In the comments to "Shootin' Mad", Isaac asks:
Isn't the amendment not only intended to afford us the right to protect ourselves from one another, but also the right to protect ourselves from the tyranny of our own government?
While usually I would reply in the comments, this is a long enough response to merit it's own post. The problem is that the government cannot perform it's legitimate duties (prevention/rectification of force, fraud, and the threat thereof) if every citizen/group of citizens has enough firepower to protect themselves from the tyranny of government.
Every minor infraction requiring state intervention, including legitimate ones, would have a high risk factor for the enforcing body. To be effective, the government would have to increase the power behind it's force. As the firepower of the government increases to be able to fight crime, the firepower of the people to "prevent tyranny" would have to concurrently increase. Essentially the government would be unable to do it's job as long as civilians always had enough firepower to match it.
This is the fundamental idea that Hobbes tackles in Leviathan. In order for government to perform it's duties, it needs to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. However, once you give that right up to the government, it will inevitably and consistently increase it's scope and power as no non-government entity would have the ability to prevent it from doing so.
The founders were aware of this, and in order to help prevent against "the Leviathan" they instituted checks and balances. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the voice of the Constitution, and therefore the people, and stop the more egregious abuses by the Federal Government. However the Court itself has no real power to enforce its decisions. Without a police force or army at its command, all of its rulings are merely suggestions at the mercy of the Executive branch's will to enforce them.
Lets say elect a President who, due to some terrible tragedy, declares a state of martial law. A group of citizens sues, and the Supreme Court determines the martial law is unconstitutional and should be ended immediately. If the Executive were to ignore the order, the Judicial branch would be unable to enforce it. The US Marshals, the enforcement branch of the Judicial System, would be inadequate to prevent the military takeover by the Executive branch, a responsibility which would fall on the citizens.
While this is far fetched and theoretical, it serves to illustrate the catch-22 of the Second Amendment. If civilians have the firepower to defend themselves from the tyranny of government, the government has to engage in an arms race with it's own citizens to complete its legitimate task of protecting them. If civilians are restricted in the ownership of weapons, the government has an easier chore in enforcement, but there is no real way to prevent egregious abuses of power. I don't know what the answer or solution to this is. While I hope the day never comes when I have to figure it out.
1 comments:
Post a Comment