Inherent Right to Self Defense Part I: Setting the Precedent

Without a good understanding of the Declaration, the Second Amendment which reads:

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.

...would easily be construed to mean that "the people" could only be armed for the purpose of forming a "militia" which could only be called up in defense of "the state" (ie, in times of war to defend the land or to defend the government as the Constitution states, that is a responsibility of congress). The type and quantity of arms could be controlled by the state based on its preferences for what "arms" such a "well regulated militia" would "keep". Their "right" to "keep and bear arms" would be limited to that which was necessary to carry out those limited duties.

We know that only a government sponsored, armed and led militia could not have been the actual preference of our founding fathers because it would have negated the very precedent they set. This precedent showed that individuals had armed themselves and formed their own voluntary militias within their communities without direct control, organization or supply from a central government power. Those "militias" once acted as local defenses against marauding natives and foreign invasion while the individuals would use their arms to hunt food, protect livestock, and defend their homes and persons against any person or animal that could cause injury or death.

When the government claiming power (England) came to collect those weapons and ammunition from a small village, the "militia" fought back. It was the "shot heard round the world." But, for those men, it meant more than revolution. After years of frontier living and a decade of the French and Indian Wars, they understood that, if the government took their arms, not only would they be vulnerable to oppression from the government, they would be defenseless against all other dangers: invasion, captivity, starvation and death.

They understood this vulnerability was compounded by their circumstances. There were barely a million people spread out over hundreds of thousands of square miles across thirteen colonies. Most of these people were miles and days away from any immediate military or constabulary assistance. Many communities did not have a physician. Food and supplies took days to arrive if they did not provide it for themselves or within their own communities. Not to mention that communicating any problems could take hours, days and even weeks.

Today, it would seem that modern technology and advancements in transportation, communication, food processing, medicine, governance, law enforcement and a standing military has negated many of these dangers. Urbanization and the presence of police and emergency services, only a phone call away, has convinced many that danger is far away and help near by. Thus, the need for citizens to defend themselves has diminished in equal amount to the diminished time and distance of assistance.

The great urban societies of our day have been convinced of the superiority of their conscience, morality, law and capabilities above that of those founding patriots and their rather rusticated lives. The irony of that perceived superiority cannot be understated. Even applying simple scientific philosophies and mathematics, the greater the urbanization, the greater the population, the more closely the population lives, the more diverse its ideas and opinions, the more likely there is friction. The more friction, the more heat. The more heat, the more likely an explosion or violent reaction.

As our society in general has grown more accustomed to the "rule of law" they have also become more submissive to the idea that the organs of law, such as government, judiciary and police, are the primary defenders of life and personal property. Apparently immune to the fact that the "law" as written words may guide society, but is rarely effective as a pro-active force, regardless of how many laws are enacted to the contrary. The law is usually re-active and most effective in a post-event scenario, discovering the perpetrators and punishing or proscribing those who have broken its tenets.

Those who enforce it are outnumbered in society by almost 1:4000 ratio. In fact, not much higher than the ratio our fore fathers lived with in their own days and no where near the ability to actively defend every citizen in every location in every event. Criminals rarely wait for the interference or arbitration of any officer of the law or courts. Death can be instantaneous and, as it has been for eternity, irreversible.

It seems, the more we are convinced of this great collective conscience and submission to the law and its enforcers, the more submissive we are to the immorality of crime and the less we feel the need to participate through reporting crimes, providing information or accepting jury duty. The less individuals feel responsible for their own defense, the less they feel responsible for the safety and defense of their neighbors, their community and the greater public. Accepting, of course, to demand more laws and more from those few who are officially tasked with that function. Neither changing the probabilities of violent crime nor insuring safety for all.

While we debate the existence of an inherent right to self defense, it seems equally immoral to demand every citizen be submissive to the conflated idealism of the "rule of law" unto their serious injury or death. In fact, it is a demand for self-sacrifice that is above and beyond any demand for sacrifice a society should demand. The idea that an individual should give up their right to live and defend that life, from either the state, any organization or other individual, was antithetical to the ideas of the founders of this democracy.

This supposed difference in action and conscience was neither due to any real rusticity the founders lived under nor from a lack of refined morality. Many claim that society has grown philosophically, socially and morally since the days of these rebels and frontiersmen. Yet, the writers and philosophers most often quoted, referenced and imitated in discussion of freedom and democracy are the writers and philosophers of the "Age of Enlightenment"; the age of our founders.

It was these writers and philosophers who were read and debated in their day. It was these writers and philosophers who influenced the writings and thoughts of these founders from the personal to the national public documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. All of which shows a very refined sense of morality, a strong inclination to codify the responsibilities of the state and its citizens as well as balancing the needs of the state against the rights of individuals. There they found the individual's rights trumped the needs of the government.