Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The 2nd Amendment: Missing the Moral Dimension
The Bill of Rights is about matters of conscience and respect for the dignity of persons. Debates about the meaning and purpose of constitutional rights are often distorted by the modern intellectual drift toward defining “freedom” as being allowed to do stuff we feel like doing rather than protecting the necessary liberty to live the lives our respective consciences prescribe.
Freedom seen as a largely arbitrary suspension of state power with respect to personal entertainment preferences reverses the premise of our constitutional order. It also creates a perverted understanding of rights, such that, for example, there is said to be a “right” to healthcare–unless you are unvaccinated, unmasked, a presumed racist, an elderly Canadian, or in some other disfavored category. “Rights” as mere license or legislative largesse is not freedom.
When gun ownership is regarded as a mere hobby, a form of entertainment that government graciously allows us to do, it is pretty easy to see how ephemeral such a “right” would be. The first amendment expressly and broadly protects conscience. The second protects the right to discharge the moral obligation to defend home, family, and community. The third amendment is essentially about property rights that cannot be trumped by alleged government necessity. Four through eight are about personal dignity, and we do not get to purely governmental structural issues until nine and ten, which limitations on national government power only make sense in the context of protecting the rights enumerated in one through eight.
Without a moral context, the Bill of Rights is an odd collection of seemingly disparate statements.
There has long been debate about the significance of the word “militia,” often with the wrong-headed notion that the right to bear arms is conditional on the existence of or participation in a state or local militia. There is no such thing as a conditional right. The Founders’ chief concern was that militias not become an instrument of federal control over the states. They seemed to worry less about retaining the ability to use arms against a tyrannical national government because they probably assumed that the whole project would simply collapse if the constitution failed to prevent tyranny.
We do not spend enough time pointing out that being disarmed in favor of mandatory reliance on government protection is a form of power easily abused. Think of Hugo Chavez’s police force closing off streets and watching as imported Cuban thugs beat the hell out of dissident journalists. Who ya gonna call when you are expressly denied protection?
In 1763, King George III ceded western Pennsylvania and Ohio to native tribes without any provision for those who already had claims and settlements. Ben Franklin condemned the tacit deal in which the British colonial government would not send protection to settlers attacked west of the line so long as the native tribes did not raid east of it.
The withdrawal of government protection like western Pennsylvania in 1763 or Baltimore in 2014 (the “Ferguson effect”), or Seattle, Minneapolis, or Portland (leftist raw stupidity) today combined with disarmament is deadly. Those who hate the idea of citizens using arms to protect themselves should insist that violent criminals be lawfully and promptly removed from society so as to reduce the frequency of self-defense situations rather than fantasize that disarming the law-abiding is any part of the solution.
Like the Bill of Rights, America itself does not make a lot of sense without the requisite moral dimension.
Published in General
An excellent essay. Thank you.
Are you suggesting that disarm-the-citizen and defund-the-police aren’t both and simultaneously worthy goals? Man, I’m going to have to think about that (he says, idly cycling his tactical 12 gauge).
If you watch how termite colonies respond to attacks by ants, the “soldier” termites are pretty innocuous. Their role appears to be to offer themselves up so that the ants don’t keep coming and look to carry off more essential members of the colony. That should be the role for unarmed law enforcement social workers in a disarmed city. Protect the community by taking all those blows and bullets that would otherwise hit citizens.
Excellent post, OB. We have overlooked the moral aspect to our detriment. Any society (look at Nazi Germany) that takes its citizens guns threatens all of us.
I think leftists would approve of that. They just don’t realize how quickly they would run out of unarmed social workers.
The 2d Amendment is the right to fight your government. Not the right to win. Only the law (and G-d’s providence) can give you that. But the right to fight is not something of which government approves.
There is no right to take up arms against the government.
If the government ceases to respect and protect enumerated rights, it ceases to be an actual legitimate government and what you are fighting is a corrupt entity, not the American government.
There is an issue of degree. If government does not fully respect the Fifth Amendment (eg. excessive takings) nor the First Amendment (sneaky alliances with corporations to silence critics and harass religious groups) nor the Fourth Amendment (exceptions for the duty to obtain warrants) nor the Tenth (states made broadly subject to federal agencies via spending grants) at what point do we despair of judicial, legislative or electoral relief and declare the whole project invalidated and fire on whatever is the the IRS equivalent of Fort Sumter? At what stage does the “right” to fight the government with force of arms kick in?
Fair question. I use “government” in the sense of ruler — not attaching degree of corruption or virtue. If virtuous there is no need to fight; if corrupt there is not only a right but a necessity. The issue of degree is spot on. I would say the when the government does not respect human rights and is not limited by equal justice under the law, then the right can be exercised. You may not survive the encounter and your fellow citizens may not support you, but that does not affect your right. History is littered with dead rights holders. Your rights come from G-d and many of those rights holders rest with Him.
I think that you are using “right” when you mean a perceived moral obligation to act. There is no inherent right to shoot anybody or destroy something but there are circumstances that could make it necessary and proper to do so. It is not helpful when some 2A defenders talk as if there is a “right” to insurrection which plays into the hands of the bad guys.
One point on the militia argument. USC 10 S 246 defines what the militia is in the United States. It isn’t the Reserves or the National Guard. The US Militia is defined as:
So, if you are a male between the ages of 17-45 )under 64 if you are a member of the National Guard) then you are a member of the militia. If you are female and in the National Guard, you are a member of the militia.The only caveat is that if you are male and NOT a member of the Nationa Guard or Naval Militia, then you are part of the unorganized militia. Whenever someone tries the argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia, then you can tell them that every male from 17-45 is already in the militia. In fact, to make the militia well-regulated, the gov’t should be providing firearms, ammunition, and training for the militia members so that they know how to use firearms in the defense of the nation. Thus, we should have shooting clubs in high schools, and every locality should probably have an annual muster of militia members to organize them into squads, platoons, and companies.
There is a moral component to protecting yourself. If you fail to do so or fail to take any preparations to protect yourself then you are forcing someone else to protect you. Now, that might be a police officer who has been hired to provide that service, but remember that their job is to assist you AFTER you are the victim of a crime, not before or during. It is each person’s unalienable right to defend their person and property, and it is your moral duty to at least make the attempt.
Well put.
If we get some wealthy donors, let’s start giving a stipend to this Broussard guy. Otherwise, we might lose him, like we did that one science guy, remember him? (And a few others…you all know who!)
You are making me blush