Throughout our history, there have been two views of the State-citizen relationship. Easily detected in virtually any political conversation, proponents of either view will tip their hand almost immediately. If they do not, and you are still wondering where they stand--either Monarchists or Republicans--ask them this question, “What is your opinion of the 2nd Amendment?”.
There is only one correct answer, of course. Like the 1st, the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct. It is one of the rights identified by the Framers as having been endowed by our Creator. Should you doubt this, I urge you to refer to your pocket Constitution and reread the Bill of Rights. Of all of the rights that could have been added (and hundreds were proposed), these are the 10 that were ratified. I need no further proof but could offer such if pressed.
If your guest should begin with the results of a recent poll, you have your answer. Rights are not dependent on polls either for or against. This person is someone who could support the idea of rights being dependent on the will of a simple majority of people and the whim of the moment. These are dangerous people, willing to give up everyone’s rights, including their own, on the mistaken notion that the majority rules all. You should ask them if they think a majority can take away rights endowed by God.
If your guest responds by saying that the authorities should be responsible for protecting the people, you have an equally dangerous person. This person belongs to the group whose outlook is best described as monarchist in nature. In my opinion, the right to bear arms is by far the best issue possible to sort Monarchists from Citizens.
Recently, there have been tragic shootings across the country. Whatever the cause, calls for increased regulation or outright bans of firearms have inevitably followed. Those who call for these regulations or bans should ask themselves in what kind of country they want to live? What kind of neighbor do they want, or what kind of neighbor do they want to be? Ask them what they think is the responsibility of citizens in our country today?
Consider the shootings with which you may be familiar. What are some of the common themes you remember? I recall how helpless those people seemed as a psychopath methodically moved through the scene killing as he went. There is no escaping the conclusion that our fears, our policies, and our confidence in the power and reach of government have created the situation in which citizens are unable or unwilling to defend themselves or their families.
Recently, I traveled to Yellowstone National Park. The regulations were clear. I could carry a firearm, but it was illegal to use it. Considering the fact that there have been two fatal bear attacks in or near the Park this year so far, and the fact that the Campground Host warned us that a grizzly was walking through our campground every day, it might seem reasonable that we would be allowed to use a firearm for more than a club. Not in Yellowstone, home to a large and growing population of Grizzlies. The more we fear, the more we need to be able to rely on ourselves. In Yellowstone Park there is no way that Rangers can be on every trail or in every campground or keep track of every bear. And we shouldn’t want them there. So, we are unarmed and helpless and our government has made us this way.
In the recent shootings we find the same idea. Someone shoots up a salon, or a school, and immediately calls go out for firearm bans. The remedy then is to disarm the public and condemn someone else to death because of our cowardice. This is the country the Monarchists advocate. That anyone would advocate this disgusts me. As an armed citizen, it horrifies me.
I watched a video recently where one of these Monarchists attempted to ‘prove’ how futile an armed person’s efforts to return fire would be in a college classroom setting. I couldn’t find the link, but maybe a reader remembers this particular ‘experiment’ and could forward it. The shooter was in the front of the classroom with about 4 people sitting in seats scattered around a small lecture hall. All knew there would be a shooter and that the ‘students’ would try to return fire. All involved were supposedly trained firearms handlers. The shooter pulled the gun and started shooting. The students attempted to return fire and were all ‘killed’. The conclusion that was reached was that even if some of the students were armed, they couldn’t stop the shooter so allowing students to be armed wouldn’t make sense.
There are several problems with this experimental scenario that make it unrealistic. First, one of the students who attempted to return fire drew his handgun but it caught on his shirt. Otherwise he may have been able to stop the shooter. Second, there was only a shooter and four or so students narrowing the number of targets the shooter had to consider. If there were even a half dozen more students in the hall, there would have been more people to sort through to find the armed students. Last, and probably more important, if our government didn’t insist on emasculating us, any potential shooters would have to consider the fact that his potential victims might be armed. Since I believe that mass shooters are cowards, this deterrent is under appreciated.
But, and this is vital to understand, let us imagine that this ‘experiment’, rigged as it was, accurately predicted the result of a shooting in this situation. Imagine that it would have made no difference in outcome, that a shooter could not be stopped even by armed students. Even if that were true I still would rather be armed. Ask the Monarchist what it must feel like to cower, helpless, praying for the police to arrive and save you while a brutal murderer works his way through a classroom killing in the absolute knowledge that no one can do a thing to stop him because we have, through our intentional policy, prevented them.
Remember, the psychopath not only knows no one is armed and that his targets can do nothing to stop him, he counts on it in his planning. Another thing that he counts on, is that he will probably have all the time he needs to shoot, reload, and continue shooting. Even if the call goes out with the first shot, and the police cruiser is on campus, they are still minutes away from an effective response. Remember, this is no indictment of the police. Being a few minutes away is excellent response time. Virtually all police forces pride themselves on their response times, and rightfully so. When they respond, they willingly and courageously run toward the shooting putting their lives on the line day after day. But, an organized premeditated killer could efficiently shoot all of the students in a lecture hall before anyone could intervene from the outside.
The only acceptable remedy to a number of societal problems, is armed citizens empowered by the rights given to them by their Creator to act on their own behalf. The alternative is to surrender; surrender an increasing number and variety of rights becoming a subject to an overlord government. Does anyone still believe we aren’t moving in that direction? Warrantless wiretapping and searches, warrants written by agents on the scene bypassing the required signature of a judge, assassination of U.S. citizens without due process...
Should you think these issues are unrelated, ask your Monarchist ex-friends if they think any government should be trusted with this much power? I can anticipate their response.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama made the point about gun rights that what worked in one area of the country did not necessarily work in another (paraphrasing, “what works in Wyoming doesn’t work in Chicago”). This is both inaccurate and disingenuous. In the first place, do our most fundamental rights have a geographic component? Could you say the same thing about religious freedom? Next, did candidate Obama expect us to believe that he would support gun rights anywhere in America when he had never supported the 2nd Amendment at any time in his life? This is the position of a Monarchist, or a Statist, but not the position of a person who supports individual rights.
What is the biggest danger to us today in America? Armed citizens? Al Qaeda? Domestic terrorists? The Taliban? Sharia law? Illegal immigration? A worsening recession?
In my opinion, the biggest danger to America today is a cowardly, trusting, and uninformed citizenry which will allow and even encourage a monarchical government to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves. As for me, when confronted with a situation where the choice is to cower or shoot, I am just going to return fire.