This response to a second selection of the supreme court case in the title is related more closely to a main argument front of mine.
"...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. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right"
First, clearly I would like to agree with some part in the quoted text above and emphasize that guns have no power in fighting the machinery of a modern (and it doesn't even have to be very modern) military. But how does the quoted text and court opinion in general responds to this fact?Based on my current understanding, it seems the court thinks that fact does not change their interpretation because (1) a "militia" at that time meant merely people with lawful arms and/or (2) allowing gun ownership is part of the process for building a militia reasonably equipped to fight a modern military.
[(Added 11/17/2013) What I wrote above seems not to be complete regarding the court's position and that would be explained in some post(s) I intend to write probably today]
With regard to "(1)" ,and assuming it is true, it still doesn't apply on or justify the creation of similar militia at our time which, in fact, wont be really similar. It wont be similar because that structure of a militia empowered by the second amendment to carry arms equivalent to those held by armies or militraies at that time creates a militia force very reasonably capable of fighting those forces. In fact even without the second amendment it is not very unreasonable for a mass of people to fight those one bullet firearms at that time with swords ,knives or even tree branches. It is not even close to fighting fighter jets or tanks with your gun. In fact even with modern firearms against disarmed nations, standing of dictatorships depends on the machinery of their military not the power of these firearms which a revolting mass seeking freedom may not even count them as a real impediment despite being disarmed. In other words, even if a militia at that time meant what the court says it meant that still wouldn't imply disregarding its relative power because it would still have created a militia with a reasonably sufficient power to fight armies and militaries of that time. So how can that be used as a justification for creating a militia this far from sufficient power at our current time?
In addition, if having sufficient power by the militia was not of a concern at that time why make this second amendment in the first place? Instead of its current form, the second amendment could have been about allowing the creation of a militia without going through firearms ownership. But no, the second amendment itself did not accept not to balance the power even to the level of giving the militia the right to have firearms and make it in an equal footing with a military or army of that time despite the relative primitiveness of firearms of that time. So how can the current big difference of power between a militia and any modern military not be counted as an argument against militia creation as intended by the second amendment?
With regard to "(1)" ,and assuming it is true, it still doesn't apply on or justify the creation of similar militia at our time which, in fact, wont be really similar. It wont be similar because that structure of a militia empowered by the second amendment to carry arms equivalent to those held by armies or militraies at that time creates a militia force very reasonably capable of fighting those forces. In fact even without the second amendment it is not very unreasonable for a mass of people to fight those one bullet firearms at that time with swords ,knives or even tree branches. It is not even close to fighting fighter jets or tanks with your gun. In fact even with modern firearms against disarmed nations, standing of dictatorships depends on the machinery of their military not the power of these firearms which a revolting mass seeking freedom may not even count them as a real impediment despite being disarmed. In other words, even if a militia at that time meant what the court says it meant that still wouldn't imply disregarding its relative power because it would still have created a militia with a reasonably sufficient power to fight armies and militaries of that time. So how can that be used as a justification for creating a militia this far from sufficient power at our current time?
In addition, if having sufficient power by the militia was not of a concern at that time why make this second amendment in the first place? Instead of its current form, the second amendment could have been about allowing the creation of a militia without going through firearms ownership. But no, the second amendment itself did not accept not to balance the power even to the level of giving the militia the right to have firearms and make it in an equal footing with a military or army of that time despite the relative primitiveness of firearms of that time. So how can the current big difference of power between a militia and any modern military not be counted as an argument against militia creation as intended by the second amendment?
With regard to "(2)" in allowing gun ownership because it is part of the process of building a militia that somehow someday will have sufficient power in comparison with a modern military, it is like the action of a regular person who think it is acceptable to put car seats in an area designated for a car parking only because it is part of a car building process he somehow someday will figure how to do.
That objection is also empowered by the "necessary" word in the second amendment which imply readiness. The "necessary" word as used by the second amendment also imply sufficiency. It would not make much sense for someone to tell a stranger that shows are the necessary thing for him to travel the distance to Mexico City. Such a statement would probably be immediately corrected by a third person saying: No a car or plane ticket is what you need to travel that distance.
That last example may lead us to answer both "(1)" and "(2)" above by just paying more attention to what the second amendment says. The second amendment used the description of "being necessary for the security of a free state" as the reason or justification for what it allowed as rights. Unlike the travel to Mexico City example above were wearing shoes is still necessary to do the main requirement of driving a car or riding a plane to the destination, there is no half way or implied way for a militia to satisfy the condition of "being necessary for the security of a free state".It either has a reasonably sufficient power to face armies and militaries of its time and therefore may be seen as satisfying that necessary condition or it does not and therefore it doesn't satisfy that necessary condition. The mere existence of what can create the kind of militia suggested by the court without knowing how it would have reasonably sufficient power to fight the machinery of a modern military does not satisfy that necessary condition in the second amendment of "being necessary for the security of a free state" because such militia has no reasonable path to have sufficient power for that purpose.
That last example may lead us to answer both "(1)" and "(2)" above by just paying more attention to what the second amendment says. The second amendment used the description of "being necessary for the security of a free state" as the reason or justification for what it allowed as rights. Unlike the travel to Mexico City example above were wearing shoes is still necessary to do the main requirement of driving a car or riding a plane to the destination, there is no half way or implied way for a militia to satisfy the condition of "being necessary for the security of a free state".It either has a reasonably sufficient power to face armies and militaries of its time and therefore may be seen as satisfying that necessary condition or it does not and therefore it doesn't satisfy that necessary condition. The mere existence of what can create the kind of militia suggested by the court without knowing how it would have reasonably sufficient power to fight the machinery of a modern military does not satisfy that necessary condition in the second amendment of "being necessary for the security of a free state" because such militia has no reasonable path to have sufficient power for that purpose.
Add to the arguments related to the sufficiency and readiness above the existence of the justification mentioned at the beginning of the second amendment. That justification suggests a compromised decision through which those who made the amendment gave something (accepting the risk of firearms on civilian life) and took in exchange of that the making of a militia reasonably equipped to fight armies or militaries of that time. So it is not a case of something is better than nothing and it is very important what is being gained in exchange for the price being paid. The current compromise creates a militia that reasonably does not have the sufficient power to stand to the machinery of any modern military while at the same time accepts paying much higher price than that at the second amendment time because of the much bigger danger of modern firearms on civilian life.
No comments:
Post a Comment