|
I think the founders understood full well the power of the press and the power of free speech. I don't see that things have changed all that much in the electronics age to increase that power, in fact that power may have diminished for practical purposes because of the sheer volume and barrage of information, most of which is mis-information.
On the other hand, I don't think the founders anticipated the technological advances in weaponry. If you want to make the 2nd amendment about the gov't being forbidden to regulate an individual's right to bear arms, why aren't you upset that you can't buy a nuke to keep in your garage "just in case?" Or an Apache helicopter? Or any number of weapon systems.
Furthermore, if you want to make the argument that an armed populace is important to ward off tyranny, I think you ought to realize that things are a bit different in the 21st century. The disparity in military power between civilians and governments is too huge for armed rebellion to be effective. Look at the most successful revolutions in recent times... they've been essentially accomplished without weaponry. East Germany, the Soviet Union, Egypt... It's all about hearts and minds, not about a violent overthrow of a regime. The ones that fall via violence only do so with the assistance of other nations' armies, and it seems to me that the ones that fall via violence wind up being less stable than the peaceful revolutions.
|