Once a Marine...

Once a Marine...
Every year or so, I get together with my Marine Officer buddies. We're not as lean, not as mean, but we're still Marines. That's me, with the long hair.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Thoughts on the Second Amendment


In this ever-increasing age of big government, we the people are allowing our rights as Americans to be eroded by Big Brother in Washington. George Bush started this return of “Federalism,” and Barack Obama has taken the baton and is running like a seasoned athlete in peak form. Our Founding Fathers went to a great deal of inconvenience to ensure these rights were built into the Constitution, but somehow we’re allowing them to be whittled away. And most people don’t seem to care.

There is, however, one right you should care about above all—the Second Amendment, which states, “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."

Some gun opponents like to argue the meaning of “a well regulated militia,” claiming this wording refers to the government’s right to “regulate” the militia, and thus the ownership of firearms. Arguing over the wording is their right, of course—but it’s a right they have only because individual Americans retained the right to possess arms, and over the next century these civilians came running when the call went out for the militia to assemble.

But let’s not get bogged down in the technical argument. It’s tedious, and ventures down way too many intellectual rabbit holes— Let’s allow the Supreme Court to decide (and re-re-re-re-decide) the technical argument. What I’d like to discuss briefly is why the Second Amendment is important to our nation, and is still relevant in 2009.

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee presented a three-part resolution to the Continental Congress stating that the Colonies should be free states. Everyone liked the idea, but the writing lacked gravitas, so they sent it to a committee-- and everyone knows what happens there. The chances are good that the document would still be in committee today, and we’d actually care the dysfunctionality of the Royal Family, but someone in the committee had the foresight to turn the re-write over to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wisely edited the original document with a match, and began over.

According to historian Alan Axelrod, Jefferson admired the work of English philosopher John Locke, and Locke had (years earlier) listed three “inalienable rights” in his writings: Life, Liberty, and Property. Jefferson agreed with Locke’s first two, and listed them accordingly. However, Jefferson clearly did not believe the third of Locke’s “inalienable rights” needed to be listed as an “inalienable right.” He believed them to be “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

We know that Jefferson got the idea of “inalienable rights” from Locke. We know he considered them at length. And we know he decided that, in America, listing property is an “inalienable right” was not necessary.

Why? Here’s my take on Jefferson’s thinking: Locke was an Englishman, and in England your personal property was not safe from the “Above the Law” King. If you owned the nicest horse in the kingdom, and the King decided he wanted it, he could send over a few knights to simply take the horse. Why? Because he’s the King, and you (the “subject”) had no way to defend yourself from his Royal Thugs. In Locke’s English mind, this was a violation of “natural law,” and the English people deserved to feel safe in their rightful ownership of property.

Jefferson, already formulating in his own mind what “the United States” would be, knew that there would be no such thing as a thieving, untouchable King, and the nation would be a nation of laws— a place where residents would be citizens, not subjects.

Laws would rule and guide, not the child of some genetically redundant warlord. This was a new-to-the-world concept—free men, self governance, and real rights for the individual—and the Declaration of Independence needed to explain the coming rebellion to the leaders of other nations.

Imagine the confusion:
Advisor: … so these Americans will govern, well, themselves.

King Vitamin: Yes, yes. But who shall rule?

Advisor: Well, my King—they will.

King: They? Who is they? Who will have my job in these States?

Advisor: No one, my Lord.

King: You can’t have a kingdom without a King.

Advisor: Right, my King. It won’t be a kingdom. It will be a Republic, where they elect men to speak on their behalf in a forum of discussion and compromise.

King: Madness! We manage as a kingdom because we know my every thought is ordained by God, and my decisions are above the law!

Advisor: Strangely enough, my King, my former boss said those very words, the night before you chopped off his head and ascended to the throne.

King: Don’t be contrary. God told me that he and my brother were no longer speaking. It was my duty to become king. Oh, well. I know King George—he’s hardly a gravity scientist, but he does have a decent army. It’s hard to resist the will of the King when he has guns, and you have only root vegetables to defend yourself.

Advisor: Actually, My King, almost every man in America owns his own gun.

King: Ha! King George will confiscate those guns prior to the rebellion!

Advisor: I don’t think you’re quite tracking along with this new concept, my Lord.

And in the end, that was that—the average Colonist was armed—and armed with the same weaponry as the King’s thugs. Our ability to even become a free state hinged completely on the fact that “the people” were armed, and were able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Now if our very independence was even possible because the populace was armed, why would Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers seek to then disarm the population?

At this point, many anti-gun readers are thinking one word: Relevance. They feel this right is antiquated, regardless of the Founders intent. The people simply no longer need guns.

To that, I respond with the name George W. Bush—the man those very same people believe to be the most evil man in modern history. Some called him a fascist, some say he orchestrated 9/11, some say he tried to turn America into a dictatorship, and some say he would have refused to leave office if he could have pulled it off.

Hey, let’s say that’s all true! That Dubya did want to initiate a governmental takeover, and rule for life. Then why didn’t he??!! Lenin did. Hitler did. Mussolini did. Castro did. Pol Pot did. Mao Tse-Tung did. Ho Chi Minh did. Kim Il-Sung did. Ferdinand Marcos did. Idi Amin did. Manuel Noriega did. Slobodan Milosevic did. If all these evil men did, why didn’t George W. Bush?

Because he couldn’t: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms still exists, and our government fears us. Might be a good idea to keep it that way.

No comments:

Post a Comment