> Without an explicit
protection of the right to own firearms and to use them in
self-defense (that's what that "well-regulated militia" part of
Amendment II is all about),
No, it's not. Not, anyway, according to longstanding Supreme Court precedent. Here is the latest statement:
"Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be 'ordinary military equipment' that could 'contribute to the common defense.'Id., at 178, 59 S.Ct., at 818. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment."
Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898, 939 n.1 (1997)
> one is back to the "two wrongs don't
make a right" concept that views the State as the only legitimate
defender of individual lives and property, and makes all individuals
helpless supplicants to the State, begging it for protection
Another term for the state monopoly on violence in "civilization"--at least when it is accompanied with the rule of law, more or less. I don't mean a very fair rule of law, just a rough one. Without the rule of law, some degree of democratic input and due process, you risk a police state. Without a state monopoly on violence, you get the Liberia civil war.
And no, I'm not an anarchist. In politics I am a traditional liberal, a fan of representative government, free speech, the rule of law, all that boring. tedious, unexciting, reactionary crap that allows us to carry on this conversation without having to worry too much about whether we will be hauled off to prison by angry officials or shot by some vengeful individual with a gun who dislikes our politics.
Liberally yours,
Justin