| Mr Khan said: The founding was 224-225 years ago. Things change. No philosophy is set to endure through all ages, and the 2nd Amendment is biggest proof of that, since the word "militia" is in the name, an artifact of an older time that is no longer needed. The people "should" ideally assent to this situation. That they do not has shown a failure of education and socialization. |
§20. Right to keep and bear arms.
Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. (4-16-87)
Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Constitution of New Hampshire.
[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Section 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
From these five state constitutions, it should be pretty clear that it's referring to the general right of people to keep and bear arms. Sometimes in defense of the state is mentioned, sometimes it mentions family/property, but they always mention the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is probably safe to assume that there were a significant number of people who believed this to be the function of the 2nd Amendment as well.
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.
This also clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does say that a well regulated millitia is necessary, but it specifically states the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, with no exceptions. That seems pretty clear to me. Now you can argue that it is no longer needed, but I do believe that it is intended to protect the right of people to keep and bear arms, not just for a millitia, but for anything.
---
To the italicized part; should according to whom? What if the social contract forces them to do something that goes against what they believe? Say someone is a pacifist and are completely against war. The government spends a ton of money on war, but according to the social contract, you have to pay taxes. According to them, no one should agree with the social contract because it goes against their beliefs.
So the social contract's agreeability is subjective and will vary depending on who is asked. Why then, are we trying to enforce an arbitrary system on a group of people who do not agree with it? You can argue that it makes life better for everyone, which is debatable, but what if these people live in the middle of nowhere, Wyoming. They are completely isolated from the rest of the US, and recieve no benefits from the system. Should they be forced to be part of a society they have no desire to join?
I believe your argument will be that they are on US owned land, and do benefit from things like defense and so they should be forced to. But then if the power to rule comes from the governed, and the people no longer consent to be governed, should they not be within their rights to no longer accept to be ruled by this government that has ceased representing their interests?
From the Declaration of Independence.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I suppose you can argue that if the majority agree to a government, then it doesn't matter what the minority want. But then if the majority decide what the minority can and can't do, what happens if the majority become tyrannical and enslave the minority? That is a danger of majority rule, and could be done completely legitimately (according to the government) through amendments and laws.
---
Also, your comment that no philosophy is set to endure forever bothers me. Before I comment further, however, can you please define what you mean by philosophy?
