Since the United States is the only country in the world that recognizes an individual right to own guns, virtually every person that immigrated here comes from a culture that is not exposed to gun ownership the same way Americans are. In some way, they are sheltered from its true intent, being largely dependent on the very one-sided information given to them by the media.
As an immigrant myself, before coming here I had always wondered what these gun-crazy Americans want with all their weapons. But soon after arriving I became a gun owner myself. At first, it felt like an act of rebellion against my native Germany, where gun ownership is nearly impossible. Through this rebellious act, however, I was exposed to all sorts of previously inaccessible information.
And speaking of rebellion, in 1776, the population of the Thirteen Colonies was around 2.5 million, including women, children, and slaves. A quick Google search revealed that an estimated 200,000 men served in the Continental Army or colonial militias at some point during the Revolutionary War. However, the number of soldiers in the field at any given time was much lower—typically between 20,000 and 30,000 men. A significant portion of the colonial population remained neutral or loyal to the British Crown. Estimates suggest that about 20-30% of the population were Loyalists, while a large percentage tried to remain uninvolved.
Given these factors, the percentage of the total population that actively participated in the Revolution, either as soldiers or through direct support, was likely between 10-15%. This is a rough estimate and varies depending on how one defines participation. However, times have changed, and modern conflicts no longer have much in common with the American Revolution in the way it was fought.
Although being the subject of considerable debate, what surprised me the most is when I found out that the purpose of the Second Amendment was not in fact hunting, or even self-defense, but rather that it arguably serves as an extra layer of checks and balances. In addition to the separation of powers and the delegation of powers away from the federal government to the states, the Second Amendment’s main purpose is that it enables The People to be able to stand up to a government overstepping its authority and becoming tyrannical.
However, when I contemplated this most unusual piece of the Constitution, compared to my own home country’s so-called “Grundgesetz,” something seemed to be off, but for the longest time I was unable to put my finger on it. Then it suddenly struck me. While all the other amendments can stand by themselves, unlike these, which are available to us as needed, the Second Amendment requires constant and active participation, even in times when we feel so secure we might all but forget about it. It is a team effort of sorts.
Drawing on a very German comparison with a game of football, or as you would call it, “soccer,” we can see that you need to meet some minimum requirements for it to be fun for everyone. My home team’s stadium seats 80,000 people. Each team shows up with up to 18 and sometimes more players. However, there are just 11 players of each team on the starting squad and thus, if you don’t get at least 22 guys on the field, none of the other 80,000 will have a good time that day.
If you like our articles… please subscribe to our 2nd Amendment update list. We generally send one email per week containing 2A news you might’ve missed.
So, I’ve wondered what percentage of the population would need to participate for this right to function effectively as a check on governmental power as intended. I think we need to consider several factors:
- Historical Context: The framers of the Constitution envisioned a citizen militia that could act as a deterrent against tyranny. Historically, a significant portion of the male population was expected to be armed and ready to serve in this capacity.
- Political and Social Dynamics: In a modern democratic society, other checks and balances — such as the judicial system, free press, and peaceful political activism — often play a more significant role. The effectiveness of an armed populace as a check on government would also rely on the level of unity and coordination among those participating. The Second Amendment is still important as a last resort.
- Modern Military Capabilities: Today, the government possesses advanced military technologies that would make it difficult for an armed civilian population, regardless of size, to directly confront a modern military force.
- The nature of the actual threat: It appears that, considering past examples, an actual confrontation between citizens and their governmental representatives is much more likely on a local level than a nationwide event, thus smaller local pockets of resistance seem a viable option.
Given these complexities, it’s difficult to pinpoint a specific percentage of the population that needs to be armed or involved for the Second Amendment to serve as an effective check on governmental power. The degree to which the Second Amendment could act as a check on government depends on how many citizens are armed, trained, and organized. However, there is no specific percentage that guarantees this function, as it would also depend on the government’s response, the level of public support, and the broader social and political context.
Willing to acknowledge at least some German stereotypes, I was quite dissatisfied to have been unable to come up with a formula or at least a clear, and well-defined hard number, of what that critical mass in civilian participation must look like. At least I can say with absolute certainty that the more people participate, the better. And at least the lack of a guarantee of being able to maintain the upper hand in our ability to exercise the Second Amendment as a viable check and balance motivates me to not allow the government to get a free kick.
If the citizens and the government are to play a fair game of soccer, let’s at least show up with no less than 11 players on our team, though a reserve would be nice to have.
