Originally Posted by semtex

You say you're all for the Second Amendment, but you seem to lack an understanding as to what the philosophical and historical basis of the Second Amendment is. The founding fathers never predicated the right to keep and bear arms on a need to be able to defend one's self against criminals; it was predicated on the belief that in a free republic, the citizenry must retain the ability to overthrow the government should the need arise due to the government becoming tyrannical. Bear in mind the circumstances of how America came into being in the first place -- it was through revolution against the tyrannical rule of Britain. That's why the language of the Second Amendment makes reference to the maintenance of militias, etc. It wasn't fear of robbers or home invasions that motivated the 2nd Amendment; it was fear of tyranny. To be more precise, it was a fear that over time, unscrupulous individuals would seek to grab power and circumvent the fundamental liberties set forth by our founding fathers. They were acutely aware of the corrupting influence of power, after all. And history is replete with examples of leaders who gain power legitimately, but subsequently suspend or change the rules in order to avoid relinquishing it. Hitler, for example, was democratically elected, then subsequently changed the rules and became a dictator. More recent examples include Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Charles Taylor of Liberia, and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, just to name three. In each of these examples, the history of those countries would likely be dramatically different if their citizens were blessed with a right to keep and bear arms. They would have had some fighting chance of standing up to these brutal dictators who took over their countries. Understand that I'm not saying that the end results would have been different. My point is only that this is what motivated the creation of the Second Amendment in our own country. Our founding fathers were prescient enough to foresee the possibility that one day, long after they themselves had departed, the need might arise for Americans to stand up to defend their republic against their own government gone awry.

In political theory terms, our system of government is known as a liberal democracy. In a liberal democracy, the authority to govern -- that is, the moral legitimacy of the government -- is derived from the consent of the governed. Now, there are two forms of consent. The first form is known as active consent, which is what happens when we go vote. By voting, we are actively consenting to the system. We are agreeing to play by the rules and accept the outcome. This means that we agree to recognize the winner as having the moral right to govern, even if it's not the individual we voted for. (This is why vote rigging ala ACORN is so dangerous, as it threatens the very legitimacy of the outcome.) The second form is known as tacit consent, aka consent by acquiescence. This second form of consent is the more interesting one, because it addresses those who don't bother voting. Allow me to expand on this briefly.

If you study communist political theory, one of the criticisms leveled against liberal democratic systems is the incidence of low voter turnout. How can the citizenry be said to consent to their governments when so many of them don't even bother voting. Surely those individuals aren't consenting. Well this is where tacit consent comes into play. Individuals are consenting, the argument goes, in so far as they are not actively dissenting. In other words, while those who don't bother voting may not be actively consenting to the system, they are at least not picking up arms in dissent against the system, which in turn means that they are passively, or tacitly, agreeing to be governed.

It makes sense if you think about it. In every day life, how many times do we find ourselves in situations of: 'Did so-and-so agree to this?' 'Well, he didn't object. He didn't disagree, so . . .' Heck, even traditional wedding ceremonies incorporate the concept of tacit consent. 'If anyone knows of a reason these two individuals ought not to be married, speak now or forever hold your peace'. So the mere act of silence, of not objecting, is an act of consent.

Okay, so how does all this relate back to the Second Amendment? Well, tacit consent only works if those who are said to be tacitly consenting have an avenue to express their dissent. Go back to that wedding ceremony. Nobody speaks up. Nobody objects. So they're tacitly consenting, right? Oh but not so fast! What if we discover that everyone in the crowd has had their hands tied and their mouths taped shut? So nobody spoke up because nobody could speak up! That changes things, doesn't it? Suddenly, we're not really convinced that their silence constitutes tacit consent, are we? The salient point here is that in order for tacit consent to work, people must possess the ability to express their dissent. In order for us to be able to say that the citizens are tacitly consenting to their system of government because they are not trying to overthrow it, they must possess the ability to do just that! So, if they have the ability to take up arms and shoot at their political leaders but refrain from doing so, then we can say that their peacefulness does indeed constitute consent. We can't say that if they have no guns, because then we don't know if they're really behaving by choice.

Understood thusly, one could argue that the spirit of the Second Amendment has already been infringed. Why? Because let's face it, weapons technology has progressed to the point that merely possessing assault rifles isn't sufficient to overthrow the government. It can already be argued that tacit consent is no longer possible in this country, as its citizens no longer have the capability to overthrow their government. Or to put it another way, we could already argue that the only reason the citizens of this country haven't waged violent war against the jerks in DC isn't because they consent to how they are being governed, but because they lack sufficient resources and therefore have no choice!

From a purely philosophical standpoint, if we are to stay true to the spirit of the Second Amendment, not only should regular citizens have access to assault rifles, but we should also have access to grenades, tanks, stinger missiles, etc., etc. Anything the military has access to, we should as well. Only then can we be said to be tacitly consenting to our being governed -- by virtue of our possessing such weapons but not using them.

I know I've written a short novel here, and I apologize for being so long-winded. But the net of this is that if the 2nd Amendment were only about home defense and hunting, then I'd completely agree with you. There's no need for anything more than basic firearms. But study your political history. Don't take my word for any of this. Go and study it, and you'll discover the true intent behind the the right to keep and bear arms. It is one of the things that makes America so unique in the world. It is what makes American democracy exceptional. Ours is the only country in the world that has a constitutional provision stipulating that its citizens not only have a right, but an obligation, to safeguard their freedoms through force of arms against its own government if necessary.