I will try something out here. It will be interesting to see whether this develops or gets shot down. I recognize there are risks. But discussion has to be courageous and willing to be shown off.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads (in one version): “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 sentence has been the fight-zone for gun control in recent years. Perhaps there is something of importance for technology innovation here too. If we agree with Madison that a militia of the people is the “best security of a free state”, then we can ask what constitutes a militia, how the security of a free state is to be undertaken, and what might be meant by “Arms”.
Instance. In the present oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, EPA and protectionist shipping regulations have prevented citizens from taking action to protect their property and livelihoods. While they could form militias against the invasion of oil, it appears that they are prevented from enjoying this right by agency rules. The “arms” they would take up are the technologies that would mitigate the damage done by the oil–ashore, and out at sea in fisheries.
Is there any qualification on “Arms” to mean only weaponry to be used against invading, usurping people? The historical context certainly supports “Arms” includes weapons. But does such usage exclude other instances of “Arms”? That is, why use “Arms” when “weapons of warfare” might do? Consider: “Arms” also applies to weaponry to be used against the weaponry of invading, usurping people. Why, yes. In an age where that weaponry includes cruise missiles and biological weapons that can be deployed remotely, without the actual presence of invading, usurping people alongside, essentially we have weapon-to-weapon combat, and we can extend that to guidance system to guidance system, and information sniffing system to information sniffing system. “Arms” includes a range of technologies, and the referent of use is security, not simply warfare, and security in turn extends to the technological and geographical environments, not merely resisting invading hordes with bad intent carrying pitchforks and tabors. We have as much in the ITAR regulations. Those technologies, instances of “Arms”, are members of a class. The Second Amendment articulates protections for the whole class. What is to be established is the present scope of that class. What if “Arms” spans all technologies that might be used by community, not merely those considered military weapons? That is, available to citizens without an infringement or usurpation of that right by a government. Like private gun ownership and use, but broader than that, to include tar-grabbing sand rakes.
The Constitution has it that the federal government can call “forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” Are these the only rationales available for a militia? Is an oil spill properly an “insurrection” or an “invasion”?
The Second Amendment places limits on federal and state power to restrict technology in the hands of citizens. If one looks at all the possible technologies put forward to help deal with the oil spill, it appears that federal and state bureaucracies are more standing in the way of local action than they are helping. Those bureaucracies lack the capacity to deal with the scale of the problem, the immediacy of the problem, and their regulations are hopelessly tuned to the status quo and not to fundamental changes taking place.
It’s possible, therefore, to argue: “militia” means any organization of citizens, in their common defense of the security of the state, including environmental and economic attacks on that security; “security” means preservation of those rights of, say, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that go along with a check on arbitrary rules of government; and “arms” includes all those technologies people might use to their advantage.
The Second Amendment sets forth a limitation on government control of technology. It’s not just about people-killing weaponry. We have the right to keep and bear technology, as this is necessary to the security of a free state.
What do you think? If it doesn’t hold up as an argument, is it because the Constitution does not support it, or because you don’t want such an outcome? That is, is a limitation on individual ownership and use of technology by federal and state government a good thing for a free state?