Escondido, CA

This is how freedom is lost— Part II


Please, those of you who want to overturn the 2nd Amendment, for Heaven’s sake stop using the argument that nobody needs an AR-15 in order to shoot deer.

The 2nd Amendment does not exist in order to protect the right to hunt. It exists to give the citizenry the right to defend themselves. But the left doesn’t like addressing that argument, because of the implication that maybe the government ain’t always so good at the job— so they insist that gun rights advocates just want to use high caliber howitzers to kill rabbits and muskrats—and who needs that?

It’s like saying that we need a 1st Amendment in order to protect our right to sing karaoke.

In their zeal to paint supporters of the 2nd Amendment as gun nuts, the “gun control” advocates behave with consistent intellectual dishonesty. They ignore the real reason for the 2nd amendment.  Self-defense is one of the inherent rights we possess. It’s a natural right that existed before government was invented.  Just because the police have guns doesn’t mean we abrogate our basic right to preserve our lives and those of our families. Most of the time from criminals, and very, very rarely—in fact almost never—from the police themselves. But it’s the “almost” part that is key.

The need to protect oneself rings true in a place like Escondido where there are swatches of rural and semi-rural areas where it can take many minutes for the police to arrive in time to intervene in a dangerous situation.  It goes double the further you go into the Backcountry. But it exists in a tenement apartment just as much.

And why do some of us want an AR-15 (the most common gun owned by those who have guns)? Because you want to be able to defend yourself with the same level of force that the person attacking you might bring against you.

Yet anti-gun people repeat the canard about gun owners not needing heavy firepower to shoot game so often—while disregarding the real reason for firearms— that one must conclude they don’t want to engage in a serious discussion of the issue.

If the issue were simply that we don’t need heavy firepower to bring down a stag, I’d say, fine, let’s turn ‘em in. But that’s not what the discussion is about. And the adversaries of our right to defend ourselves really don’t want to get into what they really propose doing, but which they will never say publicly—which is to disarm us all.

In our founding document, the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote: “[I]t is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [the existing government], and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

That means the people retain the right to overthrow a government if it ever becomes tyrannical. To do that, the populace must be armed. Now nobody who supports gun rights is stupid enough to think that the average citizens are equipped to take on the 82nd Airborne if it came to an insurrection, but the fact that a good percentage of the populace is armed will give pause to potential tyrants.

Does that sound like potential treason? The British authorities in 1776 certainly thought so—but fortunately the patriots ended up writing the history of the Revolution.  And when they built the government to follow, they made sure to leave open the gate for potential revolution down the line. We are the heirs to that tradition.

Ruby Ridge (which our current Sheriff William Gore was deeply involved in when he was with the FBI), Waco and other stands by fringe militia groups garnered vast amounts of attention and tied down huge amounts of resources. Imagine the consternation of federal authorities if they had to deal with a Waco-like group in every county—all at the same time.  They will if ever the Congress or the president make a strong effort to disarm the populace.

That’s why when actual tyrants come to power in other lands, one of their first actions is take away everyone’s guns.

In this article I conflate the right to defend oneself with the right to express oneself, especially when it comes to expressing oneself forcefully. As we find ourselves fighting those who would disarm us—we are also fighting those who would disarm us verbally. Those who argue that words can physically harm others.

America is a martial country and has been since its founding. An inherent part of our martial history is that many, many, young men and women have been trained in the use of firearms from childhood. There is a reason why the United States is the policeman of the world; it’s because our people can be counted on when the chips are down. As Winston Churchill said, “Americans will always do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the alternatives.”

Yes, they stripped the Australians of the right to own firearms, because something like one in 17 Australians had a firearm.  The ratio in America is one in four—and that ratio is rising.

When you are talking about a quarter of the citizenry owning guns the very idea that a fanatical minority that doesn’t like guns will be able to seize them without a fight is ludicrous on its face. Get used to it: gun ownership in this country isn’t going anywhere. You can stage hissy fits all you like about it, but that isn’t changing.

And if they can’t take away our guns, they may very well be able to take away our bully pulpits. Let’s face it, unless you are a well-armed poet, your right to speak your piece is much more threatened than your right to bear arms.

But both are threatened.

*Note: Opinions expressed by columnists and letter writers are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the newspaper.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *