Right to Bear Arms
But into this Second Amendment discussion one can
introduce the idea of a 'simple weapon of mass destruction' or SWMD which did
not exist at the time the 2nd Amendment was conceived. The roadside bombs,
machineguns, anthrax envelopes, or intoxicated drivers that kill many in a
single instance are very real things in this century. In the 1790s an
SWMD was very nearly inconceivable, but if you decided to roll a loaded
eight pounder filled with grapeshot down main street, guess what the local
militia would do to you with or without a 2nd Amendment ? The
proliferation of SWMDs that can be concealed on one's person has changed
the original meaning
of ' keep and bear arms'. The modern militias (that is, police and their
deputies) carry items like automatic carbines, 15 shot large caliber pistols,
spray firing shotguns and have almost immediate access to building-destroying
munitions from the military. And these are just to protect themselves and others
from predators who have similar SWMD in their clothes. The Second Amendment
concept was to allow the training of local militiamen through their ability to
bear arms. Training certainly included the ability to hunt for food or go
to competitions or practice target shooting to protect one's family against the
occasional highwayman. Indeed, the training might be considered a 'useful
art' enumerated by the Article I, Section 8 powers of the Congress. This
bearing of arms meant defending oneself and others in the absence, note absence,
of constituted authority such as sheriffs and deputies. The Amendment was to
establish the right of self-defense in the absence of any other defense and that
has been a human value since the last ice age. To ban such a right implies that
the prohibitioners believe that ALL humans have evolved dramatically since that
ice age, a flat contradiction of human history.
Nearly all modern crimes are committed by the use of SWMD
from ambush in the absence of constituted authority. Even selling drugs to
ten people could qualify as an SWMD attack, compounded by the attacker's use of
other SWMD to insure his drug attack. With modern pop
elations, it is
an ideological unreality to expect constituted authority to protect every person all the time against modern forms
of terrorism. It would be more appropriate define the Second Amendment in
terms of the defense of citizens in the modern society who are protecting
themselves with regulated personal defense weapons against predators with attack
weapons AFTER a constitutionally recognized ban on SWMD devices is established
as segments of society see fit. Any current ban on all weapons that does
not carefully define the difference between personal defense rights and
predatory ambush should not be held as constitutional.
Definition of a Simple Weapon of Mass Destruction: any personal device or combination of personal devices (excluding communication devices) that will kill, physically maim or mentally harm a group of people in less time than it takes to prepare, load and use a musket of 1790.
Question of interest: While 'communication
devices' are not under the Second Amendment's
jurisdiction,
is there a point where they become a SWMD ? People talk all the time. They
send pictures of each other all the time, at least in the 21st century. Sometimes the pictures are malicious
and intended to do harm. The definition of SWMD says 'harm to many' in less than 30 seconds.
Electronic communications as a WMD wouldn't have occured to Madison in writing
the Bill of Rights around 1789.