Monday, March 17, 2014

The Second Amendment: A Symbol of Freedom or An Invitation to Violence?

By John W. Whitehead

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” – The Second Amendment to the US Constitution

You can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.

Those who want to see government as a benevolent parent looking out for our best interests tend to interpret the Second Amendment’s “militia” reference as applying only to the military.

To those who see the government as inherently corrupt, the Second Amendment is a means of ensuring that the populace will always have a way of defending themselves against threats to their freedoms.

And then there are those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound “down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” To this group, the right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution, to be safeguarded, exercised prudently and maintained.

Unfortunately, as I document in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State
, while these three divergent viewpoints continue to jockey for supremacy, the U.S. government has adopted a “do what I say, not what I do” mindset when it comes to Americans’ rights overall. Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the government’s attempts to arm itself to the teeth, all the while viewing as suspect anyone who dares to legally own a gun, let alone use one.

Indeed, while it still technically remains legal to own a firearm in America, possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, treated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at and killed. (This same rule does not apply to law enforcement officials, however, who are armed to the hilt and rarely given more than a slap on the wrists for using their weapons against unarmed individuals.)

Just recently, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a Texas man whose home was subject to a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based solely on the suspicion that there were legally-owned firearms in his household. Making matters worse, police panicked and opened fire through a solid wood door on the homeowner, who had already gone to bed.

Earlier in the year, a Florida man traveling through Maryland with his wife and kids was stopped by a police officer and interrogated about the whereabouts of his registered handgun. Despite the man’s insistence that the handgun had been left at home, the officer spent nearly two hours searching through the couple’s car, patting them down along with their children, and having them sit in the back of a patrol car. No weapon was found.

In 2011, a 25-year-old Philadelphia man was confronted by police, verbally threatened and arrested for carrying a gun in public, which is legal within the city. When Mark Fiorino attempted to explain his rights under the law to police, police ordered him to get on his knees or else “I am gonna shoot ya.” Fiorino was later released without charges.

A provision in a Washington State bill would have authorized police to search and inspect gun owners’ homes yearly. Connecticut has adopted a law banning the sale of large-capacity magazines and assault weapons. And a bill moving through the New Jersey legislature would reduce the number of bullets an ammunition magazine could hold from 15 to 10.

Under a proposal by the Department of Health and Human Services, anyone seeking mental health treatment—no matter how benign—could find themselves entered into the FBI’s criminal background check system and have their Second Amendment rights in jeopardy. They would join the ranks of some 175,000 veterans who have been barred from possessing firearms based solely on the fact that they received psychiatric treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Meanwhile, the government’s efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees is reaching epic proportions, with federal agencies as varied as the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration placing orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point bullets. Moreover, under the auspices of a military “recycling” program, which allows local police agencies to acquire military-grade weaponry and equipment, $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been transferred from the Defense Department to domestic police agencies since 1990. Included among these “gifts” are tank-like 20-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, tactical gear, and assault rifles.

Ironically, while the Obama administration continues its efforts to “pass the broadest gun control legislation in a generation,” which would include bans on military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets, expanded background checks, and tougher gun-trafficking laws, the U.S. military boasts some weapons the rest of the world doesn’t have. Included in its arsenal are armed, surveillance Reaper drones capable of reading a license plate from over two miles away; an AA12 Atchisson Assault Shotgun that can shoot five 12-gauge shells per second and “can fire up to 9,000 rounds without being cleaned or jamming”; an ADAPTIV invisibility cloak that can make a tank disappear or seemingly reshape it to look like a car; a PHASR rifle capable of blinding and disorienting anyone caught in its sights; a Taser shockwave that can electrocute a crowd of people at the touch of a button; an XM2010 enhanced sniper rifle with built-in sound and flash suppressors that can hit a man-sized target nine out of ten times from over a third of a mile away; and an XM25 “Punisher” grenade launcher that can be programmed to accurately shoot grenades at a target up to 500 meters away.

Talk about a double standard. The government’s arsenal of weapons makes the average American’s handgun look like a Tinker Toy.

It’s no laughing matter, and yet the joke is on us. “We the people” have been so focused on debating who or what is responsible for gun violence—the guns, the gun owners, or our violent culture—and whether the Second Amendment “allows” us to own guns that we’ve overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution: the fact that it is not merely an enumeration of our rights but was intended to be a clear shackle on the government’s powers.

When considered in the context of prohibitions against the government, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry’s gun ownership. As such, it is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process.

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood this tension well. “The Constitution is not neutral,” he remarked, “It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.” In this way, the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand as a bulwark against a police state. To our detriment, these rights have been steadily weakened, eroded and undermined in recent years. Yet without any one of them, including the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, we are that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of out-of-control policemen, benevolent dictators, genuflecting politicians, and overly ambitious bureaucrats.

When all is said and done, the debate over gun ownership really has little to do with gun violence in America. Eliminating guns will not necessarily eliminate violence. Those same individuals sick enough to walk into an elementary school or a movie theater and open fire using a gun can and do wreak just as much havoc with homemade bombs made out of pressure cookers and a handful of knives.

It’s also not even a question of whether Americans need weapons to defend themselves against any overt threats to our safety or wellbeing, although a recent study by a Quinnipiac University economist indicates that less restrictive concealed carry laws save lives, while gun control can endanger them. In fact, journalist Kevin Carson, writing for Counter Punch, suggests that prohibiting Americans from owning weapons would be as dangerously ineffective as Prohibition and the War on the Drugs:
“[W]hat strict gun laws will do is take the level of police statism, lawlessness and general social pathology up a notch in the same way Prohibition and the Drug War have done. I’d expect a War on Guns to expand the volume of organized crime, and to empower criminal gangs fighting over control over the black market, in exactly the same way Prohibition did in the 1920s and strict drug laws have done since the 1980s. I’d expect it to lead to further erosion of Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure, further militarization of local police via SWAT teams, and further expansion of the squalid empire of civil forfeiture, perjured jailhouse snitch testimony, entrapment, planted evidence, and plea deal blackmail.”

Truly, the debate over gun ownership in America is really a debate over who gets to call the shots and control the game. In other words, it’s that same tug-of-war that keeps getting played out in every confrontation between the government and the citizenry over who gets to be the master and who is relegated to the part of the servant.

The Constitution is clear on this particular point, with its multitude of prohibitions on government overreach. As 20th century libertarian Edmund A. Opitz observed in 1964, “No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words ‘no’ and ‘not’ employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.”

In a nutshell, then, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms reflects not only a concern for one’s personal defense, but serves as a check on the political power of the ruling authorities. It represents an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one’s freedoms, the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or property. As such, it reinforces that necessary balance in the citizen-state relationship. As George Orwell noted, “That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

Certainly, dictators in past regimes have understood this principle only too well. As Adolf Hitler noted, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” It should come as no surprise, then, that starting in December 1935, Jews in Germany were prevented from obtaining shooting licenses, because authorities believed that to allow them to do so would “endanger the German population.” In late 1938, special orders were delivered barring Jews from owning firearms, with the punishment for arms possession being 20 years in a concentration camp.

The rest, as they say, is history. Yet it is a history that we should be wary of repeating.

John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties and human rights organization, and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.


  1. Second Amendment is not a check on political power. If you disagree, provide an example of a cop killer getting charges dropped because of the 2nd.

    1. Herr Wolfgang: Defender of the Father Land!

    2. JWTroll- in a just society anyone who kills another person defending their property will be found innocent. Just because they wear a badge doesn't give them the right to assault and kill "mundanes" at their leisure.

      Posts like these are why Bob should ban you- you are just stirring shit.

      PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ban this troll!!!

    3. Jerry Wolfgang = troll.

    4. @Rick Fitz

      As annoying as Jerry is I think it's fun to have a consistent liberal troll here because just about everyone who regularly reads and comments on this blog knows his talking points can be easily shot down. Certainly is better than the punk conservative trolls who post anonymously

    5. Re: Jerry Wolfgang,
      -- Second Amendment is not a check on political power. --

      Yes, it is. It doesn't mean that the government could not win in the end if allowed to have the bigger guns, like in the Waco TX case, but there are plenty of instances where an armed population was able to check political power many times, one example being the Black Panthers.

      -- If you disagree, provide an example of a cop killer getting charges dropped because of the 2nd. --

      The 2nd Amendment only pertains to the protection of the right to own and bear arms, not to commit murder. Your request is meaningless.

  2. Who says the 2A has to viewed as against the government? The militia is expected to supress rebellions and insurrections. The President is the Commander and Chief of the militia forces.

    Far from a "war on guns" gun rights have been loosened consistently including the part where the Supreme Court voted that the 2A included the individual's right own firearms outside of the militia. Heck when the Nazis were in power they loosened gun controls every time.

    1. Prove it, asshole. Why do you go around trolling libertarian websites? Who is paying you, you worthless subhuman?

    2. You're an idiot and need to learn more about how the founding fathers felt about democracy and governments.
      They themselves REBELLED against their government at the time, called England, doofus. Guess what, they did it with guns. You think the 2nd amendment was about squashing "insurrections" against the government?

      Just because government tries to wipe its ass with the constitution constantly and some supreme court actually stops them for a change, doesn't mean gun rights are "loosened". They were loose from the beginning but were restricted by the goddamn government over the course of time.

      But nice try trying to rewrite history about the constitution trying to protect government instead of the freedom of people.

    3. Prove what? Gun laws get more and more relaxed with time.

    4. "Gun laws get more and more relaxed with time."

      Prove it, you jerk. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. In fact, because you say it means the opposite is 100 percent true.

    5. Re: Gil,
      -- Who says the 2A has to viewed as against the government?--

      "A well-regulated [i.e. trained] militia, being necessary to the security of a *free* state..." implies people have the right to use their weapons to guarantee that they remain a free people, and that can include using the weapons against the government.

      -- Far from a "war on guns" gun rights have been loosened consistently --

      Such a statement would suggest that restrictions on guns have always existed, when in fact this is not the case. Gun control legislation has been a fairly recent event especially after high-profile cases like massacres in public places (like schools or malls); for instance, such things as the dubiously-effective background checks and federal weapons licenses, and especially the prohibition on non-nationals or non-residents to purchase and possess guns. None of these have been "loosened" at all.

    6. Hardly, more carry and conceal laws are becoming common, more states are adopting "stand your ground", Heck after another shooting makes news there's hardly any mention of "gun control" any more.

      Libertarians are trying to pretend gun control laws are being passed around all the time when in fact they/'re not

    7. "Hardly, more carry and conceal laws are becoming common, more states are adopting "stand your ground", Heck after another shooting makes news there's hardly any mention of "gun control" any more.

      Libertarians are trying to pretend gun control laws are being passed around all the time when in fact they/'re not"

      Where is your proof, jerk? You're just here to troll like you do over at the LvM website. You must get paid well, you low-life sack of sh*t.

    8. You're a poor l'il crybaby aren't you. Go over to and there's plenty of evidence guns law are being relaxed than stiffened.


    9. Gil is a troll who selectively ignores arguments that prove him wrong or irrational.

      Best to ignore him.

    10. "Who says the 2A has to viewed as against the government? The militia is expected to supress rebellions and insurrections."

      The role of militia's was a constant source of debate before and after the drafting and acceptance of the Constitution, for example:

      "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
      Noah Webster (writing under the nom de plume of "A Citizen of America"), An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Constitution (October 17, 1787)."

      There are opinion's contrary as well by Founders.

      That's one of many problems with a document like the Constitution. The meanings are purposely vague to get everyone on board and still yet subject to SCOTUS rulings thereafter.

    11. "You're a poor l'il crybaby aren't you."

      LOL. Who is paying you to troll? You must get paid amazingly well since you've been doing it for years you piece of sh*t.

      Oh, and the stories in your links prove absolutely nothing. Some were loosened, some were tightened. It certainly doesn't prove you right. Go f**k yourself.

    12. Re: Gil,
      -- Hardly, more carry and conceal laws are becoming common, --
      So what? First, let's get a thing clear: Carry and conceal licenses are still restrictions to gun ownership and use. The fact that more states issue licenses does not mean the restrictions to the sales of guns and the types of guns one can own are not in place anymore. Second, the federal impediments are still on the books, still as restrictive as before. There hasn't been a real loosening of gun laws in this country. You didn't even address that issue and, instead, preferred to grab at the few straws at hand.

      -- more states are adopting "stand your ground", --

      Stand your ground laws have NOTHING to do with gun laws or restrictions. You can stand your ground armed with a bat. You're throwing a red herring.

      -- Libertarians are trying to pretend gun control laws are being passed around all the time when in fact they/'re not --

      Where have you been these past months, Gil? OF COURSE there have been more gun control laws passed! What did you think the legislatures in New York, Colorado and Connecticut did? What did you think were those restrictions on magazine capacity are, if not gun control laws?

    13. Gil-

      Tell it to Adam Kokesh, who spent months in jail for the mere act of carrying a gun in Washington DC.

      At least Jerry Wolfgang is smart enough to post and then leave like a coward. You're too stupid to even see how stupid you are.

    14. Aw poor babies! You all won't stop sulking until gun ownership is totally unrestricted. Hence you mock those who are doing their best to roll back restriction bit by bit.

    15. @Gil

      Criminals of all stripes will find ways to get guns no matter how many laws are put in place. All they do is restrict peaceful people from getting them

  3. To understand the 2nd Ammendment you must read the militia act of 1792. The militia act states that it is the responsibility of every male adult to procure their own arms and also specifies that it be of military caliber. The National Guard does not fit this requirement since the arms are state owned and kept under state control. This ensures that the government does not rely on standing armies. Applied to today would require all adults to procure their own military style rifle such as an M4 or AR-15.
    Also, why would any thinking individual assume that a document that outlines rights would give the government the right to keep arms? All governments have always been armed.

  4. The right to self defense (which in these times requires a gun) is no doubt a symbol of freedom. To prevent people to defend themselves is just an invitation for authoritarianism.

    1. What is that supposed to mean? If you're in a war the other side is most certainly not obliged to give you a "fair fight" rather they do everything to make sure you lose. If you suppose the U.S. Federal Government were to make war with the populace then they're hardly going to be nice enough to worry about what the 2A says.

    2. Re: Gil,
      -- What is that supposed to mean? If you're in a war the other side is most certainly not obliged to give you a "fair fight" rather they do everything to make sure you lose. --

      Your answer is a non sequitur. It addresses not at all whay NY Cynic is saying, that self-defense is a natural right. So what if in a war the "other side" is going to fight dirty? How does that invalidate the argument that self-defense is a natural right?

      -- If you suppose the U.S. Federal Government were to make war with the populace then they're hardly going to be nice enough to worry about what the 2A says. --

      Probably not. Think, however, how long would the U.S. Federal Government last if it decided to pursue an all-out war against its own population? The soldiers, the police officers, the agents, all have families. How do you think revolutions ended just in the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries if not with the toppling of whole governments?

      Besides the above, your argument is just another red herring. The U.S. Federal Government may have lots of guns, but that does not ipso facto invalidate the truism that self-defense is a natural right, from which the corollary "armed self-defense is a natural right" naturally follows.