6/30/12

“I support the Second Amendment because without it, there would be no First Amendment.”—various people

I have this friend, a visible one for a change, with whom I argue. He and I rarely see eye to eye. And like my invisible friend, with whom I argue, he sometimes espouses positions on important subjects that run ever so slightly contrary to mine, positions that we both feel are worthy of discussion.

My friend had stumbled across the above statement, and doubting it, as he cannot help doubting so many things, he challenged his opposition, on the net, to prove that the above statement was anything but total nonsense. How could any group of citizens, he wondered, no matter how numerous or well armed, stand against the most powerful military in the history of the planet, if it came down to that final fight between government oppression and us free folks?

Well heck, I had to chew on this one for a while.

You can find things like this quote on the internet all the time, on facebook and blog raving and such. It is a heartfelt statement, an act of faith, and subject to criticism and acrimony from people who fervently fear and dislike firearms, as well fear and dislike the people who keep them. I have read this statement before and pretty much support the notion, in an abstract kinda way. Abstract because I have no proof to use to support the statement. It simply hasn’t been tested…yet. So I really don’t know for sure if it’s true.

I can claim that it also hasn’t been disproved, despite the supreme confidence expressed by critics of this notion. (See how polite I can be?) For in the history of the world there has never before, or since, been a nation formed by folks who have written these two mandates, side by side, into the How-To-Run-The-Government cookbook.

The notion that the men who wrote the Constitution felt a need for the people to be armed to keep the government in check feels right to me. It feels logical to me. There are many preserved documents in which these men state this belief, and I can find no compelling argument from that time against it. Those first ten amendments to our Constitution were written by the founding fathers in the hope that they would protect our citizens from abuse by their own government. For as Jefferson suggested, governments always become more oppressive over time, and only the people can bring them back into line.

Lots of arguments against this notion are bandied about these days, thrown down by folks who make their own heartfelt statements that I think are nonsense simply because they run directly contrary to my thinking. So I suppose I could stand toe to toe with those I disagree with and scream and whine and splash spittle upon their glasses, and hope that I can wear them down with the volume if not the weight of my beliefs….or not.

Screaming doesn’t often convince people to change their opinion, any more than it makes an illegal immigrant learn English faster. So how’s about I just mention some of the many things I believe support the notion that the Second Amendment actually helps to preserve our freedom. And then I’ll shut up.

I’ll start with my friend’s suggestion that a bunch of common folk, no matter how well armed, cannot stand up against the strongest military know to humans. This does seem a bit much. But consider Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts way back in 1775. The English king possessed the most powerful military on earth back then, and he used that military to not only keep his own subjects in line, but those of our precious thirteen tiny colonies as well. On that memorable night of Paul Revere and Minutemen fame, the British army set out to confiscate the weapons of the citizens of Lexington and Concord. Presumably to keep them folks in line. That’s what oppressive governments do when you let them. What followed was a few years and many battles, and those armed citizens defeated the most powerful military force on earth and this country was born.

Sure, this was muskets, horses, and wooden sailing ships, and today we have tanks and rockets, and advanced nastiness that would have to be taken into consideration, but regardless, this is the beginning to my argument.

Then there is that ole disarming of the citizens thing. Pretty much every nasty government on earth, throughout all of history and continuing today, disarmed its citizens to keep the government in power. They did this so they can tax indiscriminately, order folks around, and when they feel frisky, to slaughter hundred or thousands or millions of their own citizens. I could give examples, but this is the story of all of recorded history. All of it. If you don’t believe me, look it up. It’s not hard to find, for it is universally consistent.

Apparently, these governments felt that armed citizens choosing freedom represented a threat to total government control. Maybe I should let them make my argument for me.

It’s also been said that a government that fears the people has citizens. A people who fear their government are subjects. Can you argue with this?

I will concede that the odds don’t favor a disorganized rabble armed with 22 caliber target rifles when faced with a military such as our government could field. But I think I can predict how an unarmed group of dissidents armed only with the First Amendment might do in that same situation. So maybe this boils down to dying while fighting for freedom, or standing patiently in line for your turn in the ovens. Seriously, when it gets this bad, which do you chose?

Cause I figure a fair number out there would actually chose the ovens. And that just leaves me muttering.

Look around at those of our politicians who commit their entire careers to gun confiscation, and you will find they always favor placing government in control of everything, coincidentally with them in charge with the rest of us, in order for us to serve them. Do you really think they have our best interests in mind? Certainly we can find politicians of every stench who are capable of turning our government against us, but even when these are the ones who originally oppose gun confiscation, once they turn nasty the first place they go is into the gun confiscation camp.

Realistically, we are not facing the ovens in this country in the near future. But we still have a government capable, and clearly on the path of growing far more oppressive than it already is. When my government is tolerable, I ignore it. When it becomes annoying, I’d like a First Amendment to preserve my right to shout my objections on the street corner, and when my government goes totally evil, I’d like something more than pitchforks to carry into the streets. So yeah, I do think that there is merit in that opening quote.

Right now, in California we have a few politicians who have spent their adult lives trying to end the Second Amendment, and low and behold, they favor more and more and more government control of our lives. Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi. Nationally, think Schumer. Think Clinton and Clinton. Think Obama. Think Holder. All enemies, demented enemies of the Second Amendment, and low and behold, avid advocates of government control of our lives and their permanent place at the top of the heap, with the subjects at the bottom. The First Amendment says I can rant against them. Someday, perhaps only the Second will give me the chance to stop them.