“When that constitution was written, people had muskets.”
Jon Stewart (quoted at Reason) thinks that is funny. Which I’m sure it was when he said it, because Jon Stewart is a master of comic delivery.
But a lot of people (especially those who rely on Jon Stewart as their voice of common sense) might miss out on an important piece of context. The idea of the Second Amendment was not merely to acknowledge a preexisting natural right to self defense, but it was to recognize and respect a simple fact about power that all people of all times have had to recognize. As Mao put it,
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Our Constitution was intended to create a number of checks and balances in order to ensure that there be a brake on power. The most obvious form of power lies in brute force, and in weaponry. Granting a state a monopoly on this power is dangerous, and I would submit that anyone who does not agree is a historical ignoramus. The founders wanted to ensure that the state they were creating did not enjoy a monopoly where it came to the keeping and bearing of arms. So, while it is true to say that when that constitution was written, people had muskets, the same was true about the state. True, the state also had cannons, ships, and organized armed forces, but where it came to small arms, the guns that the people had were no different than the guns the state had.
Today, the small arms that the state has consist of machine guns, rifles capable of fully automatic fire, and hand guns. Machine guns and rifles capable of full auto have long been banned to ordinary citizens, so to that extent, the state has the people out-gunned. But now the push is to take away magazines holding more than seven rounds, along with so-called “assault rifles.” The former have been in use for many, many decades, as have the latter, which are not true assault rifles, but which merely look like their full-auto military counterparts.
The Second Amendment was intended as an equalizer — to guarantee that citizens could possess the same types of small arms as the military. Its intent has already been seriously encroached upon, and right now the gun grabbers are hell-bent on making sure that the guns in the hands of citizens will be absolutely no match for those in the hands of their would be rulers.
If Jon Stewart were consistent, he would say that if we want to take certain types of weapons away from citizens, then the police and the military should not have them either. Otherwise, his logic boils down to the ridiculous claim that citizens are limited to 18th century technology, while the government can have the latest.
Think about it. Why should the police and the military be allowed to have better guns than the rest of us?
Comments
10 responses to “If the Second Amendment is limited to muskets, then that applies to the government too!”
Test, this is a test. If this comment registers as SPAM let the feds know so they can tell me.
Don’t forget that commercial ships of that era (late 1700s) were armed with cannons. That came in handy during wars as the government could commission them as privateers.
as i see from reading of this site, the author is a creature of XIX century
“Think about it. Why should the police and the military be allowed to have better guns than the rest of us?”
Good question. Unfortunately very few are asking it.
Oh, and, btw, that line was funny. And I think I took it the way it was meant. JS isn’t on our side, admittedly, but he’s not on theirs, really, either. I think he’s actually approaching ‘free thinker’.
Which, in my case, (yes, I claim to be a free thinker) says: “Both sides suck; can we find some better way?” (Umm, sorry, no – big L libertarianism isn’t the way to go either. Too utopian.)
When the Constitution was written, private individuals not only had muskets, but private individuals owned cannons, and even complete warships.
Come to think of it, it really sounds unfair that ordinary citizens can only carry certain pre-approved guns especially since the Second amendment is supposed to allow anyone the right to carry firearms. But I guess since after all the unfortunate events that happened, the government may think that this is the way to handle it.
Many argue that the founding fathers could not have envisioned an AR-15, thus implying that they would have rejected such weaponry in civilian hands. But I take that same argument and say that the founding fathers could never have envisioned the likes of an Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin who, between the two of them, murdered millions of their own citizens. And this happened in recent history, giving us a valid reason to believe it could happen to us.
[…] number of gun control advocates agree with the philosophy behind Jon Stewart’s remark that “when that constitution was written, people had muskets,” I thought it would be fun to apply the same thinking to the rest of our […]
I find it sad that the First Amendment extends to text messages and emails, but the Second Amendment is somehow restricted to muskets. Liberal logic at its finest.