Interesting Definition of Tyranny

There has been a rather vigorous discussion of the Second Amendment happening at the Society for History of the Early American Republic list. This is a list used by professional historians, largely in universities and similar institutions. Robert Churchill started the excitement with a polite but critical review of Saul Cornell's A Well-Regulated Militia, which asserts that the right to keep and bear arms was not intended to be an individual right at all, but that developed this idea in the 19th century.

I am not impressed with Cornell's claims on this, largely for the reasons that David T. Hardy's very critical review in the April 2007 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal articulates. I threw my two cents in as well, and a torrent of defenders of Cornell's claims responded--including the astonishing claim that the Pennsylvania Constitution's 1776 and 1790 guarantees of a right to arms were not individual:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. [1776 Penn. Const.]

and:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.[Penn. Const. 1790]

The rationalizations for these are quite astonishing, and a pretty good indication of how important disarming the masses has become to the intellectuals of our society. Similarly, this professor decided that the Indiana Constitution of 1816's guarantee was not individual. My response is here.

One criticism of my careful effort to demonstrate that these were understood as individual rights produced this response from Bob Arnebeck on the list:

Jon Roland provides us with the high ground, and I appreciate his
website. However when he writes about the Second Amendment and adds "The people must always have the means to resist tyrannical government," what are we looking at? The weapon currently most successful in fighting tyranny is the IED. Is making them protected under our Bill of Rights? Why not the suicide car bomb? Something like the Shiite militias would be doubly protected here: freedom of religion and right to bear arms.

Now, argue if you want that the Iraq War was a mistake. But setting up and defending a democratic republic where there had been a dictatorship that routinely engaged in torture and genocide qualifies as "tyranny"?

To the degree that the Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights,
then it is undemocratic and abets tyranny. I could do with fewer automatic weapons on the streets, less pornography, and this insane idea that spending money is free speech so that the whole political system is bought by the rich.

Bob Arnebeck

Quick! Alert the ACLU! Guarantees of individual rights are "undemocratic" and "abets tyranny"!