The Thing About Guns And The Liberals Who Hate Them
The interesting thing about the gun control debate is the extent to which it brings the underlying assumptions of both sides into focus. As an added bonus, the arguments presented by the gun control nuts do more to illustrate why the Second Amendment was originally included in the Bill of Rights than anything its supporters might wish to present. The debate over guns isn’t so much about who has the right to own a gun as it is about who has the right to be free.
Whether or not one believes that the right to bear arms was predicated on, and designed for the purpose of, ensuring “a well-regulated militia”, there can be no doubt that a fundamental premise was that the general citizenry could and should be trusted to own firearms. The fact that the “well-regulated militia” phrase was included in the amendment ironically disproves the argument which gun grabbers often use when attempting to employ the very same phrase to support their position. Their argument generally comes down to suggesting that without “a well-regulated militia” the “right to bear arms” is no longer protected.
The problem with the approach, as presented by the gun grabbers, is that it seems to substitute a completely different set of assumptions from the ones under which those who wrote and ratified the US Constitution were working. As noted constitutional scholar Roger Roots points out in an article in which he even goes so far as to question the constitutionality of an extensive professional Police Force:
A discussion on his overall thesis is not really the focus of this article, but the fact that keeping the peace was considered to be the duty of every citizen certainly refutes much of the gun grabber’s narrative. Not only does every able bodied citizen have the “right to bear arms”, but they are also expected to carry those arms, le. Concealed carry laws, and be available to respond in the service of law and order. The beauty and prescience of the Constitution cannot help but be a source of awe and amazement.
Whenever a dispute between individual freedom and government power arises the unfortunate, but predictable, response of those on the left is to support bigger and more intrusive government. The question of when the general population will finally realize that one of the primary characteristics of “lefist” ideology is a lack of trust in the people remains unanswered. While it is true that the United States has been experiencing some cultural change, and thus a breakdown in the societal contract, it is also not much of a stretch to suggest that even under those circumstances it is those on the left who should be held responsible.
Having discussed the relationship between the people, the government, and the guns, there remains one other related point which needs to be addressed. Who is it that most benefits from possessing a firearm? Once again, there is a certain irony in the fact that the arguments often made by the gun grabbers actually reveal something completely different than one might understand on first glance.
The reason that they suggest guns should not be generally available, ie. the extent of damage that one person can inflict on others, is also the same reason that individuals should retain the right to bear arms. What is it about a firearm that makes them the focus of on-going debate and discussion? Is it not that it provides the weak with protection against the strong? Does a six foot man need a gun to successfully subdue and attack a five foot woman? Does an angry mob of ten motivated people need a gun to subdue a small group composted of some hated minority with whom they happen to cross paths? Does an intrusive and tyrannical government need to possess guns as a prerequisite to seizing power in the absence of a citizenry in possession of any of their own? Yes, one person suitably armed is not so easily subdued by law enforcement personnel, but in the final analysis, it is always the weak that need something to equalize the balance of power, not the strong.
Thank you. As always, I hope that I have given you something to think about and perhaps even presented a perspective which is both original and reasonable.