When approaching the next election, many Americans will make their decisions based in part upon which candidates will more soundly defend their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
Opponents try to argue away the notion that an armed population is desirable or necessary in the modern age. An academic in the 1990s tried to argue that there was actually no tradition whatsoever of Americans or English adhering to such a belief. Attacks on gun ownership are attacks on freedom. If the Second Amendment can be subverted the rest can be as well. Additionally the Second Amendment guarantees that citizens can protect their own rights when it comes down to it. It is a check in the hands of the people on the power of the government. This was why Thomas Jefferson liked this amendment more than any other.
The Second Amendment did not just arise from nowhere. In 1181 Henry II legalized English traditions in the Assize of Arms. From the time of the early Middle Ages, English citizens maintained personal arms and served in a militia known as a fyrd. The king could call upon these men in times of severe danger. Henry II was an autocrat without a doubt, but did not interfere much in the liberties of his people. The Assize of Arms did not simply encourage, but demanded that men arm themselves. Few other kings have seen an armed population as anything but a threat, but Henry II and his successors had faith in the English people. Many of them also paid close attention to the issues and problems of their kingdom. Almost no European rulers at that time held so much concern. It could definitely be argued that the armed condition of the population encouraged the king to look more closely at the needs of the people.
The emergence of a tyrant in the 1600s, Charles I, convinced the people of England that they needed to be armed to fight their own government when necessary. Charles I proved that even a British king can overstep his bounds. When he did so, the people needed to bring their government back in line. American colonists in the 1700s combined this idea with the fact that frontiersmen needed to be armed in case of Indian or French attack.
Second Amendment rights go beyond the need for property protection or national defense. The right to keep and bear arms reflects the relationship between the government and the governed. A government that promotes liberty and property rights need not fear an armed population. When the government decides that natural rights must be systematically violated and that arms must be taken away, it is saying that it fears the people and their freedom of action. The taking away of arms almost always precedes a dictatorship that abuses the people.
The Founding Fathers emphasized the right of a population to remain armed because it reminds the government of where sovereignty actually lies.
No comments:
Post a Comment