There are numerous arguments for
possession of firearms by the citizenry. The least important were
advanced by the NRA and others around the time of the initial
anti-gun legislation – the 1968 law passed as a knee-jerk reaction
to the assassinations of the Kennedys and King. These arguments were
that people should have arms for hunting, shooting sports, and
collections, and probably lost the NRA many members, including the
author.
A more important reason for arming the
citizen is for self defense. Most people can agree that one must be
able to defend oneself against wild animals such as bear, wolves,
coyotes, cougars, snakes, etc., as well as rabid animals, wild and
domestic. Most rational people also understand that, in defending
against animals or humans, it is very desirable to have at least as
effective a weapon as the attacker, or preferably better. Against
most attacks that one is likely to encounter, the gun is the
defensive weapon of choice.
This brings us to one of the most
voiced arguments against gun control or confiscation. It is often
said that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. It is
certainly true that criminals will always be able to obtain the
weapons they desire from the black market, which incidentally will
flourish if guns are banned. The only people that will be disarmed
by such laws will be the law abiding citizens that would pose
virtually no danger possessing arms in the first place.
Unfortunately, the statement that only
criminals will have guns depends on the definitions of criminals. If
guns are banned from the public, then only criminals AND the
'authorities' will be armed. Now most police today are
pro-community, although many are too trigger happy for the public's
good. A bigger concern is the fact that almost all in the law
enforcement world harbor an 'us against them' mentality. This
mindset is easily co-opted by a tyrant in a gun-free nation to
produce yet another incarnation of the SS, Gestapo, Staci, KGB, or
some other version of the jack-booted storm trooper. Any holdouts
would be quickly purged from the ranks, either by just terminating
their membership, or if necessary by terminating them. In every
totalitarian nation, the police are the enablers of despotic rule,
not a protection against it. Ultimately in a disarmed nation, the
only criminals with guns are the tyrant's goons, legitimized by the
title of Law Enforcement.
The most immediately relevant argument
against restrictive gun legislation is the Constitution. Not only
is no authority given the Federal Government to restrict ownership of
arms by the citizenry, but the second Amendment explicitly forbids
any infringement by government at all levels of the right of the
people to keep and bear arms. This together with the tenth Amendment
makes it clear that, short of Constitutional amendment to permit such
restrictions, any such laws are illegal in themselves. Either we
have a Constitutional government or we have no legitimate government,
and in the latter case we need to flush the toilet and get rid of the
stench.
Ultimately the most important and
credible argument in favor of an armed citizenry is history. A
madman killing 27 people in Connecticut with guns is a terrible
tragedy, and a small group of madmen killing 2700 people in 2001 with
box cutters and airliners is much worse, but the slaughter of tens of
millions of people by tyrannical madmen in disarmed countries
throughout history – particularly the twentieth century – is
beyond tragedy. The carnage wreaked by, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao,
Pol Pot, and many other lesser monsters may have been with gas,
guillotines, wood chippers, chainsaws, or other means as well as
guns, but the common thread is that the victims were all disarmed
first. The legend of the Japanese general that warned that an
invasion of the US would be unwise because there would be a rifle
behind every blade of grass underscores the value of an armed
citizenry to the security of a free people. The Swiss have been able
to resist the tyrannical ambitions of their neighbors in the
twentieth century by merely being fully armed. Neither the Kaiser,
Hitler nor Mussolini wanted to verify whether there might be a rifle
behind every blade of grass.
The American people must not try to
second guess whether Obama's gun grabbing ambitions include
tyrannical dreams or not, although the arming and training of his
FEMA goon squad does not tend to allay one's fears. There may be
other reasonable initiatives that can be taken to try to minimize the
risk of the madman massacres of late, but disarming the public almost
guarantees madman massacres of much greater scale. Wake up America,
and study history.
