The 2nd amendment had very little to do with self defense. The Founders believed it imperative that citizens be armed in order to defend their colonies/homes from invasion or Indian attack. And most important was the belief that the keeping of arms was MANDATORY in order to provide the means to overthrow a tyrannical state/criminal government. But having a gun to shoot some thug who broke into your home...that wasn’t really part of the mix. I truly wish Alito had written just this. That is, that gun ownership is the best and frankly the ONLY means Americans have to prevent thug politicians from enslaving them.
The second amendment was to guarantee that states would not be disarmed and would always have access to its own militia. Like the rest of the bill of rights it did not apply to state restrictions initially. But since the rest of the BoR was “incorporated” it is about time this one was.
This is a happy day.
“The 2nd amendment had very little to do with self defense. The Founders believed it imperative that citizens be armed in order to defend their colonies/homes from invasion or Indian attack.”
Indian attacks weren’t about self defense?
Incorrect; the 2nd Amendment has EVERYTHING to do with self-defense.
Remember that the Constitution describes the relation of the Federal Government, State Government and People.
Now, holding that in mind, remember that the Declaration of Independence (basically a Work Order for a new Government) says that the purpose of government is to secure God given rights, “that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Life is such a strong right that it is a valid defense/justification for homicide, even in our degraded court-systems. Think about that for a second, the violence of killing another human being *is* justifiable if it is to preserve your own life, or [even] that of someone else. This means that all inferior forms of violence (”non-lethal”) are ALSO justifiable if that right is threatened.
The Government, however, is not a single person and so cannot simply “be killed” in the defense of your life... in fact, government is much more likely to take your life [or livelihood, which is part of that ‘pursuit of happiness’] for disagreeing or opposing it. Yet this in direct contradiction to the proposed purpose of this government, in conjunction with the idea that governments derive their power from the Consent of the Governed, it was necessary to place the ultimate veto power into the hands of the Governed from which the government derives its power.
The government is like fire: controlled it is a good and useful thing that makes life better and more enjoyable; uncontrolled it is a destroyer and killer that cannot be quenched.
Actually you are incorrect. Though the individual self-defense aspect of the Second Amendment is rather muted in the wording, the debate surrounding the issue at the time is profuse with discussions regarding individual self-defense, and irrefutably demonstrates that the right to bear arms did, indeed, encompass that notion as well...