The Second Amendment deserves a much broader interpretation #MolonLabe

by 1389 on January 11, 2013

in 1389 (blog admin), education, Gun rights / Second Amendment, history, military, Texas

Texas: Come and take it
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, Texas-style

Small arms are a good start, but when the chips are down, they might not suffice. A more reliable bulwark against government tyranny requires citizen ownership of heavy, crew-served weapons. Crew-served cannon were privately owned in 1776 and played an important role in the War for Independence. But the Second Amendment is no longer interpreted to protect the right of private citizens to own effective military-grade weaponry. That needs to change.

To be sure, this is not the conclusion that Col. Dunlap expected us to draw from his paper. But then, this is a Duke University law school publication, and modern-day academia does not admit of conclusions, or even topics for debate, that fall outside a certain narrow range. On this blog we are under no such constraints.

While it is clear from our Constitution that our Founders sought to discourage armed insurrections, their own words in the Declaration of Independence made it clear that, in sufficiently dire circumstances (which were markedly less dire than those we face now), armed insurrection was right.

What about the claim that the issue of taking up arms to defend one’s independence from the federal government was settled once and for all by the War Between the States? That is the same as saying that might makes right. That’s the devil’s logic and it will not be tolerated on this blog.

See for yourself:

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: