dpnewell, in a response to a post called "Interesting Reading" had this to say:
"When the 2nd Amendment was written, private citizens had weapons more powerful then the military. Kentucky long rifles could kill at 300 yards, and most Americans had the skill to do so. Military muskets at the time where very inaccurate, and where only affective out to 50 yards. Most cannon was in the hands of private citizens. The equivalent of fighter jets, tanks and machine guns being owned today by private citizens, while the military was armed with semi-auto sporting rifles."
Agreed. In fact, I have been thinking a lot about a trip I took my family on to Concord (or Lexington, one or the other) many years ago. The ranger told us about those fateful days.
The British Army was encamped in Boston. Only it wasn't really the 'British Army' it was OUR army, because we were British. They arose in the middle of the night to march out to Concord on a 'search and destroy' mission. Paul Revere (and William Dawes) rode out in front to warn the minutemen of their approach. The army first had to cross the Charles, so marched at night in wet boots and clothes. They were not a happy lot.
The minutemen, being forewarned, grabbed their rifles and kits and headed out into the woods. The soldiers reached Concord and entered houses there, confiscated weapons and powder, piled them in the town square and lit them on fire. The minutemen did not have a clear view of their town square, but saw the smoke rise in the morning sky. The word passed among them "Are they burning the houses?"; "They are burning the town."; "They are buring our wives and children alive in their homes!"
Perhaps fired up by their own misunderstandings, they ended up firing "the shot heard 'round the world."
[Please attribute any bad history to my own foggy recollection. I'm sure the park docent got it all absolutely correct.]
When the Revolution was over, and the Constitution was passed around for adoption, the people would not endorse it without 10 amendments, our Bill of Rights. Among these Rights: 4th Amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."] and the 2nd Amendment (too well known to quote here). I tell the above story to illustrate why our forefathers were so insistent on their rights.
The 2nd Amendment was not insisted upon to preserve hunting arms. It was not even about personal protection from criminals. It was to protect the citizens against their government; to keep the government wary about the ability of the citizens to arise in revolution.
I started to wonder about the things dpnewell wrote about: were our revolutionary forefathers really on equal footing with the great army of England?
Indeed they were. The state of the art in weaponry consisted of muskets, cannons, and mortars. Washington's army was well supplied with all. In fact, the Americans could forge a new cannon and place it in the field faster than England could ship one across the Atlantic.
Now I have always considered myself a strict constructionist, conservative on the Constitution. What is says, what it means, was good enough for 200 years, it's good enough for today.
But the reality of weaponry and government size of 200 years ago just doesn't exist today. Even if we had the absolute, Constitutional right to bear arms equal to (or better than!) our government, the economic reality makes it impossible. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and 10 other billionaires could never field an air force equal to the USAF. Ships? Forget about it! Know what a carrier costs these days? Private ownership of nuclear-tipped ICBMs? Do we really want to go there?
If the citizens were to revolt against the US govt, they would have to do it the way every other nation does it today: they would have to turn the military to their side. Can a citizen's army arise to defeat a modern nation's military?
That said, is it time to re-think the 2nd Amendment for the 21st century?
