A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. WHY? So the people can have a militia. Why? So they defend themselves from tyrannical governments.
In many areas of the law and government there is a check and balance system. We have three parts to the government, legislative, executive and judicial. There are Defense attorneys to keep overzealous, cops, detectives and DA's in check. But in the most crucial area, preservation of our rights and freedoms from a tyrannical government, there is none but the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is a guarantee that there will be a means for the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical form of government.
Some argue that the "militia" refers to the National Guard or the Armed Forces in general. In all the renditions before it was finalized the militia was made up simply of the people.
The Militia at that time, was made up of people brought together for the common defense and enemies domestic or foreign. They were obligated to train regularly and supply their own gun powder, muskets and musket balls. And they were prepared to oust the government if it was not serving the people well.
Today who would hold the line against a tyrannical government?
I believe that current state of affairs suggest no one.
A 9mm pistol or even a semi-auto "assault rifle", a one trigger pull-one round gun, would be useless against an F-18 carrier based fighter bomber unless you were a very good shot.
We are operating under the presumption that there will never be a tyrannical form of government here.
And if that is the case the second amendment is moot.
During the American Revolution, we had the ability to fight back against a tyrannical government because the playing field was level, soldiers, horses, muskets, bayonets, cannons, that was pretty much it.
When the Second Amendment was crafted they didn't specifiy the "arms" referred to.
By extension, since their intent was to ensure a fail safe against tyrannical governments, they would have certainly presumed that the people would have weaponry capable of successfully removing the threat.
Would a guerrilla war of attrition fought only with small arms be successful?
I don't think Americans would have the stomach for that.
So unless the US Armed Forces, at least in part, aligned themselves with the people and refused to follow orders to attack us, there would be no effective resistance.
This inherent weakness on the part of the people makes enslavement more of a possibility. A good offense is the best defense.
Therefore, the proponents of the Second Amendment are missing the mark.
A true bolstering of the intent of the Second Amendment defense would include the means to guarantee that the people can effectively defend themselves, and the Constitution from the slippery slope to enslavement feared by our founders.
To do this we would need adequate weapons, training and leadership, in other words a militia. Barring that we would have to hope and pray that the officers in the military would keep their oath to defend the Constitution and not order, or follow any order that tramples the Constitution.
The enlisted soldiers take a different oath, it emphasizes obeying the orders of their officers. They too can refuse to obey an "unlawful" order. But the checks and balances are much less effective when dealing with an easily intimidated young soldier just out of basic training, terrorized at the sight of an officer.
Getting the Nuremburg answer of, just following orders, IS ingrained in them.
During the pre Revolutionary War period the Kings Army would enter your house uninvited and check to see if you had a stamp with the King's likeness on every paper, book and document in your home. If not then you had your house ransacked and property removed.
The Constitution include protections against that type of activity.
However, just look at the events immediately following Hurricane Katrina and you see that heavily armed military forced their way into homes across the ethnic and income spectrum, arrested the occupants, and stole their guns leaving them defenseless against the mobs and looters.
This no different from the King's army!
If the order is given to kick in your door, take you guns, arrest you or whatever else is felt to be expedient by the authorities, it will be carried out by the junior enlisted. UNLESS they are told to STAND DOWN by their officers.
Is that the fail safe you want to rely on. Not me. So I go back to my earlier premise. If we are to be able to defend against the tyrannical whims of a government gone amuck, we will need to do it ourselves.
As states in the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Go To > III Percenters and Oath Keepers Video
Confiscating guns in New Orleans-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wfp7qBAgGM&NR=1
