Of course the hope is that we never have to use deadly force to defend ourselves. But that hope should not foolishly include being unprepared to do so. Fortunately for citizens of the United States, the authors of the constitution and Bill of Rights knew that; "An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny." The second amendment also states that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Unfortunately there is currently a growing constituency in favor of dissolving the right to own firearms. Revocation of the right would disarm law abiding citizens leaving weapons in the hands of law enforcement officials, the military, and criminals.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Thomas Jefferson
As Mr. Jefferson points out, gun control laws make it harder for law-abiding citizens seeking to protect themselves. Criminals already obtain weapons through illegal channels consequently they are unaffected by current, or additional gun control laws. Gun control is not the solution to ending random killing.
As it is, government already holds a monopoly of sorts on the legal use of physical force. From the government position, it must hold such a monopoly as the restraining element of the use of force by its constituency against each other, and against the government itself. For that reason alone, government must be rigidly defined and controlled by the people.
According to the National Crime Survey administered by the Bureau of the Census and the National Institute of Justice, it was found that only 12 percent of those who use a gun to resist assault are injured, as are 17 percent of those who use a gun to resist robbery. These percentages are 27 and 25 percent, respectively, if they passively comply with the felon's demands. Three times as many were injured if they used other means of resistance.[1]
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
--Thomas Jefferson
"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
-- Thomas Paine
"Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its
rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government"
-- Thomas Jefferson
1. G. Kleck, "Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research," Law and Contemporary Problems 49, no. 1. (Winter 1986.): 35-62.
~
Let me start by saying that I support you in enacting the rights afforded to you by your government. That is the great thing about a democracy. But there are also some thoughts I'd like to put forward.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little disappointed that your argument is based on quotes and ideas that are over two centuries old. The right to bear arms was an amendment, a change, designed to best protect its citizens at that particular time in history. Just because it was relevant then doesn't mean it is now.
Back then, the need was to protect a nation, not an individual which has become the basis for the argument today. 200 years ago there wasn't the protection offered by a trained and experienced collective of law enforcement organisations and while you seem to portray their role as retrospective they take a present role in protecting citizens from harm and deter future crimes by their presence. It's not perfect but nothing is.
There USED TO BE a need for the second amendment. But I cannot say for certain that there still is. The social contract has changed and people now expect that their government will protect them. While you worry of the abuse of power by the government on its people by taking away that right, I worry more of the abuse of power by individuals BECAUSE of that right. All eyes can be on one government but not on a whole nation of people.
If you want to argue for the right to arm yourself to defend yourself then don't use an outdated document and words that are out of context today. Use this time and this generation's actions to make your point.
To Nocturnal_tick; first you say "Back then, the need was to protect a nation" ... then you didn't read the quotes very closely. The quotes I used were not about the people being armed to repel foreign invaders, but rather have the ability to overthrow a government gone bad. The current trend and agenda being pushed by factions of government intend to disarm the people so that government cannot be challenged. If anything, the quotes I used are even more relevant today than two hundred years ago. The second, and probably most important fact and reason for owning a weapon is self-defense against armed aggression. The police cannot protect you in your home when someone breaks in to steal from you and kill you. The "police" exist - to investigate crimes that have already happened, write traffic citations, and of course brutalize otherwise innocent people in peaceful demonstrations. Thanks for your comment.
ReplyDeleteFirstly my original comment about protecting a nation stands. As you quoted Thomas Paine in saying, it is also about protecting a country from its government. But this was a country in its infancy and before the modern age of international relations and constant criticism through social media. Do you honestly believe its own people or major international organisations would allow the US government to devolve to a point where ordinary citizens have to take to the streets and fight another civil war?
DeleteAs for your police comments, I've already stated how their role matters in crime prevention. If someone were to break into your home to rob or kill you then they would try to do their part during the fact, not wait until after. I'm pretty offended that you would describe them, as a whole, as paper pushing thugs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCivil war? No. Revolution? Yes. As the economy goes, so does civil unrest. As well it should in a society where 90 percent of the nations wealth is owned and controlled by two percent of its population.
ReplyDeleteIt is unfortunate that you take personal offense from my view of the role of the "police". I shall endeavor to be more to the point without intending to offend. Your comment that the police would "try to do their part" at the time someone's home is being invaded is naive at best, and in any real sense of practicality quite ludicrous; first by use of the word "try" -- how is it even conceivable that the police could just happen to be on the scene when a crime is in progress to "try to do their part"? Especially at a private residence? Even in public on the streets, there is not an armed police officer on every street corner. What you propose essentially is that we allow ourselves to be made defenseless against the criminal element, and rely on the would-be criminal's fear of being caught as the deterrence from committing the crime. No thanks. I would rather have the option of defending my own life as there is no other option at the time I would actually need protection.