|
Federalist 46 defends the idea of a standing army, arguing that it could not be an instrument of tyranny. Madison posits a situation where the individual state governments become opposed to the federal government, and the federal army is massed 'for the projects of ambition.' He continues:
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
I don't carry guns, I just have a right to do so, erroneously infringed by any number of laws. There are also reasonable and completely lawful limits on all rights.
Personally, the importance to me is far beyond the right to arms. That comment on the footnote on page 9 or 10 of the Supreme Court decision, countering an argument that Stevens made, that's what the Second Amendment seems to bring forth. Stevens, I suppose, at some point tried to argue the First Amendment right to petition the government was primarly a collective, not an individual right.
Far safer to let Bubba tuck a .38 under his ample gut than it is to let individual rights degrade into collective rights. I guess that's why the Second Amendment has long had my attention. It seems to put a certain focus on liberty and freedom.
I must be an odd duck. I don't even really care much for guns. Haven't fired one in a long, long time.
If I have a point I'd like to make it's to keep our country based on strong philosophy, not compromise the good people of our nation at every individual misdeed.
|