It also seems to me that to take individual rights seriously means some sort of protection mechanism for said rights, including infringement on those rights from powers abroad.
One of the most underrated (in Tyler's parlance) aspects of the Second Amendment is that it frames defense as both a right and a responsibility. On the individual level, there is the right to bear arms. On the civic level, there is the idea of the militia–distinct from an army– This is a reminder that the Founders, or at least those who framed the amendment, were wary of standing armies and professional soldiering.
That concern did not originate with the American Founders. It runs through the broader liberal tradition. The English Bill of Rights restricted the Crown's ability to maintain a standing army without Parliament's consent, reflecting fears that a permanent military could become an instrument of domestic tyranny. And in Roman history, where Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon stood as the archetypal example of a military commander turning an army inward against the republic itself.
A militia assumes that the burden of collective defense belongs to citizens themselves rather than to a separate warrior class. In that sense, the amendment may offer a different path through the liberalism-versus-pacifism dilemma. A society that looks at armed citizens as the default by right can deter invasion and resist tyranny without requiring a large permanent military establishment.
This seems ironic today, but it is not entirely foreign to pacifist traditions. Even the Quakers, often associated with nonviolence, have a history that includes arms manufacturing. The point is not that pacifism requires violence, but that a well-armed citizenry was historically understood as a means of preventing war and domination rather than encouraging it.
Indeed. Look at Ukraine. Pacifism would mean what? Giving up Ukrainian culture, language and - perhaps even more importantly- the right to choose a political system. Ukrainians have been living in a political system as deeply corrupt as that of Russia. Now we see among the young a desire to meet international governance standards that would allow Ukraine to be considered as a EU candidate.
Russia wants nothing to do with European democratic values, the invasion is in part an attempt to thwart democratic growth.
It also seems to me that to take individual rights seriously means some sort of protection mechanism for said rights, including infringement on those rights from powers abroad.
One of the most underrated (in Tyler's parlance) aspects of the Second Amendment is that it frames defense as both a right and a responsibility. On the individual level, there is the right to bear arms. On the civic level, there is the idea of the militia–distinct from an army– This is a reminder that the Founders, or at least those who framed the amendment, were wary of standing armies and professional soldiering.
That concern did not originate with the American Founders. It runs through the broader liberal tradition. The English Bill of Rights restricted the Crown's ability to maintain a standing army without Parliament's consent, reflecting fears that a permanent military could become an instrument of domestic tyranny. And in Roman history, where Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon stood as the archetypal example of a military commander turning an army inward against the republic itself.
A militia assumes that the burden of collective defense belongs to citizens themselves rather than to a separate warrior class. In that sense, the amendment may offer a different path through the liberalism-versus-pacifism dilemma. A society that looks at armed citizens as the default by right can deter invasion and resist tyranny without requiring a large permanent military establishment.
This seems ironic today, but it is not entirely foreign to pacifist traditions. Even the Quakers, often associated with nonviolence, have a history that includes arms manufacturing. The point is not that pacifism requires violence, but that a well-armed citizenry was historically understood as a means of preventing war and domination rather than encouraging it.
Indeed. Look at Ukraine. Pacifism would mean what? Giving up Ukrainian culture, language and - perhaps even more importantly- the right to choose a political system. Ukrainians have been living in a political system as deeply corrupt as that of Russia. Now we see among the young a desire to meet international governance standards that would allow Ukraine to be considered as a EU candidate.
Russia wants nothing to do with European democratic values, the invasion is in part an attempt to thwart democratic growth.
As Orwell pointed out in 1942 in the opening line of Pacifism and the War https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.”