I was asked for help tonight in the mail to answer someone, presumably a non-American who said the Bill of Rights meant nothing to them, what justification there was for the right to bear arms. At first that sounded a touch difficult without the linchpin but upon a few moments thinking the 2nd amendment actually gets in the way of a simple explanation.
A human being has the right to self defense, to preservation of property, to preservation of life. To deny such a fundamental right is philosophically worthless and would require the greatest contortions to deny such a right based upon human nature. To deny the nature of man to defend himself is to deny defense in every area not simply in the use of arms of all types but legal, ethical, moral, medical, against animals and all the rest.
Once the right to defense is acknowledged then there are no grounds for establishing artificial limits as to the means of self defense, legal, moral, ethical, or physical. More importantly one can not deny the right to attempt self defense even in the real or imagined face of total failure or of complete inability. The right to die upon the plains of Thermopolae is a human right of attempted defense of self or others.
Thus we can not deny a human the right to attempt the preservation of life in the face of overwhelming odds or capability. That a man with a handgun can not win against a tank is not justification to prevent the attempt. The inability to adequately defend against said tank with a handgun no more precludes the right to defense than does the inability to speak preclude the right to free speech, nor the right of an atheist to freedom of religion.
Neither do arguments from rarity of the event justify the denial of human nature. Were opportunity or on going need the justification for denial of rights then the protection from search and seizure could as easily be denied on the grounds of that it is such a rare event in the life of a person that there is no need for the right.
Also disappear the arguments from the increase in crime as they are diametrically opposed to the right to defense in the first place. The greater the crime rate the greater to need for defense.
Once the right to defense is granted then there is not justification for the imposition of unequal combat upon the defender against the aggressor. To insist the defense must be limited to primitive technology if any at all while leaving the means of offense open to the free choice of the aggressor can not be defended.
This leads to the presumption of the level of technology where the level of technology appears to be of concern. The level of self defense is what is available to the aggressor on any level including the most powerful military on earth. To deny that human right is to insist that hand axes, bow and arrows, swords are the only legitimate defense against anything using gunpowder, a patently absurd assertion in light of the acknowledgement of the human right to defense, the right to try and the right to fail.
To hold there is a limitation upon the ability to defend using gun powder is on the order of insisting that metal weapons may only be defended against with stone.
There are in fact no truly good arguments against private ownership of any weapon in the world, including nuclear. There is no argument against Iraq having them. It is force that prohibits ownership. As to, what would an individual do with 20 MegaTonner any way? Not much in any event unless they are a nut case and any nutcase could come up with things quite as destructive of human life after a little library research and a hell of a lot cheaper. Thus for the non-nutcase there is no problem. Should people own cannon? Those ones in the public parks were usually privately owned and donated when the law changed. Tanks? Whatever you like, simply that it is the nutcase who can do as well or better more cheaply and why should a non-nutcase be deprived?
Thus arguments holding that the militia no longer is needed do not change the fundamental right to defense. The existence of an organized and standing army (quite well argued against in the creation of the US Constitution and still more or less unconstitutional) do not deny the right to try and die.
The impact of the existence of arms of any sort upon others does not preclude a human and individual right any more than do the real or imagined effects of a idea impinged upon the right of another person to speak that idea.
There are three primary reasons for the being against private ownership of arms of any type today as in all times in history.
1) The safety of others and self
2) The advancement of technology
3) The threat of rebels
From the first it is held that the right to self defense will inevitably lead to harming the innocent and of self. This is an imagined possibility in all cases in that an unchecked aggressor can do more harm to self or others than a defender can possibly do. It further presumes that the defender must put defense secondary to his own life (already at jeodardy) and to the life of potential others.
The second assumes that advanced technology is in a "back to the good old days" something improper that a person born and raised to the technology can not handle. Thus the person as ignorant as themselves of modern weaponry knows as little as themselves.
The third is the most insidious in that it presupposes the existence of some who would rise to contravene a legitimate and just government when no such example exists in history while there is ample evidence and examples of legitimate governments becoming oppressive necessitating a rebellion.
Variations upon these reasons exist in plentitude but the responses differ only marginally. An example of the first is the professed concern for children accidentally shot from finding a gun but then to deny all people the right to defense is to deny the surviving children the human right of defense in the future. In no other right can the death of a few be interpretated to infringe the rights of all. The free press in this country has arguably lead to the deaths of many hundreds yet that is not considered justification for the elimination of a free press.
The right to privacy in home and possessions has definitely lead to an increase in drugs, death from drugs, murder because of drugs and a few other things. Yet this is not an argument in favor of house to house searches without warrants. Why would a few accidental deaths argue against the right to defense -- not the right to guns but the right to defense.