What the Right To Keep And Bear Arms Means to Me

[BGutzman]

First off this is not an all-inclusive summary of what I believe the right to mean, this is a single incident that has stuck with me to this day...

Hurricane Mitch occurred in 1998. I was one of a hand selected crew of military people who was sent to provide humanitarian support. I volunteered not knowing what the nightmare would be.

To keep what happened short I am skipping much (weeks) but let’s leave it at saying this before I get to the heart of the matter and how I think it applies to the Second Amendment. At that time (1998) we were told the country only had one main road into the capital of Tegucigalpa that ran through the mountains. The country is very mountainous and many honest and poor people lived on mountains and steep ridges in houses built of mud brick or stone and topped with various coverings including wood. The wood unfortunately came from trees that held much of the ground in place and when the rains came the houses collapsed down the hills and mountains and whole families died from crush injuries and drowning. One did not have to look hard to see many horrible sights. I have pictures of where towns once stood that were leveled flat to the point of not even remains of buildings were left. I listened to a crew chief who sobbed all night about a town they couldn’t rescue because the power lines prevented them from lowering the equipment to raise people... The following day when they returned the whole town was gone, every single person. So this is the overall feel and the desperation of the time...

My crew was producing water for the main hospital in Tegucigalpa. We were in in the open center of this more or less open square complex. One morning as I came on shift a woman was standing crying at the mortuary door roughly 50 yards off our work site... She beat and pounded on the door of the mortuary from morning and through the day all the way until the evening was coming on and time for our 12 hour shift change. Needless to say during the day I asked some of my soldiers who grew up speaking Spanish what she was saying and if they knew what had happened as her words were too rapid and distressed for me to make out very well... I really wanted to provide her with some sort of compassion or understanding as she stood there all day alone and obviously in need of human help.

What came out was her son her only son who was only either 6 or 7 (I no longer remember for sure) was hit by a car and no one; no one at all would help her. Apparently the police didn’t even bother to write it up, he was apparently run over just for being in the street. What factually happened I don’t know and I wasn’t there and I didn’t see but this was much of her motherly screams.

How this applies to the 2nd Amendment: We take for granted that no matter how corrupt our system of government that we can expect a certain level of crimes to get investigated no matter what... In our nation I think that’s generally true... The 2A is a right inherent in all people as a natural right. Who’s to say at some future point no matter how far in the future our nation could not suffer some problem that results in a basic break down of services or community... It remains a unlikely possibility... but possible...

If the woman had been armed who knows she may have been able to stop the car from running over her son or at least the local officials would have had to contemplate that her complaints weren’t ultimately powerless and maybe they would have done something about investigate this horrible incident.. As much as people like to complain about crimes where people use guns there are some places in time in life were I can see that the 2A stands as the last bastion against tyranny and just plain ultimate wrongs....

In the end I don’t know what finally happened to that poor woman all I know is to this day I wished I could have helped her. I wish I could have given her a voice to her community.

Ultimately the 2A means you have the right to make your ultimate protest and your ultimate defense... To lack arms very much can and does mean you are at the mercy of others who all too often have no mercy even for the most helpless. I am in no way promoting violence what I am promoting in times of desperation; to not have arms or the right to bear them or the financial ability to bear them means you have no voice... You cant just wait for an emergency and then run down to the gun store and expect to have whatever. Even the poorest among us citizens needs to understand the potental price of being unarmed.

Its not just that arms stops bad guys, it that arms say I will not be ignored and it demands that wrongs have a legal and just way that is followed to resolve terrible situations.

I hope I have explained myself well... I think this poor woman had no voice and the 2A is a voice, it requires responsibility and reasoning but it is a voice. It is the reason why the right must exist and what it means to you and me.

I think the right itself is a voice, a kind of freedom of speech in its own way... what do you thiink?

 

[kilimanjaro]

It means the same thing to me. It means the government we choose to govern us for the greater good had better be honest, dutiful, fair, and free of graft, corruption, and criminal activity, because we possess the means and the power to force change when it becomes necessary.

 

[BlueTrain]

It means something altogether different to me. But it would be very politically incorrect to express any such ideas here.

 

[BGutzman]

I understand BlueTrain... many frustrations in our times.

 

[BlueTrain]

Someone sent me a private message wondering just what I did mean. I think more along the lines of what it doesn't mean.

It does not mean you have the right to violently overthrow the government. I think it's quite the opposite. Does it mean you should have the right to carry a concealed weapon? I don't know. As far as I'm concerned, it makes no difference to me. As I have read over posts in this forum over the years I can't help but get the impression there are rebels in our midst. In union there is strength. I'm not a rebel. As I said, I'm a conservative.

 

[Skadoosh]

It does not mean you have the right to violently overthrow the government.

Really? Please explain what it does mean. Or more specifically, why it doesnt mean this.

 

[BGutzman]

I don’t want this to skew off into the wild blue yonder... It is fact that our nation would not exist without rebellion and arms and at least the history I have learned seemed to indicate the founders wanted people to be weary and watchful of government.

That said, what I have written for my part is aimed at highlighting that arms and the bearing of arms in a responsible and thoughtful manner requires our communities to understand that we are seeking the lawful resolution of grievances and that we cannot simply be ignored as insignificant. In our current times it seems we have many legal ways to redress issues but the core of the right remains valid as a human right.

As a parent I felt this stranger’s pain and yet experience as a soldier told me that if I injected myself it would be outside the bounds of what I was there to do even though I really wanted to offer her compassion and the hope that she could find legal justice for her loss. It was not my place and to do so would have affected the mission that was providing drinking water and water being used in surgery..

Overall our nation and our freedoms exist because of our sense of community and a common belief in fairness and justice... This poor mother apparently had no recourse and was powerless because there was no community to support her as things were in chaos and she had no power to affect what had happened in anyway. Ultimately what power do you have in the middle of chaos if no one in your local community will help you find justice and you have no arms... I know I’m walking a fine line here because for the arms to bring power they have to be usable, but I think the founding fathers would have and did find that agreeable only when there were no other recourses or there was no other way to right the wrong in in just or legal way. You had to be able to be represented in your state and community, it was not optional.

Our requirement is to always be loyal citizens but to be weary of injustice and as citizens to remind our community we were founded to never be powerless citizens... it is a right that is natural and must exist regardless of nations... when the right is not accessible or available there is no guarntee of justice, equality or freedom. We are very blessed..

 

[BlueTrain]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that the creators of the new government, when writing the constitution, would include a provision for the violent overthrow of a duly elected government. In fact, one of the acts of the Washinton administration was to put down a rebellion with the use of the militia. Just ponder that for a while.

To say our nation would not exist without rebellion and arms is false. You never know! Canada exists and came to be an independent country without benefit of rebellion. Naturally, feelings are quite different there. That's where the loyalist went after the revolution.

We came close to no longer being a nation because of a rebellion, too, you may remember.

 

[BGutzman]

The creators certainly seemed to think the right was necessary to the establishment of freedom and its continued existence... As I understand it, the 2A was the only right in the Bill of Rights that was virtually unchallenged and passed without much discussion... It was apparently widely accepted..

And you are certainly right about the Whisky Rebellion; it was put down by old George W himself, it’s doubly interesting that after the Rebellion George Washington became the major Whisky Distributor of the states.

I suspect that part of the problem and the reason in part George W fought for this was the Government had to have funds in order for the government to perform its essential duty. That duty was provide for the common defense; off the cuff I think it was we needed a better navy at the time.

Certainly countries did come into being without war but from an economic standpoint England wasn’t going to let its most profitable colony slip away. The one thing the original colonies could provide England with in a abundant manner was wood for ships of the line as it seems England had cleared off almost all of its trees and forest over time... Certainly there were expense in providing the colonies protection but I am willing to suggest that the King was also worried that there would be a future possibility the colonies might join with France or Spain..

It would be interesting to know if anyone knows how many nations had separated peacefully prior to our revolutionary war or it peaceful separation was a late invention... I dont know...I suspect it might have been somewhat of a surprise to the king to see just how fast the colonies did run to France.

As always BlueTrain you bring out new ideas and challenges... Very enjoyable.

 

[BlueTrain]

It is an interesting issue and there are many sides to the story. One interesting thing is that my wife's great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather (give or take one or two greats) wrote that amendment and here I am stuck with. His name was George Mason. However, Paris Hilton is also a direct descendent of George Mason also, so I guess it isn't all that great.

Remember two things here, plus one or two more. First of all, the constitution was the second attempt at making things work. They finally decided the confederation thing wasn't a practical solution to a national government. And second, remember that all of those folks were products of the age of reason. And you may already know, reason alone isn't going to be enough to come up with a workable and practical solution. It was something of an experiment and, in a way, it is ongoing. They never believed they had all the answers to all questions for all time.

While it was a revolution and is referred to that way (except perhaps in Great Britain), it was more of a colonial war than a revolution. We may like to think that it was a rebellion against kings and divine rights but that sort of revolution had already occurred, and in Great Britain no less. As it was, foreign colonies were just getting started around the world, although the Americans had pretty much been spoke for by then. And again except for Canada, all of Latin America would follow within the next few decades and it was violent.

 

[Bud Helms]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that the creators of the new government, when writing the constitution, would include a provision for the violent overthrow of a duly elected government. In fact, one of the acts of the Washinton administration was to put down a rebellion with the use of the militia. Just ponder that for a while.

Not so hard to believe. They did consider a government out of control and no longer responsive to the citizenry ... elected or not. Many potentates and kingdoms throughout history were known for their generousity toward the populace. Had King George III been less oppressive a ruler, the American Revolution might not have come about.

The problem is, the Potentate or King defines the generosity.

 

[Skadoosh]

Originally Posted by Blue Train
I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that the creators of the new government, when writing the constitution, would include a provision for the violent overthrow of a duly elected government.

If that was so, then why did Thomas Jefferson say:

"Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Sometime later and matured with age, Jefferson again had this to say about violent uprising of the people:

"Happy for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions."

I do believe that the founding fathers did indeed intentionally and conscientiously provide for the violent overthrow of a malignant government.

 

[Al Norris]

The war that created our nation was a war of Rebellion. No more, no less. We won and called it a revolution (the victor always writes the public record/history) against tyranny.

The 2A was understood to enable acts against tyranny, should our government become extremely oppressive. The best explanation, writing from experience, is:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. "

Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 570 (Kozinski, J., dissenting), certiorari denied by 540 U.S. 1046.

In that context and only in that context.

 

[BlueTrain]

If the people can find justification for violence against the government (the rest of the people), then the government will have no trouble finding justification against the people. The revolution was not a war against a duly elected government; it was a war against another country. By the time of the war, we had grown apart. Revolutions are bad precidents. Remember also that all governments good or bad, democratic or monarchies, exist with the consent of a majority of the people. There are and have been exceptions of course. Some southern states did not work that way.

I must remind you again that all revolutions successful or unsuccessful increase the power of government. For that matter, has any presidential candidate ever run for office promising a less powerful government?

 

[g.willikers]

To me, the Second Amendment means that the founders wanted to clearly deny the federal government from restricting US citizens of the most basic natural right.
The right that every living creature naturally possesses - the right to life and the means to defend that life.
For us small and relatively weak humans, it's the weapons we have invented for ourselves that provide our means of defense.
Anyone who would deprive us of weapons wants to render us helpless and defenseless.

 

[animal]

has any presidential candidate ever run for office promising a less powerful government?

Thomas Jefferson was the first, others over history, comparatively rare, sadly. His supporters even nicknamed the victory "the revolution of 1800".
His campaign had a heavy focus on reducing the power of government with respect to it’s people.
Increasing/decreasing the power of the government with respect to other nations is an entirely different question.

Remember also that all governments good or bad, democratic or monarchies, exist with the consent of a majority of the people.

Only if you consider silence to be acquiescence, and assume that the oppressed have a voice. The 2A ensures that all people at large, have a very loud voice.
All Governments exist by power granted to them by those that already hold power. It is a contract of sorts, whereby the powerful can exercise their wishes using the sum total of power of those who agree with them.
What was unique about our government was that for a brief time, we had leaders that focused on using governmental power to ensure domestic tranquillity without domestic control. To do that, they were willing to blind the government to domestic issues beyond governing action by a principle of equitable exchange. Our inalienable rights are guaranteed by the governments inability to "see" them as meaningful to itself.(Similarly to the way "blind justice" is supposed to operate) . Over the years, our government has been given eyes, just as other governments have, and by violating its founding principles, imo.

A "right to rebellion" is outside of the govt’s ability to consider as right or wrong. The decision of when and if, it is correct to exercise such a right; is a power left solely to the people.
If that, God forbid, should ever happen; the correctness of the act is governed and judged by natural law. The contest would be determined by the aggregate strengths of the contestants, and even a popular uprising would not succeed without unseen inherent weakness in the structure of the government. (The established power structure would have to be less powerful/popular than it appeared on the surface… an unjust government held together only by the threat of force might qualify.)
As stated above, this is a "doomsday provision" left open by the 2A referencing a "a free State" (federal State, not just one in the union) and "right of the people". It is important to note that this also leaves open the right to support the State, and the government’s ability to provide for the organization of the active militia. There are actually many aspects of the 2A, but all involve the right to self determination (self protection as part of that right), and all are "left open" rather than specifically defined or "granted".

and ... All Rights are double-edged swords.

 

[BRE346]

The 2a from a small perch.

To me. it's a fundamental right. I'm glad the framers saw to provide such a guarantee.

I took up arms to protect my person, my family and my friends. To fit the amendment I announce myself as a trained and armed militiaman.

 

[BlueTrain]

I don't remember Jefferson's campaign too well. I do not assume the oppressed have or had a voice. After all, 49% can be oppressed and that's the way it seems to be any more. Some office holders fail to realize or simply ignore that once in office, they are beholden not only to those who voted for them (or paid for them) but to everyone in their jurisdiction. Bush was everyone's president and now Obama is.

 

[animal]

You may be looking for a king, imo.
In my view, the holder of the office is no man’s president except in matters external to the nation, and as the chief executive in charge of enforcing the laws which are written in accordance with Constitutional principles. Outside of that, he is either nothing to me, or someone to oppose if he uses the power of the office to enforce a desired result. My "ideal" notion is that the personal beliefs of the president should be rendered irrelevant by the Constitution. Of course, my "ideal" is extremely uncomfortable for most, since most focus on their personal desire for a result. Very few desire liberty. Many want their particular brand of limited freedom.

With liberty based in equal opposition of inalienable rights, we have no rights to result, all of our rights are to due process. Even our right to life is not an absolute. We have the right to life as a process … to define its value by our actions, and we even have the ability to define its value as negative … and make our execution a just action.
Results are a judgment... reward for correct operation, and failure for incorrect.
To define a result as a right, is an unnatural imposition of power over a people with unalienable rights.
In the context of 2A… There’s no right to protection, only a right to its process, self defense.

 

[BlueTrain]

Well, we agree on another point, I guess. However, that's outside of the scope of the 2nd amendment.

Let us consider for a moment that you are correct and that the people have a natural right to over throw the government, and here I am assuming you mean the federal government and furthermore that you are happy and content with the workings of state and local governments, at least where you reside. But who gets to decide if the government is so bad, oppressive and unjust that it should be overthrown? Do you have a referendum? Do you appoint yourself as speaker of the oppressed and downtrodden? Or what? I realize I am being provocative but that's how you get to what people actually mean when they say something. You know how things are misinterpreted all the time, even here. The devil is in the details. How do you convince others to go along with you?

The first time around, there was a convention that ultimately decided to rebel against colonial rule. It was called congress. There were conventions in other times and in other places for the same purpose of declaring independence. Generally there are elected delegates. That's one way to do it.

There was some sentiment for a king at the beginning, George Washington being the obvious choice. But they had had enough of kings. The chief problem with having a king is that the king's son also becomes king and we'd never think of doing that here, would we?