and it hasn’t been the case for a century or longer. Around the world, governments have access to a range of weaponry that private citizens have no hope of matching or withstanding. There is simply no comparison between the brute, deadly force that a government can wield and that wielded by private citizens, individually or collectively. Technology has rendered that aspect of the Second Amendment a dead letter.
If you want to rejuvate that aspect of the Second Amendment, you have to be willing to grant private citizens access to fully automatic weapons, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers, etc. And it’s not going to happen.
That’s not just my opinion. It is also the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, as expressed by one of its most conservative members, Justice Antonin Scalia, in the most important Second Amendment opinion the court ever issued.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, issued in 2008, Scalia and the court made it clear for the first time that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” But in that same opinion, Scalia brushed aside claims that the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the means to armed revolution. He concluded that technology has rendered that part of the amendment an archaic artifact, because “a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large” and that “no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”
For that reason, Scalia made it clear that the Second Amendment “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” and that the government is fully within its rights to ban military-style weaponry.
In Iraq, for example, gun ownership is extremely widespread, with many if not most households owning fully automatic weapons that would be banned in this country. Yet Saddam Hussein had little trouble imposing and maintaining a brutal dictatorship in that country for decades. He did not confiscate guns, because he understood that such guns posed no real threat to his tyranny.
And as Joshua Keating notes at ForeignPolicy.com, look at Tunisia and Egypt, where private gun ownership is very low but citizens have nonetheless managed to overthrow brutal military dictatorships. If government now has a massive advantage in terms of brute force, innovations such as Twitter, Facebook, cellphones and satellite TV have more than offset it in the cause of freedom.
Guns don’t overthrow tyranny or guarantee liberty. People do.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,326 comments Add your comment
john luvaro
January 18th, 2013
10:32 am
Locked & Loaded brings up a relevant point re questionable support of military & law enforcement should rogue govt overstep its authority & violate the Constitution. Ex: Civilian gun confiscation. And here-in lies the flaw in the argument of those like Mr. Bookman who point to 21st century disparity in military & civilian weapons. Yes: Such disparity makes “Civilian” rebellion impossible. But will it be just “Civilian”? This is the Elephant in the Whitehouse living room Obama wont acknowledge. Im a former senior military officer / former Pentagon Staff Officer & maintain contact with my former Pentagon associates. There are now well founded rumors that if such a scenario took place, many military commanders & law enforcement directors would not only refuse to comply with Unconstitutional Presidential orders, but actively support armed civilian resistance, thus eliminating any weapons disparity. A grim scenario & something to consider. This is a road Obama dare not go down.
Harrison Roper
January 18th, 2013
10:52 am
Guns don’t die; people die.
Adam
January 18th, 2013
11:05 am
TomB: Now our doctor is going to ask us if we own any guns and how many? Uh, Doc I just wanted you to check my prostate. I know but it’s important that I know if you have any guns in your house.
Actually this makes you the dumb one, because there is no law that requires a doctor to do this in every situation. If you cite the executive action, I have to ask you to read it again. No force of law is being made here, doctors are simply being reminded that they are not PROHIBITED from asking the question if they think it’s important.
Well guess what Adam, guns don’t kill. People do.
Yes, but the gun makes it easier, faster, and requires less thought and effort on the part of the person committing the act.
TomB
January 18th, 2013
11:58 am
Well no Adam that would be wrong. You said this(gun control) was a common sense approach to this problem of murder. When does the government do anything that is common sense? Why would the government have to remind a doctor to ask this question? Common sense? Hasn’t the government come in between people and their doctors enough?
Guns require less thought huh Adam? Easier and faster to kill with a gun? Then explain why the FBI states that blunt instruments are responsible for more murders every year than guns? Not to mention hand, feet, fists and knives. Assault weapons account for the least amount of murders Adam, but they always make the front page of the newspapers. You know what the newspapers neglect to report: That guns save more lives every year in self defense than they account for murders in this country. Get your facts straight, Adam.
Christopher J Hoffman
January 18th, 2013
12:39 pm
The author is cherry picking the Heller Decision to bolster his claims here.
“There is simply no comparison between the brute, deadly force that a government can wield and that wielded by private citizens, individually or collectively. Technology has rendered that aspect of the Second Amendment a dead letter.”
To support that claim, he selectively cites Scalia’s statement in Heller vs DC:
“a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large” and that “no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”
But the author leaves out what was said before and after in the same section:
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most usefulin military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large” and that “no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.”
The author concludes, ‘paraphrasing’ Scalia without brackets:
“. . . and that the government is fully within its rights to ban military-style weaponry.” Which Scalia NEVER said.
If there were any doubt as to the anti-gun ideaology of this author, putting the phrase: ‘military-STYLE weapons’ into the mouth of Antonin Scalia completely betrays his intent.
Scalia actually concludes that section thusly:
“But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and theprotected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
Heller employed the common use test to determine what sort of weapons were protected by the amendment. The most popular rifle owned today by a wide margin, and employed for an array of lawful purposes, is the civilian, semi-auto only, AR15 pattern rifle.
The author’s concludes: “Guns don’t overthrow tyranny or guarantee liberty. People do.”
Not in all of known history has that been an accurate statement.
Adam
January 18th, 2013
1:46 pm
When does the government do anything that is common sense? Why would the government have to remind a doctor to ask this question? Common sense? Hasn’t the government come in between people and their doctors enough?
You are begging the question here. First, you assume the government doesn’t do anything that is common sense, because to you common sense is different than what common sense actually is. The government isn’t coming between doctors to remind them that are are not forbidden by law to do something if they feel it prudent.
Guns require less thought huh Adam? Easier and faster to kill with a gun?
Yes. Much.
Then explain why the FBI states that blunt instruments are responsible for more murders every year than guns?
In fact they haven’t said that. They say that applies only to rifles, a particular type of gun. In fact, blunt instruments used for murder are outnumbered by guns in general, even if you just exclude all except handguns. So it looks like you’re the one that needs to get your facts straight.
Cue the moving of the goal posts over to cars and smoking in 3….2…
Adam
January 18th, 2013
1:49 pm
Christopher J Hoffman: I hpe you got paid well for that post.
But on a more serious note, Jay did not surround the part which you said Scalia never said with quotes, and thereby did not attribute that to him.
The author’s concludes: “Guns don’t overthrow tyranny or guarantee liberty. People do.”
Not in all of known history has that been an accurate statement.
Incorrect. Explain Ghandi and India getting their independence back.
Adam
January 18th, 2013
2:09 pm
By the way TomB, here’s proof of my assertion, in case you thought I was blowing smoke or were going to assert that you were right in doubling down fashion that the right loves so much:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Weapons 2011
Total 12,664
Total firearms: 8,583
Handguns 6,220
Rifles 323
Shotguns 356
Other guns 97
Firearms, type not stated 1,587
Knives or cutting instruments 1,694
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 496
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)1 728
Poison 5
Explosives 12
Fire 75
Narcotics 29
Drowning 15
Strangulation 85
Asphyxiation 89
Other weapons or weapons not stated 853
It takes adding up every single thing OTHER than handguns to come up with a number that is GREATER than handguns. If anything other than a firearm is used to kill, totaled, you have 4,081 murders. Firearms outpace ALL OTHER METHODS COMBINED. Even if you remove all other firearms except handguns, any non-firearm murder (4,081) is STILL outpaced by the handgun number.
If your contention is that the thing that is used to cause the most murders should be banned, I agree. You can keep your rifle, but relinquish your handgun.
I SAID GOOD DAY!
1776
January 18th, 2013
2:41 pm
Wow! There are some world class sheeple out there. Some of you obliviot lemmings will just loooove it at “Camp FEMA”, as you’re already in full “slave” mode/mindset.
TomB
January 18th, 2013
3:05 pm
Adam, I can play this game all day.
So using your common sense logic to this debate, your solution is to take the handguns which if most liberals were honest this would also be their answer….confiscation of handguns. But, I thought you said people kill, Adam so why do you think this would stop the killing? If your contention is if we just stopped people from possessing handguns there would be fewer murders then why is it that the states with the toughest gun control policies also have the highest murder rates? Chicago for one? And, in England after the gun ban, the non gun violence went up. And, you fail to mention in that report that over 60 percent of these handgun deaths are suicides, Adam.
So lets see some 8,000 plus people died in 2011 from the use of firearms. Tragic as that number is lets compare those numbers to other forms of death. Like 120,000 lives lost to traffic accidents so lets just eliminate cars….common sense enough for you Adam? Or 200,000 people die by medical accidents so lets just eliminate doctors? Common sense right Adam? This is your logic right? I mean thousands die every year in swimming pools far more than handguns, Adam, so lets just outlaw swimming pools? Well, Adam we don’t outlaw swimming pools in this country do we? No, we use a little common sense and weigh other things against the good of preventing deaths like the costs of health and fun versus the lifesaving benefits of banning pools.
Funning you never say anything about the benefits of owning handguns for using in self defense. Never a single word about how many crimes are prevented and how many lives are saved each year because someone had a hand gun to protect themselves. Never a word even though this is the major reason the Supreme court ruled in 2008 that you are dead wrong.
Adam
January 18th, 2013
3:29 pm
TomB: If your contention is if we just stopped people from possessing handguns there would be fewer murders then why is it that the states with the toughest gun control policies also have the highest murder rates?
Actually, this is not true either:
Firearms murders per 100,000 population by state (or the murder rate, as you said):
Louisiana 10.16
Mississippi 7.46
South Carolina 5.41
….
Rhode Island 0.57
New Hampshire 0.53
Hawaii 0.07
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
So lets see some 8,000 plus people died in 2011 from the use of firearms. Tragic as that number is lets compare those numbers to other forms of death. Like 120,000 lives lost to traffic accidents so lets just eliminate cars
Can I call them or what? This is a moving of the goalposts, as well as comparing apples to oranges. Besides, if cars are so much more effective at killing people, why can’t you just use THOSE for home defense and hunting? See how your analogy doesn’t make sense yet?
You SURE you can play this game all day? Because so far you have made assertions of fact that have turned out to be wrong at every turn.
For the record, I don’t think we should ban handguns. I think instead we should have requirements of licensing and at least a yearly training requirement to own, keep, and operate firearms of any type. Gun safety and respect for its use as a self defense mechanism rather than a method of murder would go a long way toward changing our culture surrounding guns.
TomB
January 18th, 2013
3:40 pm
For the record, I don’t think we should ban handguns. I think instead we should have requirements of licensing and at least a yearly training requirement to own, keep, and operate firearms of any type. Gun safety and respect for its use as a self defense mechanism rather than a method of murder would go a long way toward changing our culture surrounding guns.
Talk about moving the goalposts? Go back and read your own comments, Adam. Love how you quote the Guardian for crimes in the US? And, for the record, I didn’t move the goalpost at all.. I was simply using your own logic from your earlier comments and showing you how absurd they were.
Jack Porter
January 18th, 2013
5:35 pm
Well well well…. Rather very smart try! I mean that whole heartedly. I severed my country for years and I really don’t think you get it still. The truth is you are right and wrong at the same time. I told my father before I got out of the Army there would be another civil war here in the next 25 years. I think we are close. You must understand military mind to get this. I as a member of the US Army if any government member ever told me to take some ones gun away from them it could easly make that an unlawful order. When it comes to defending myself, family and countrymen, any armed forces person would do the same. Are government KNOWS for a fact if they would ever try to take our guns away they would split the military in half. Half would be with the people. Therefore we do still have the same threat to keep our government in line. DO NOT EVER think we don’t. That is what they want you to believe. thus giving them more power then we as Americans will let them have.
Kcerab
January 18th, 2013
9:49 pm
Some of you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with encroaching on the second amendment. It has all to do with removing weapons of mass human destruction from our civil society. We have come to realize our quest for a more perfect union has flaws, one in which we hope to remedy or at least minimize the impact. We are not going back to the days of the wild-wild west! These weapons were designed with one purpose in mind and that is to indiscriminately and immediately kill massive amount of human life regardless of gender, age, or society status. To hold onto this unwise idiotic notion you need assault weapons with high capacity clips in order to fend off the government is just dumb. The government has a lot more sophisticated weapons to get you if they wanted to. They have drones that can just blow up the house you are trying to protect with your AK47 and 100 bullet clips. The main question, going back to the dumb theory of them coming to take your guns, who are they? Who is the government going to use? Will they use the US military who are your brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, husbands, wives, etc. The military is an extension of our society and would not be so inclined to kill members of their own family. The days of harboring this fear is antiquated, ridiculous, born out of ignorance and just plain stupid!
Adam
January 18th, 2013
11:35 pm
TomB: If you’re a hotheaded trigger happy person or think we should have a civil war, or some other armed revolt, I think you shouldn’t have any guns. Beyond that, assuming you’re a reasonably well adjusted human, you should simply be required to take courses in gun safety and self defense with a gun and without, and learn how to disarm people of their guns in an attack situation. And that you should have to retrain at least once per year but probably more is prudent if you really want to be effective at the use of the gun. I was being satirical and snarky by saying we should ban handguns.
RATIONAL DISCUSSION AND GUNS « DUCKPOND
January 19th, 2013
5:47 am
[...] Second Amendment is not license for treason, armed revolt (blogs.ajc.com) [...]
Cameron
January 19th, 2013
10:40 am
No. Read the Federalist Papers. Overthrowing an oppressive government is EXACTLY the intent and aim of the Second Amendment. Mr. Bookman is trying to coat the leg irons and chains in velvet. This is another wimp attempting to explain away our Freedoms.
Sic semper tyrannis
January 19th, 2013
8:24 pm
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson
No myth my good man, regardless of what say the nine apparatchiks in filthy blacks robes.
Adam
January 20th, 2013
1:32 pm
No. Read the Federalist Papers. Overthrowing an oppressive government is EXACTLY the intent and aim of the Second Amendment.
I find the people that say this the most haven’t actually read the Federalist Papers.
Adam
January 20th, 2013
1:34 pm
Sic temper tyrannis:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/jefferson-quotes.htm
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”-Unproven! This quote was not found in the Jeffersonian Cyclopedia but several websites have attributed this to Jefferson.
Looks like you were duped again, just like when you bought the idea that Romney would win in a landslide.
What is it going to take for you people to stop swallowing the lies?
Online Dating Background Checks
January 20th, 2013
9:00 pm
I’m also commenting to make you be aware of of the terrific discovery my princess developed studying your webblog. She even learned a lot of things, with the inclusion of how it is like to have a marvelous teaching style to get certain people effortlessly completely grasp a variety of tortuous matters. You really surpassed readers’ expectations. Thank you for offering such necessary, trusted, explanatory not to mention fun thoughts on your topic to Mary.
Adam
January 20th, 2013
11:42 pm
I think your spam filter might not be working, Jay.
Bang, Bang, You’re Dead « THE GROOVY GAZETTE
January 21st, 2013
10:07 am
[...] Jay Bookman Share this:ShareFacebookLinkedInEmailGoogle +1DiggPinterestTumblrRedditStumbleUponPrintTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]
Gary the Gun Nut
January 22nd, 2013
9:14 am
Ma dear fellow Gun Nutters™. I say this ‘hole debate y’all having ‘bout what type arms be ‘lowed under the 2nd ‘mendment is so, well, 18th century that it jus’ boggles ma mind. What I mean by that is, jus’ stop ‘n think ‘bout it fer a goshdarn minute. When the 2nd ‘mendment was written by tha Madison fellow, the People™ had the same type arms ’vailable to ‘em that the guv’mint had. Ya know, yer basic flintlock pistols ‘n muskets ‘n smooth bore cannon, not ta mention yer various hatchets, knives, daggers, swords ‘n the like. Plus everyone was either on foot or mounted (by that, I mean they was riding a horse, not the kind a ‘mounted’ some dirty minded libtards out there might be a thinkin’ ‘bout right now…yeesh!) Anyways, like I was saying, when it came ta arms back then the guv’mint and the People™ was on a more o’ less even footin’, which is why that Hamilton dude almost got his a** whipped and handed ta him on a tea platter by those Whiskey Tax™ rebel type guys! (Only problem was, the rebs was a samplin’ too much a their own product fer their own good ‘n so kinda lost the fightin’ edge rite when they needed it mos’, ‘n as a result had ta take ta da hills. In fact, I think summa their offspring is still a livin’ up there ta this very day.) Anyways, ma ‘hole point here is this: Nowadays the teeranical fedral guv’mint has the most awesomest firepower ‘n ‘vanced weaponry ever seen on the face o’ this here planet, whilst the People™ can’t own no better than sum puny assault rifles ‘n pistols that’s not even s’posed ta be automatic. (And now the friggin’ scaredycat libtards wanna limit the size o’ the ammo clips we can own ta like five bullets per clip! I mean, what’s the point a even having an automatic…er…I mean semiautomatic rifle in the first place if’n ya can’t spray effin’ bullets all over the friggin’ place w’out having ta constantly reload?) So my fellow Gun Nutters™, in order ta put the People™ back on a more even footin’ with the teeranical fedral guv’mint (‘n pos’bly sum state, county, ‘n city guv’mints as well), I say we mus’ deman’ tha our 2nd ‘mendment rights not be ‘fringed upon in any way, shape, or form, ‘n tha means we mus’ have full access ta whatevah type arms the teeranical fedral guv’mint has, including (but not necessarily limited to): All manner and type of handheld weaponry including military grade assault rifles as well as bazookas, RPGs, hand grenades, etc.; heavy machine guns; tanks; armored personnel carriers; military aircraft including bombers, fighters, armed helicopters, and drones; missiles including surface-to-air missiles (don’t ferget ‘bout ‘em drones); all manner and type of warships; and, last but not least, biological, chemical, and tactical nuclear weapons. (But we don’t need no streegic nuclaar weapons here, as we don’t ‘tend go ta war with no ‘hole friggin’ world out there, leas’ not right now anyways, only our own teeranical fedral guv’mint.) And so I say ta all ma fellow Gun Nutter™ friends, I sez, “If’n y’all don’t ‘nsist our 2nd ‘mendment rights not be ‘fringed upon by the teeranical fedral guv’mint in any way, shape, or form, then y’all will have done started down tha dreaded Slippery Slope™ (y’all know, the one our good friends at the NRA always done warn’d us ‘bout), ‘n y’all shoud git ready fer a very, very bumpy ride.” Anyways, I ‘pologize fer the long post here’n, but them’s there ma thoughts which I thought impotent ta share with y’all today. Cheers!
Marco
January 22nd, 2013
10:20 am
Jay, even with today’s laser guided, stealth, remote controlled, super weapons, small arms are still issued to soldiers because somehow people survive the super weapons, and the next fight becomes a very personal one where having a small arm determines an individual’s future. In any case, all this exercising over original intent is pointless. You, Mr. Bookman, have the right to own a firearm today, regardless of the intent of how you got it. The question is would you now want to give up that right, never to have it again? You are a person who should have a gun. I assume you have a stable mind. If presented the opportunity, you would fight for your own life and that of others. You would never mis-use a weapon. So why should you be restricted from having one? To help answer that, if you don’t already own one, buy a gun. Shoot it at the range. Put the ammo in one place. Lock the gun and put it in another place. Then in six months see if you still want to give it up. Maybe you’ll “get it” then. I would never be afraid of you haveing a gun, Mr. Bookman, nor should you of I. But neither of us should have to give up the right because a few people (military, police, and private owners, by the way) mis-use weapons. Let your readers know the outcome, please. Thanks.
dbm
January 22nd, 2013
12:50 pm
Testing.
methamphetamines