False checks

We are no longer in the 1780s. That is clear. Yet for some reason, a significant portion of American political rhetoric still functions as if we were. Portions of the American political spectrum retain the understanding of the United States as a federalist entity. A popular interpretation of the Second Amendment and argument against gun control stands on a civilian and state check on federal power.

A state, by definition, has a monopoly of force over its citizens. Within the definition and understanding of a western state, through social contract, citizens agree to allow the state the prerogative for force -- whether internationally or toward its own citizens -- to establish order, retain the status quo and ensure its own legitimacy.

All of the countries I have lived in in Latin America have experienced attempts at government overthrow at some point in history -- whether through an externally supported military coup or through the constant challenge of guerrilla fighters and paramilitary forces. Still, these actions are understood as illegal within the constraints of the standing system of law and government.

The question of morality is irrelevant in these nations' codified laws. Whether the standing regime is oppressive or not, and whether an overthrow is legitimate or not, are concerns that are not addressed. The use of violence, determined legitimate or necessary by an individual or a group against the state or its intentions, is illegal.

The Second Amendment is an infringement upon this understanding of statehood. It claims that "a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State,” legitimizing the right to carry arms as one of the many checks on the power of the federal government over that of states. There is a normalization of the state’s codification of violent contingency measures for its own failure. Furthermore, there is a continuation of debate under the assumption of federal abuse and excess. Policy and its public debate should focus on improving the well-being of citizens within the current regime. Holding on to this normalized perspective is counterproductive.

While the roots of the federalist mentality are clear when recognizing the origins of the United States in colonialism, they are incompatible with the current reality. The emergence of the United States as independent from Britain led to its development as a rejection of many of the tenets that had traditionally characterized the British state -- for instance, its large bureaucracy and centralization of power. Yet contemporary challenges have led the United States to structurally develop antithetically while functionally retaining its original rhetoric.

Domestic affairs and policies cannot live in isolation from the international and the additional challenges, especially for a country that continues to serve the role of a hegemony. An attempt to retain legislative power and state sovereignty has been triumphed by the need for legislative national cohesion in trade, civilian rights and the retention of international dominance. The American bureaucracy has covertly grown to become one of the largest and most complex in the world with consistent federal, state and local overlap. It no longer functionally fits the federal, state-focused rhetoric of its foundation.