President Barack Obama and other gun control advocates miss the point of the Second Amendment. It is not about hunting. It is not about skeet shooting.
They miss the point on purpose, to make themselves seem like everyday people, and to make the politics of gun control more palatable. But they’re not being honest about the true purpose of the Constitutional guarantee of American citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
When the Second Amendment was written, it and the Constitution of which it is a part, was not about hunting. It was never about hunting. The Constitution was about securing liberty by setting imperfect elected and appointed leaders as checks and balances on each other. The Second Amendment was about securing liberty through the force of arms. The people were to be a check on the government.
An armed citizenry can do at least two things. An armed citizenry can face down the threat of government tyranny. An armed citizen can also protect themselves when government is not on hand to offer protection. The first is a check on government power. The second is a check on anarchy. The first keeps the government on its leash. The second ensures that government does not have to become all-powerful. The responsible, armed, informed citizen is the lynchpin of our system.
Government cannot be everywhere, all the time, to keep law-abiding citizens safe from criminals. A government capable of protecting liberty all the time across every square inch of this vast country is a government capable of extinguishing liberty. We do not need nor do we want a government so powerful. Liberty cannot thrive if government is overly powerful.
With liberty comes responsibility. An American adult must assume many responsibilities, and among those is the responsibility to protect their loved ones, themselves, and their property from thieves. The government cannot do that for us. We should not want the government to do that for us. We should do it for ourselves. In some cases, we must, because our own government is irresponsible.
Citizens do not need anyone’s permission to protect ourselves from criminals.We certainly don’t need the permission of anyone who is part of the reason we need to defend ourselves.
I live in a state that borders a Third World country that is currently in the midst of a violent drug war. That drug war is spilling over into Texas. The federal government on the southern side of the border is not strong enough to crush the drug cartels. The federal government on the northern side of the border is strong enough to keep the violence out, but is choosing not to. Some on the left want the border porous so that it can become a vote factory. Some on the right want the border to remain porous so that they can use it to get cheap labor. The citizen who has to live with the consequences of both of those positions finds themselves dealing with lawlessness. Those of us who write about that lawlessness may have additional risks on us. Is it wise to depend on the government that is promoting lawlessness, to help defend my family and my home from the consequences of lawlessness?
Molon labe.
According to the locally posting creature that styles itself “Zeke”, you, sir, are a paranoid, right wing , bitterly clinging radical.
You are in pretty good company.
An attempt by a government entity to confiscate your firearms in Texas are not nearly as imminent as it appears to be here in New York, though it also appears that a couple million gun owners in the state are going to engage in civil disobedience over the Democrats and Cuomo Junior’s latest gun grab.
Armed private citizens are the only thing preventing the left from seizing absolute control. That’s why they relentlessly pursue gun control in every form.
Exactly.
As a pre-emptive strike to the trolls who will inevitibly show up and whine that armed citizens would never be able to stand up to the armed forces, there are several things to consider:
1) Ever hear of WWII’s partisans? A place called Vietnam? The IRA? It’s not necesary to field an equal or superior force on paper to have a large effect. True, in many cases the opposition relies on outside help (e.g. The French during our revolution, the Russians in Vietnam), but there is another factor that would likely make that unnecessary, and that is:
2) What makes the trolls think that the military and police would back the government? some undoubtedly would, but since the military and police tend to the conservative side, where do you think the odds would lie? I refer you to a thing we call “The Civil War”.
A more worrisome fact is that, were armed resistance necessary, there is every possibility that a third party would step in to take advantage of the confusion.
Further to some of your points:
Natural Disasters:
Following Katrina, looters became a problem. Citizens and their families were left to their own devices for a time. Law Enforcement just didn’t have the manpower. Any similar circumstance requires citizens to have the means to protect themselves, their families, and their neighbors. Naturally, the “Progressive” leadership in N.O. government responded to looters by attempting to disarm all the folks who didn’t do it. Dipsticks.
Following the Solar Storm of 1859, Telegraph systems all over Europe and North America were disrupted. Imagine the effect of the next one on the electric grid, and how long it would take to restore power. Meanwhile, no refrigeration, fuel, etc. Entire communities would have to band together to protect themselves from marauding looters (starving ones at that) until some semblance of order could be restored. Coordination will be provided by the local Police or Sheriff. Contact them an await instruction. “Lone wolf” types are pretty much useless to our families and communities.
Civil unrest:
Anybody remember those Korean shop keepers with shotguns and AR-15′s during the ’92 L.A. riots? Reginald Denny was unarmed. So much the worse for him.
Government:
The most likely scenarios would include County Sheriffs providing the coordination and command structure (Regulation in 18th Century terms) for armed citizens (the Militia).
Resistance to tyranny is unlikely to involve Citizens against the Military. Long before it came to that, we would have opposing factions of the Military facing each other, not the citizens. If the Military decided to side with a Tyrant, then we’re screwed. Hide your weapons and wait for an opportunity to back the play of the inevitable counter-revolutionary Military and L.E. forces. You know, like a Militia.
Bottom line – never shoot at cops or soldiers. You’ll lose. Then when the good-guy soldiers and cops show up, you won’t be around to back them up.
I haven’t heard anybody mention rogue elements of government. Think how differently Wounded Knee would have ended if those Lakota women had some AR-15′s (yes, I know. Stay with me here). They certainly had every moral right to defend themselves and their children. Now just who, again, is this “Civilian National Security Force”? If whoever they are decide to run amok, my full support goes to my local Texas Sheriff.
Molon Labe indeed.