Guns And Freedom
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There are those who oppose guns in the hands of citizens and so they cite the recent tragedy in Aurora, Co., to support their cause. Yet this is the risk, the inherent dilemma of a free society. If we are to be free, then some will be free to be destructive and abusive of their fellow citizens. One cannot have it both ways. We cannot be free without risk. We cannot eliminate risk and be free. We cannot even reduce risk to any great extent and be free.
If we are to reduce risk we certainly cannot rely on government agents to keep us safe. Government agents are those who take away our freedom, our money and our lives. Two recent stories tell us of the police using excessive force and killing citizens, for no good reason. Where is the national outrage? Why are the perpetrators not in jail? If these had been the actions of private citizens, they would be in jail. Why are the police able to knock on the wrong door in the middle of the night, find the resident opening the door with a gun, obviously to protect himself, then killing him and nothing happens to the police? The police obviously instigated the entire affair. They should be in jail.
Why are the police able to shoot a man running away from a possible drug arrest? Why were the police able to execute a man for failing to stop?
Yet there are those who want to take guns away from the citizens. They trust the police? Take the guns away from the police first. Leave the citizenry armed.
The eminent historian Carroll Quigley wrote in his magnum opus Tragedy and Hope: “The political conditions of the latter half of the twentieth century will continue to be dominated by the weapons situation, for, while politics consists of much more than weapons, the nature, organization, and control of weapons is the most significant of the numerous factors that determines what happens in political life. Surely weapons will continue to be expensive and complex. This means they will increasingly be the tools of a professionalized, if not mercenary, forces. All of past history shows that the shift from a mass army of citizen-soldiers to a smaller army of professional fighters leads, in the long run, to a decline of democracy. When weapons are cheap and easy to obtain and to use, almost any man may obtain them, and the organized structure of the society, such as the state, can obtain no better weapons than the ordinary, industrious, private citizen … since the weapons obtainable by the state today are far beyond the pocketbook, understanding, or competence of the ordinary citizen.”
One should also add that the state has made it illegal to own weapons comparable to the ones government possesses to use against us. But Quigley goes on: “….With such an “amateur weapons system” ….we are likely to find majority rule and a relatively democratic political system…..But, on the contrary, when a period can be dominated by complex and expensive weapons that only a few persons can afford to posses, ….In such a society, sooner or later, an authoritarian political system that reflects the inequality in control of weapons will be established.”
With such an inequality in guns already established between the citizens and the government, what purpose does it serve to further take away the equality in weapons the citizens should have to maintain democracy? Why shouldn’t the citizens have assault type guns if the police do? One can only suppose to make it easier for government agents to intimidate, demand, abuse and, as cited previously, kill those who are so presumptuous as to oppose their authoritarian ways.
Which brings us to Syria and Libya. If the Free Syrian Army is going to remove Assad from office as the Libyans did Qaddifi, they need guns. Where do they get them? Should this be parsed into the liberal/conservative components the question might be: Should the Free Syrian Army be allowed to have weapons?
In Syria, as often occurs in other states, the people have revolted against their leaders. Why? Perhaps because they government has been too abusive of the citizens. How many Anaheims have they had? How many Lake County, Florida’s does it take before we are tired of our abusive government? The Syrians are in revolt. How then are they to do so, if they don’t have weapons? Those who would take away the citizen’s right to bear arms must be in support of the abuse of Assad. There is no other way to believe, simply because you can’t have it both ways. If the government takes your arms away, there will be no way to oppose an abusive, and it will become abusive, as Quigley and the news articles point out.
So while we should be saddened and upset by the news from Aurora, Co., the more important news has to do with the abuse the police heap upon the citizens with little or no repercussions. If we are to remain free, the people need weapons equal to those of the taxpayer-funded armed state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because we may need a militia (see Free Syrian Army) to fight an abusive government.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=10840
