RKBA is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion. RKBA stands for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Somewhere in one of the discussions those of us keep trying to have with Kossacks was a reply from someone who IIRC said he could support 9/10's of the Bill of Rights, but not the 2nd amendment, because he didn't consider gun ownership a human right.
Clearly at the time of the formation of our constitution, when the group of radicals who founded this country was considering all things related to their lives and the limits they thought the State should have, there was a fight about what was left out. The fight was so pointed that passage of our Constitution by enough states to ratify would not have happened without addressing the issues left unstated in the body of the Constitution. Those issues are embodied in the Bill of Rights. It's interesting the second thing affirmed was a right to keep and bear arms. Why would that be?
A citizen of 1789, newly freed from an Imperial Power, might have some concerns about the power of the State. When the states were presented with the completed Constitution, there was a pointed argument about what was left out. The fight that followed was being lost by the framers of the Constitution, until using the amendment method contained in that first Constitution a Bill of Rights was created, proving the flexibility of the system and also allaying the fears that caused a near rejection. With the Bill of Rights attached, the Constitution was ratified.
Many things are in that Bill of Rights, and we can be proud it is the basis for the world's modern understanding of what human rights are. It is an amazing and radical document given the age, and was completely new in that it explicitly recognized as rights that no other population of a sovereign state in the world at that time had. Explicitly reserved in these rights was the ability to act in our own interest, to be able to speak, worship, vote, engage in commerce, gather for common goals including political goals. To act, without interference from the State.
I believe the most radical of these rights was the 2nd amendment. It is one thing to claim free speech for a population, quite another for them to have the power to secure themselves from the power of the state. The 2nd amendment is the force behind the rest of the Bill of Rights.
This sounds like some points the proponents of current Gun Culture make. However, just because they say it, doesn't make it necessarily wrong. They do occasionally sober up and try rational thought.
I think all of us, left and right alike, get confused thinking the 2nd amendment is an endorsement of that Gun Culture. This is understandable since the NRA has worked for years to hijack the 2nd amendment.
So let me rephrase the 2nd amendment and try to take back the original meaning. My rephrase follows: "the people shall have access to the means to secure rights, life and property". Clearly it follows that if I have the right to pursue happiness, I should also have the means to keep and protect what I have gained, otherwise pursuing happiness doesn't have much meaning.
The thesis here is simple, self-protection, the ability to act on our own and our family's or even our community's protection is also a human right. We don't have to have the permission of the State to do so, we are empowered to act on our own and our community's behalf. I believe this is inherent in the common understanding of the 2nd amendment in 1789, but of course those bumpkins didn't have the insight and wisdom of 200 years of lawyerly shenanigans that we now have. OK I'll stop the sarcasm. I'm old, it comes naturally, and I beg your pardon.
Defense of self, family and community is a pretty important human right. Think of a right to privacy, if we had no right to privacy, no means to secure ourselves against the power of the State to snoop, how exposed would we be? No secret ballot? That's now unthinkable because we have the stunningly evil examples of East Germany before us. Just as we have the power to compel the State to leave us alone legally, I believe we were also given the means to secure ourselves against anyone wishing to infringe on our freedom to act, using any means needed. That is a serious statement, but it also flows logically from the right to act, if a right is not an absolute to the point of extremes then it isn't a right. If not complete and total, it's something granted from power, with the unspoken ability to UN-grant it upon need of that power. There's at least 100 countries in the last century where exactly this happened. You may believe, as a lot of the right-wing does the America is exceptional, I subscribe to the view the jury is still out on this point, and the 8 years preceding Obama have pretty much convinced me that government bears watching, and that our government acts depending on who's pushing the buttons at the moment.
We do face new threats today to our freedoms in all manner of methods - the now amazing ability for anyone to be an unintentional public figure on the internet for 5 minutes is an example. But in every case we regulate those threats either by legislation or legal action to remain free. Since 1789 the means to resist physical coercion means guns. The State enforces it's will with them, our soldiers and police carry them, and they remain the primary display of deadly force by our State, and those who would like to enforce their wills on us. The 2nd amendment gives us the opportunity to secure our lives, and that is the point made in 1789. And it still serves us.
Using a gun to protect ourselves is not a joyful act, despite what the National Rifleman would have us believe. It is a tragedy, but one which could have been a larger tragedy for us, and if the outcome was tragic either way, the 2nd amendment gives us a chance to arrange the balance of tragedy to fall heavier on the other side of the ledger.
If you have time, please listen to this the entire thing is 32 minutes long and I guarantee you it's compelling to listening. What you will hear is tragic, painful, and too, too real.