Gun Control

The Right to Self Defense Isn't Negotiable

The tyranny of the majority can be as destructive to freedom as the tyranny of a madman.

|

In all the noise caused by the Obama administration's direct assault on the right of every person to keep and bear arms, the essence of the issue has been drowned out. The president and his big-government colleagues want you to believe that only the government can keep you free and safe, so to them, the essence of this debate is about obedience to law.

Auraelius / photo on flickr

To those who have killed innocents among us, obedience to law is the last of their thoughts. And to those who believe that the Constitution means what it says, the essence of this debate is not about the law; it is about personal liberty in a free society. It is the exercise of this particular personal liberty—the freedom to defend yourself when the police cannot or will not and the freedom to use weapons to repel tyrants if they take over the government—that the big-government crowd fears the most.

Let's be candid: All government fears liberty. By its nature, government is the negation of liberty. God has given us freedom, and the government has taken it away. George Washington recognized this when he argued that government is not reason or eloquence but force. If the government had its way, it would have a monopoly on force.

Government compels, restrains and takes. Thomas Jefferson understood that when he wrote that our liberties are inalienable and endowed by our Creator, and the only reason we have formed governments is to engage them to protect our liberties. We enacted the Constitution as the supreme law of the land to restrain the government. Yet somewhere along the way, government got the idea that it can more easily protect the freedom of us all from the abuses of a few by curtailing the freedom of us all. I know that sounds ridiculous, but that's where we are today.

The anti-Second Amendment crowd cannot point to a single incident in which curtailing the freedom of law-abiding Americans has stopped criminals or crazies from killing. It is obvious that criminals don't care what the law says because they think they can get away with their violations of it. And those unfortunates who are deranged don't recognize any restraint on their own behavior, as they cannot mentally distinguish right from wrong and cannot be expected to do so in the future, no matter what the law says.

When the Second Amendment was written and added to the Constitution, the use of guns in America was common. At the same time, King George III—whom we had just defeated and who was contemplating another war against us, which he would start in 1812—no doubt ardently wished that he had stripped his colonists of their right to self-defense so as to subdue their use of violence to secede from Great Britain. That act of secession, the American Revolution, was largely successful because close to half of the colonists were armed and did not fear the use of weaponry.

If the king and the Parliament had enacted and enforced laws that told them who among the colonists owned guns or that limited the power of the colonists' guns or the amount of ammunition they could possess, our Founding Fathers would have been hanged for treason. One of the secrets of the Revolution—one not taught in public schools today—is that the colonists actually had superior firepower to the king. The British soldiers had standard-issue muskets, which propelled a steel ball or several of them about 50 yards from the shooter. But the colonists had the long gun—sometimes called the Kentucky or the Tennessee—which propelled a single steel ball about 200 yards, nearly four times as far as the British could shoot. Is it any wonder that by Yorktown in 1781, the king and the Parliament had lost enough men and treasure to surrender?

The lesson here is that free people cannot remain free by permitting the government—even a popularly elected one that they can unelect—to take their freedoms away. The anti-freedom crowd in the government desperately wants to convey the impression that it is doing something to protect us. So it unconstitutionally and foolishly seeks, via burdensome and intrusive registration laws, laws restricting the strength of weapons and the quantity and quality of ammunition and, the latest trick, laws that impose financial liability on law-abiding manufacturers and sellers for the criminal behavior of some users, to make it so burdensome to own a gun that the ordinary folks who want one will give up their efforts to obtain one.

We cannot let ourselves fall down this slippery slope. The right to self-defense is a natural individual right that pre-exists the government. It cannot morally or constitutionally be taken away absent individual consent or due process. Kings and tyrants have taken this right away. We cannot let a popular majority take it away, for the tyranny of the majority can be as destructive to freedom as the tyranny of a madman.

NEXT: The Big Sleazy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Anyone who argues for the Second Amendment on the grounds that it keeps agressive government leaders and agents in check is seen as a kook, even though there are plenty of examples of government assaults on liberty in American history (ask Japanese-Americans alive during the war) so we have to stress self-defense aspects of citizen gun ownership.

    1. Usually they say it’s kooky because “are you gonna use your little gun against a tank, huh?” I usually give them a link to snipers and IEDs taking out tanks and tank drivers.

      1. Yep. Does an Abrams have a john? They gotta take a crap sometime. Sleep. Eventually they’ll want to see a girl.

        1. The M60 had a “crap-hatch” at the bottom – the M1 doesn’t (despite what they did in Walking Dead).

          More importantly, you won’t find many soldiers (particularly in the National Guard) willing to turn their weapons on their own neighborhoods.

          Tanks are pretty useless without Infantry and a lot of fuel and logistics support.

          1. [More importantly, you won’t find many soldiers (particularly in the National Guard) willing to turn their weapons on their own neighborhoods]

            I wish I could believe that, but history proves the folly.

            1. There are too many po-po in the Guard and Reserves to completely trust them to not turn their weapons on the general public.

      2. I didn’t realize tanks were effective in guerrilla warfare anyway.

        We didn’t deploy tanks in Afganistan until 2010, for instance.

        1. that’s because Tanks aren’t that useful in mountains.

  2. A government official using their official authority under color of law to violate any constitutional, civil or statutory right commits a federal crime (18 USC 241 & 242).

    The 2nd amendment literally allows people to exercise the natural right of self-defense, that all creatures on the planet exercise freely by ensuring that The People have access to the same sorts of tools that might be wielded against them.

    Whether the attack comes from a four legged or two legged animal is irrelevant. Whether a two legged criminal is a mugger or a President is likewise irrelevant, they’re both outlaws when they undertake their illegal acts.

    1. Agree on the right to bear arms and self defense, but relying on laws to secure it is useless. Especially 18 USC, which defines thousands of ways to become felons. Besides, there are many laws that contradict each other and there are those that supersede. Legislators and judges get the final say so it doesn’t really matter anyways.

      1. Unless or until the Sons Of Liberty put those same judges and legislators on trial and execute them, thus providing some moisture to that Tree of Liberty.

  3. Who would ever be able to guess The Judge and Janet are “cousins.” The former is like gold, the latter feces.

    1. Yeah, but she’s pretty butch – pretty sure she could kick the judge’s ass.

      1. The worst thing is I thought Janet was done fucking my life up when I left Arizona. Just can’t seem to shake her. She’s like a damn cancer that keeps coming back.

    2. Their hairline is identical.

  4. Some people want to take away your ability to defend yourself from the government and criminals because they don’t want you to be able to defend yourself from them.

    They want you helpless against the government, and dependent on it for defense against criminals.

    1. No wai! Srsly! LOL!

  5. if someone like the Judge having to write an article affirming man’s right to self-defense is not a sign of the apocalypse, what is?

    1. The fact that Jane Napolitano retains her job – or any job? The fact that the agency she “leads” even exists? The fact that some people cheer the fact that they can take a souvenir baseball bat or a penknife on a plane as some sort of small victory for liberty?

      And that’s just a couple things re: TSA – we have the whoooooole rest of the federal leviathan, and THEN we can talk about state and local gummint abuses of liberty!!!! YAY!

      DOOOOOOOOOOOMED – the signs are everywhere.

  6. A somewhat new charge from the LEO crowd, in response to what Napolitano wrote above, would be “You sound like you might be part of that ‘sovereign citizen’ crowd. We’d better keep our eye on you.”

    I think they spawned this retort over at “policeone.com”.

    1. Your one a them funny “independent” people aren’t ya?

    2. Yeah…..this has been discussed already at H&R but worth mentioning again.

      According to the SPLC the number of patriot groups/sovereign citizen groups has reached an all time high at 1018 in 2012. In the SPLC report these are referred to as ‘hate groups’. The motives they do cite include ruby ridge and waco, bank and auto bailouts, and the election of a black president. ( I know you didnt see that last one coming)

      They have a map of the U.S. showing the number of hate groups in each state. I added them up in my head but quit counting when I could see that the aggregate number was less than half of the claimed 1018. I dont know what that is about.

      I googled this to see what any credible sources have to say, but alas, I cant find any credible sources. BTW I dont consider Policeone to be a credible source of anything but the assnine opinions of moronic thugs.

      1. I’ve been called a constitutionalist with the sneering scorn most people reserve for a particularly scathing insult.

        That’s why I have guns.

  7. The right to self defense is the primary right. Period.

  8. No way dude, I never even thought about it liek that.

    http://www.WorldAnon.da.bz

    1. Don’t worry, AnonBot. We’ll stand up for your right to defend your job making $4800 per week from your computer.

      1. That should put a smiel on it’s face.

  9. The anti-freedom crowd in the government desperately wants to convey the impression that it is doing something to protect us.

    FTFY. “Anti-freedom crowd” and “government” are redundant terms at this point.

  10. By FTFY are you saying fixed that for you or fuck that fuck you?

    1. Fixed That For You. When discussing the government there’s no need to specify “the anti-freedom crowd”. They’re all the anti-freedom crowd at this point.

  11. There was a point when our founding fathers realized that they could not have basic rights by arguing with their king or by voting or any other civil means and I wonder at what point people today will finally realize the same thing.
    There is a reason why Jefferson said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, because there are SO many people that simply can’t leave others alone – they know what is good for you and you will submit to their plans to save you – it has been a long time since that tree has been fertilized in this country.
    Even in the 1800’s, politicians would never have attempted what they do today, they would have been killed, they were afraid of the people. Politicians no longer fear us – what are we gonna do, vote against them? We will NOT get this country back on track until our government, again, has a proper fear of the people.

    1. Consider this: Probably Pelosi, Reid and Holder are sufficiently insulated. But how hard would it be to whack the lesser fucks? IRS, Homeland Security, Social Security heads of departments and even easier judges, state senators, mayors, governors, policemen, sheriffs, child protective services bureaucrats.

      Everybody should have a list of 6 he could hunt after the collapse. Now myself, I ofcourse abhor and denounce this kind of behavior, just sayin’.

      1. Well, a revolution would have to be done properly, with warnings and such. Also, at least a third of the people would have to be behind it. I do not abhor or denounce a people fighting for freedom, America would not exist if it wasn’t for such people. Of course, the government would label these freedom fighters as terrorists, but I’m sure the British government did too.

        1. [I do not abhor or denounce a people fighting for freedom]

          Disclaimer rick, merely plausible deniability.

          1. My disclaimer:
            I’m not an idiot, I would NOT pick up a weapon and go out to kill some politician or something, in which case I would just lose my life and accomplish NOTHING (I kind of like life and don’t plan on giving it up for nothing). However, if it was a REAL revolution and there was a chance of giving my children freedom, THAT I would be willing to die for.

          2. If the scenario you’re discussing comes to pass, who cares if you have plausible deniability? At that point, you’d most likely be subject to summary execution.

            1. Plausible deniability is helpful just prior to the apocalypse, in the end times, when Homeland Security, the FBI, ATF, etc are monitoring sites such as this, all the better to identify dangerouse people, like rick for example, or Tony, hopefully.

              Once it’s full-on fuck the piper.

  12. Governments and corporation build empires of willing and dedicated servants who will stop at nothing to protect the interests of those who provide them with sustenance.

    It is useful to remember that within the social fabric of so-called free societies there exists plenty of warm-bodies perfectly willing to provide intellectual rationales and quivering muscles for the cunning march of dictatorship. Quite a scary proposition when one considers how rarely this point is publicly considered in light of the vast expansions of invasive technologies embraced by the powerful.

    Without an ass-kicking third party I see no hope for our children’s children.

    1. The joint-stock company has been around for about 500 years. City-state style government has been around for about 5,000 years. Since a corporation is just a legal construct that could be easily replicated and replaced by private contract even in an anarcho-capitalist society, I fail to see the significance of the corporation as it relates to the enslavement of the people by the state.

      1. That having been said, I also see no hope for your children’s future.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.