From the Cornell LaW School Legal Information Institute the Second Amendment states, “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 amendment has been used recently to do all kinds of things that it was never intended to do, such as elevate a “right to bear arms.” One of the more legitimate reasons for the Second Amendment’s existence is to protect the population against state tyranny where absolute power is invested in a single individual.
Are we there yet? We must be getting close after this proxy declaration from Trump’s crack team of lawyers, the focus of one of my recent favorite diaries: Donald Trump officially declares himself above the law. Trump has also tweeted all manner of idiocy with regard to his pardoning powers, as reviewed in Trump is Admitting Guilt if He Pardons Himself, Requiring Impeachment for Confessed Crimes.
Trump just gave all the gun-toting, freedom fries-loving, national anthem standing, make America great again crying people out there the quintessential example of a tyrant who should be overthrown by the conscientious efforts of a militia or an armed citizen uprising that would serve to protect America and her people from an authoritarian strongman. Let’s see what the National Rifle Association has to say about the highest officeholder in the land declaring himself above the law:
Yeah, crickets. It’s not like I needed yet another example of how conservatives actually don’t really believe what they’re spewing (they care about children, as demonstrated by their S-CHIP battles; they care about the working class, as demonstrated by their union busting and tax cuts to the already rich; they care about the military, as demonstrated by their woeful treatment of veterans; they care about the Constitution, as demonstrated by a complete absence of oversight and checks and balances on the current Executive; etc.) but when it rains, it pours.
This writer on the Federalist asks the same question, but conveniently doesn’t answer it. He goes on commenting something about dispersing arms to more people so they can prevent tyranny. I doubt he recognizes the tyranny embodied in Trump’s declarations.
Another writer at the National Review talks about preventing authoritarianism:
The argument is not that a collection of random citizens should be able to go head-to-head with the Third Cavalry Regiment. That’s absurd. Nor is the argument that citizens should possess weapons “in common use” in the military. Rather, for the Second Amendment to remain a meaningful check on state power, citizens must be able to possess the kinds and categories of weapons that can at least deter state overreach, that would make true authoritarianism too costly to attempt.
Right, and all those weapons currently on the street have really put the fear of tyranny in Trump. Trump was just joking around when he declared himself above the law, unable to do anything illegal because he is the final arbiter of what is legal and what is not. Maybe these guys are waiting for Trump to declare himself a king (he’s kind of already done so) or to run for a third term. Or maybe they’re secretly hoping Mueller will get Trump out of office so that they don’t have to answer such uncomfortable scenarios for their precious Second Amendment. If Trump is a king, Trump, Jr. rules after him?
Personally, I don’t believe violence is the proper answer in this case. Education can go a long way toward creating an intelligent and active voting population, but I guess if you’ve slowly dismantled a country’s public education system, that can cause some issues. A free and independent press is vital to a healthy democracy or republic, what have you, but again that security blanket against authoritarianism has not only been whittled down to a few insurgent journalists but also has been infiltrated by propagandists. What a pickle we’re in.