Presents
Pamphlet #238
The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms
Synopsis
The right to keep & bear arms is inherent to the human condition
--hence
unalienable--
founded
on the same philosophic, moral, basis (individual responsibility)
as
free enterprise and freedom of conscience.
While
morally unassailable, it (like free enterprise and free market)
is
thoroughly practical and utilitarian, conferring numerous benefits.
The
ultimate benefit is as the linchpin of a free society--that which secures
all other freedoms.
The
right of the citizens to keep and bear arms
has
justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of the republic.
--Mr.
Justice Joseph Story.
Overview
For
two centuries,
political
exponents of man as an individual have fallen into two ideological camps;
those
who premised their position on Natural Law and moral philosophy,
and
those who premised their position on Utilitarian considerations.
American
Conservatives since the Founding Fathers,
seeing
Government as merely the agency of a social compact between the governed
and the State
--or
between the rulers and the ruled--
have
viewed the issue as primarily a moral question.
Respect
for individual Liberty was respect for God's Creation.
From
Magna Carta, through Locke and Jefferson,
it
was the State's respect for this social compact
which
provided the basis for the individual to respect the authority of the State:
for
his voluntary submission to its laws,
for
the duty to serve its needs and defend its interests.
Under
this concept,
the
ideological basis for the American Republics,
the
individual retained his basic natural rights;
rights
deemed unalienable,
coming
not from Society (or the State as the political manifestation of Society);
but
bestowed by the Almighty as inherent to the very nature of man.
These
rights included personal freedom in relation to economic endeavor,
free
access to the market
and
a right to retain the fruits of one's labor
--rewards
usually determined by the market,
which
became the property of one endeavoring,
to
be passed on to his family and heirs;
--together
with freedom of personal conscience,
limited
only by one's obligations to that social compact;
and
together (by obvious implication) with the right to defend what was one's
own.
Jefferson
put it thus in the Declaration Of Independence:
We
hold these truths to be self-evident,
that
all men....are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That
to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
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
Jefferson changed the "life, liberty and property,"
of
the older exponents of Natural Law,
was
in no respect a trivialization of the essential justice or moral foundation
for private property.
Jefferson
was land rich
--but
often cash poor (not infrequently the landowner's problem)--
and
believed in a society of free holders.
But
the Declaration was an exposition of the moral,
Creation
derived, basis for human society;
and
it recognized that the unalienable rights of man
included
the right to pursue happiness not only via economic or utilitarian pursuits,
but
via art, philosophy, devotion, reflection and whimsy.
The
Fathers understood that for many there were things more important than
the worldly or material.
While
the document defines the moral
rather
than utilitarian basis for the early American adherence to maximum individual
freedom,
it
clearly implies both the right of a free people to keep and bear arms
--else
how indeed could they alter or abolish an errant Government--
and
the utility of an armed population. (We will return to this in more detail.)
The
principle that armed free men could and should
legally
rise against a Government that violated the social compact
was
at least 561 years old when Jefferson penned the Declaration.
The
Magna Carta (1215) provided in part (Chapters 60 & 61,
Magna
Carta Commission Translation, 1964):
All
the customs and liberties aforesaid,
which
We have granted to be enjoyed,
as
far as in Us lies, by Our people throughout Our kingdom,
let
all Our subjects, whether clerks or laymen, observe,
as
far as in them lies, toward their dependents.
Whereas
We, for the honor of God and the amendment of Our realm,
and
in order the better to allay the discord arisen between Us and Our barons,
have
granted all these things aforesaid,
We,
willing that they be forever enjoyed wholly...,
do
give and grant to Our subjects the following security,
to
wit, that the barons shall elect any twenty-five barons of the kingdom...,
who
shall ... keep, hold, and cause to be kept
the
peace and liberties which We have granted unto them...
so
that if We, Our Justiciary, bailiffs,
or
any of Our ministers offend in any respect against any man,
or
shall transgress any of these articles ...,
and
the offense be brought before four of the said twenty-five barons,
those
four barons shall come before Us,
...declaring
the offense, and shall demand speedy amends for the same.
If
we ... fail to afford redress within the space of forty days
from
the time the case was brought before Us ...,
the
aforesaid four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five
barons,
who
together with the commonalty of the whole country,
shall
distrain and distress Us to the utmost of their power,
to
wit, by capture of Our castles, lands,
and
possessions and by all other possible means,
until
compensation be made....etc..
The
Utilitarian argument for individual liberty is quite different.
It
is premised not on compact or on what is right,
but
on what confers the greatest benefit to the greatest number.
The
motivation is the interest of the collective,
the
economy or society,
rather
than an acceptance of the Nature of God's Creation
or
a concern for establishing a moral basis for the individual's duty towards
society.
Jeremy
Bentham, the definer of this approach, put it more simply:
The
sole object of government ought to be the greatest happiness
of
the greatest possible number of the community.
While
this collectivist perspective is offensive to most American Conservatives
--your
correspondent among them--
because
it reverses basic priorities;
the
realities of man's nature render the debate largely academic
as
it pertains to most purely economic decisions facing the modern State.
(The
distinctions are of course vital to many other questions.)
America
recognized and respected the individuality of man,
because
it was morally right. But having accepted the freedoms
which
flowed from that recognition,
America
demonstrated to the entire world,
the
utilitarian benefits of a free society.
For
the first 150 years of Independence,
we
put the individual on his own mettle to determine his material position
in life.
And
the resulting free, market driven economy,
proved
so much more utilitarian than any of the more regimented societies overseas,
that those who came here--from infinitely varied backgrounds--
all
did better here than their ancestral cousins had ever done in their ancestral
homelands:
For
all the vast range of ethnic types, the same experiment, the same result.
The
dynamics were not hard to fathom;
although
they had escaped much of the old world throughout the ages.
By
making the motivater not the prescriptions of the theorist,
but
the self-directed, self-interest of the participant,
we
unlocked the energy (both mental and physical)
of
the whole people; each aspiring participant driven
to
find what he or she could do on which the free market put the greatest
value.
Communism
collapsed because fear and coercion could not bring out
the
same effective level of individual involvement.
It
simply could not compete.
Today,
even the Socialist Governments of Western Europe
are
engaged in denationalizing industry,
and
pinning their future plans on market economics
and
private enterprise, precisely because of that utility;
although
in other respects many preserve their studied contempt for man as an individual.
It
is clearly morally right
--inherent
to the human situation--
that
free men be allowed to obtain and possess the arms needed to protect themselves
and
their families--including the fruits of their and their forebears labor.
There
is surely no point in the historic compact,
where
anyone gave up the right to self-protection on the promise of political
protection.
The
right to exact punishment for crime is a different matter.
There,
there is reasonable consideration, a "trade off."
The
State assumed the function of punishment,
subject
to the rights of a fair trial, etc..
We
gave up the right to take private vengeance on the promise of a fairly
administered system of Justice.
There,
there is time for deliberation.
There
is no similar trade off for surrendering the right to self-protection.
The
threat to life or property is usually immediate,
compelling
an immediate response.
It
can not be delegated to an Agency acting in the future.
Even
if half the total population were recruited into a police force,
there
would still be no way that it could completely protect us--
even
at the incalculably heavy expense that such a dispensation would entail.
The
freedom to arm oneself against such an immediate threat is obviously morally
right.
But
the right of the people, generally,
to
keep and bear arms is also utilitarian,
conveying
a clear benefit to the Social Order,
and
to the citizenry at large.
That
utility springs from the same human dynamics
as
those which make the free market work and the free economy prosper.
Again
it is the total involvement of the whole people,
in
a Society premised on individual responsibility,
which
unleashes a force for which no plan,
and
no collection of planners, can ever provide a substitute.
A
privately armed Society, all else being equal,
will
be a safer Society than one where only the rulers have arms.
The
Second Amendment
The
Second Article to the Amendments
of
the Constitution of the United States of America provides:
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.
While
only the second to be adopted,
there
is clearly no Article of the Bill of Rights
which
is more important to the maintenance of Liberty!
As
the above comment by Mr. Justice Story proclaims,
it
is the right to keep and bear arms
which
protects all of the other liberties of our peoples.
Moreover,
it has a wider applicability than most of the other Articles.
For
example, while all of us are supposed to enjoy Freedom Of Speech,
Freedom
of the Press and Freedom of Religion
--at
least as against Congressional interference--under the First Amendment;
only
a relatively small percentage of the public are ever really concerned
with
speaking out on controversial matters;
even
fewer ever read the editorial pages of newspapers;
only
a tiny percentage engage in publishing.
While
most Americans believe in God,
many
never attend formal religious services.
Since
it is only a public observation or demonstration of faith
that
even the most despotic tyranny can interfere with;
the
large number of non-denominational Americans derive
only
incidental benefit from the First Amendment.
But
all of us need protection.
And
although many Americans do not avail themselves
of
their rights to keep and bear arms;
far
more do than speak out on issues or join unpopular Churches.
More
significant, all Americans derive a benefit from having a large number,
who
do in fact "keep and bear," in their midst.
This
was well understood by the original defenders of our liberty.
Laws
that forbid the carrying of arms...
disarm
only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
...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, quoting with approval a noted criminologist of his day.
There
has been an attempt by some anti-gun fanatics--
and
how else may we describe one who would take away his neighbor's right of
self-defense--
to
confuse a clear understanding of traditional American liberty,
by
citing the coupling of "a well regulated militia being necessary...,
"with
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed";
as
though the first clause was limitation to the second.
But
close scrutiny will not support such confusion.
The
existence of the various State militia
--regulated
or unregulated--
was
never set up as a condition precedent,
nor
ever intended to imply a limitation on the manifest right
and
assumed duty of American free men to arm themselves
to
protect their selves and families.
The
emphasis--the thrust of the linkage,
as
anyone familiar with contemporary concepts will immediately appreciate
--was
entirely in the opposite direction.
A
population,
self
armed and well schooled in the use of small arms,
was
deemed essential to having an effective Militia.
And
the expectation of effective State Militia,
trained
to a common Federal standard,
but
always officered and ordinarily controlled by those appointed in the States
except
in times of common danger;
was
the reason the Constitutional Fathers were able to limit appropriations
for
a standing army to two years (Constitution, Article I, Section 8).
The
Fathers saw a large standing army as a threat to liberty.
A
review of the treatises on the subject
in
the Federalist (the essays written to explain the proposed Constitution,
and
to obtain its ratification), by Alexander Hamilton (No. 29)
and
by James Madison (No. 46),
will
readily demonstrate that the cited linkage was never intended as limitation
on individual freedom;
rather
as a safeguard against an overbearing Federal authority;
one
of our most vital "checks and balances";
a
source, if need be, to overthrow usurpers.
The
definition of State Militia, under our system,
was
always the able bodied manhood of a State. Jefferson explained the
setup
in his Notes On The State Of Virginia in 1782.
(Note
the tone of lament that the Militia were not better armed.)
From
Query IX:
Every
able-bodied freeman,
between
the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia...
The
law requires every militia man to provide himself with the arms usual in
the regular service.
But
this injunction was always indifferently complied with,
and
the arms they had have been so frequently called for to arm the regulars,
that
in the lower parts of the country they are entirely disarmed.
In
the middle country a fourth or fifth part of them may have such firelocks
as
they had provided to destroy the noxious animals which infest their farms;
and
on the western side of the Blue Ridge they are generally armed with rifles.
What
the Constitutional plan envisioned for the regulation of the militia,
as
it pertained to Federal, State and individual volition in the direction
of arms,
may
be inferred from some of Hamilton's comments in the aforementioned Federalist
Paper No. 29:
Little
more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large,
[the
unregulated, undisciplined and basically inactive part of the militia]
than
to have them properly armed and equipped...
But
though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned...;
'it
is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should ...
be
adopted for the proper establishment of the militia.
...it
will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia,
ready
to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it.
This
will not only lessen the call for military establishments;
but
if circumstances should ...oblige the Government to form an army of any
magnitude,
that
army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people,
while
there is a large body of citizens, little,
if
at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms,
who
stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
This
appears ...the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army;
and
the best possible security against it if it should exist.
Madison
(Paper No. 46) put the same concepts and concerns slightly differently:
Let
a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed;
and
let it be entirely at the devotion of the Federal Government;
still
it would not be going too far to say,
that
the State Governments with the people on their side,
would
be able to repel the danger.
....To
these [the regular army] would be opposed a militia...
of
citizens with arms in their hands,
officered
by men chosen from among themselves,
fighting
for their common liberties,
and
united and conducted by Governments possessing their affections and confidence.
...Besides
the advantage of being armed,
which
the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,
the
existence of subordinate Governments,
to
which the people are attached,
and
by which the militia officers are appointed,
forms
a barrier against the enterprises of ambition,
more
insurmountable than any which a simple Government of any form can admit
of.
Clearly
Madison saw private arms as the security of a free State
--and
a free citizenry--against the potential of Federal tyranny.
Where
would stand that security,
if
the Federal Administration contemplating an unauthorized extension of Federal
power,
were
to be permitted to define the circumstances under which a citizen might
arm himself?
As
a final witness that the Fathers' linkage of regulation of the militia
with
an acknowledgment of the people's right to keep and bear arms,
was
never intended as a limitation on the latter but rather as a prodding for
the former,
we
cite George Washington.
Throughout
his Presidency, Washington
repeatedly
called for improvement and standardization of the training
of
the more active militia members in order to meet the security needs of
the United States.
A
few years earlier, at the conclusion of the War,
General
Washington had put his thoughts on the Common Defence into a May 2,
1783
draft to Alexander Hamilton, entitled Sentiments On A Peace Establishment:
...to
prove ...the Policy and expediency of resting the protection of the Country
on
a respectable and well established Militia,
we
might not only shew the propriety
...from
our peculiar local situation,
but
we might have recourse to the Histories of Greece and Rome
in
their most virtuous and Patriotic ages.... we might see,
with
admiration, the Freedom and Independence of Switzerland
supported
for Centuries, in the midst of powerful and jealous neighbors,
by
means of a hardy and well organized Militia. ...
It
may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system,
that
every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government,
owes
not only a proportion of his property,
but
even of his personal services to the defence of it,
and
consequently that the Citizens of America
(with
a few legal and official exceptions)
from
18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls,
provided
with uniform Arms,
and
so far accustomed to the use of them,
that
the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice...
The
following month, June 8, 1783, Washington reported to the States,
in
surrendering the solemn trust of his command:
The
Militia of this Country must be considered as the Palladium of our security,
and
the first effectual resort in case of hostility...
Washington's
reference to the Swiss was quite revealing.
Trained,
as school boys in the safe, correct and deadly accurate use of arms;
the
Swiss had and have managed to maintain an armed neutrality for generations
amidst
their more warlike, but less war efficient neighbors.
While
world travelers have reported for generations that Switzerland,
where
every household has its own military grade weapons,
has
the lowest crime rate in Europe.
The
Swiss have also managed to preserve the diverse rights of their 22 Cantons
(or
States) better than any other Federation in the world.
Yet
perhaps the single most important reason why Washington
wanted
America to adopt the Swiss system,
is
that it teaches the youth--in the most immediate and compelling manner--
the
importance of that level of personal responsibility
on
which all of our other institutions are based.
It
gives youth a sense of purpose, importance and self-worth,
for
which all the words expended by "Liberal" theorists,
from
the Creation to this day, are no substitute.
A Response To Frivolous Diversionary Arguments Against Private Arms
Those
who seek to disarm America's citizens always put a heavy emphasis on safety.
They
do not discuss the safety of the law abiding
from
the pestilence of crime and criminals;
nor
the protection of the Constitution from the would be usurpers of power.
Rather,
they treat us to endless dissertations on the potential danger of having
firearms in the home,
on
the person, or anywhere near at hand.
Basically
these amount to a gross
exaggeration
of the significance of what everyone recognizes
--has
always recognized--that firearms are a dangerous tool.
So
too are fire, electricity, and motor vehicles.
So,
too, if abused, are water, carpenters' tools, stoves,
and
gardener's tools; steak knives and carving sets, bricks and ladders.
The
point then is no point.
that
it telegraphs--loud and clear--
is
that the user of the argument
does
not value the right of self-defense.
He
focuses on the danger of firearms rather than motor vehicles,
central
heating or electricity,
because
he does not think protection of life and property
is
as important as convenient transportation or "toasty"
comfort
and a house full of appliances.
Were
it otherwise, he would see the obvious:
We
have reduced the enormous danger from motor vehicles
--although
still a greater killer and maimer than firearms--
by
campaigns for safety education and procedures,
which
start with the very young and extend through life.
We
teach even very small children,
not
to play with matches; not to touch the burners on a stove;
not
to put their hands near fire;
not
to play with electrical connections.
Few,
today, would propose going back to the days before Ford and Edison
because
of safety considerations.
If
a new danger is identified,
we
educate against it.
There
is absolutely no reason not to teach children from the same very early
ages,
about
the danger inherent in an improper use of firearms.
No
defender of the inherent right of a free people to keep and bear private
arms
has
any problem with such teaching.
We
are not suggesting a licensing requirement.
Driving
on a public highway is a privilege
--that
highway did not have to be constructed--
and
may be licensed.
The
right to keep and bear is inherent to the human situation.
Yet
that in no way limits the need or ability of parents and society to emphasize
safety.
No
one licenses children to cross streets;
but
from the time they begin to walk,
we
teach them to look both ways.
No
one licenses children to use the appliances in the modern home.
But
from the time they are able to crawl to an electrical outlet,
we
teach them rules of safety.
There
are still innumerable home accidents;
but
we have greatly reduced the danger by teaching the correct,
safe
and proper, use of other tools.
There
is
no rational reason to treat firearms any differently.
Some
of the clamor against private arms has come from persons
of
the same ideological stripe
as
those who have advocated international disarmament as the path to Peace.
The
mythical ostrich, his head planted deep in the sands of self-inflicted
ignorance,
is
the great prophet of the pacifist.
And
even as the popularity of pacifism, following World War I,
contributed
to the foreign adventures of Communists and Nazis--
at
the expense of tens of millions of lost lives--
so
the concept of a less violent response to crime has emboldened those
without
moral conscience in the more "liberal" venues of America.
There
are two aspects of what might be called the "muted response" to the criminal
act:
The
first, another facet of the misguided preoccupation with "safety";
safety
as seen from the pacifist delusion.
The
other, a compulsive concern for the well-being of the criminal.
The
popularity of these approaches closely parallels the explosion in juvenile
crime
over
recent decades,
strongly
suggesting that our less moral youth are drawing the reasonable conclusion.
The
pacifist version of the muted response,
as
applied to the property owner,
urges
him not to endeavor to protect what is his,
either
on the theory that to do so might provoke
a
violent response on the part of the criminal--
causing
a confrontation where the property owner might get the worst of it;
--or
on the theory that property is not worth the risk of maiming or killing
another human being.
Obviously,
the answer to the first concern is better training for the property owner.
That
is what the Fathers thought our clear duty, anyway.
The
second concern really requires no answer.
But
we will offer the obvious in a moment.
The
idea that the defence of property can not justify taking a human life,
is
the precise basis for that other aspect of the muted response,
seen
across America in departmental protocols that require police to chase,
rather
than shoot, fleeing criminals;
that
sometimes lead to charges being filed against property owners
who
successfully defend what is theirs by "taking out"
those
attempting its removal.
It
would make as much sense to respond to an invading army with slogans about
"the
sanctity of human life" and "social justice";
nay,
more sense, because the invading army could well be populated
with
decent and honorable young men,
serving
their country; while the thief,
waging
his personal war on you and your neighbor,
may
be morally the scum of the earth.
The
concept that there is a dichotomy between property rights and other human
rights,
is
at the core of the most mischievous heresy against reason and common sense
in
all the annals of pseudo social progress.
Men
and women hold property; not property, humans.
One's
property may represent the fruits of a lifetime of labor;
perhaps
the fruits of many lifetimes of labor.
Most
of those with a sense of heritage and purpose,
labor
in large measure for what they can do for those who will come after--
their
children and their children's children, down through the generations.
Even
among those of a spiritual, rather than material pursuit,
private
property may still represent the blood, sweat, toil and tears,
of
persons living or dead.
Indeed,
it is often that little bit of material wealth,
which
makes possible a life-long pursuit of things of the spirit.
No
one can relive the past--other than in the eye of memory.
One
may be able to replace stolen property through insurance,
or
by laboring to replace it;
but
the cost of that replacement will be an expenditure of time or money,
otherwise
available for other purposes.
You
can never bring back the years you spent in struggle;
nor
ever, the lives of loved ones,
who
may have worked their whole lives that you and yours could live better
lives than they.
The
choice then, whether to use force to stop one from stealing what is yours,
is
not a question between life and property.
Both
you and the thief are live beings; the issue between you is property.
The
question involves whose life, and what shall be the quality thereof:
The
life or lives--or a significant portion thereof--of those who respect,
or
respected, the social order and the ways of civilized peoples--
including
their rights to property and privacy--
versus
the life or lives of those waging an immediate and personal war
against
those fundamental rights of you and your loved ones?
The
decision should really not be terribly difficult!
Nor
should the subsidiary one, of how we defend what is rightfully ours.
Do
we make that defense dependent upon the criminal's choice of weapon?
Do
we expect the property owner--or maybe his wife or daughter--
to
have to wrestle with some thug over the family silver,
or
maybe even over the sanctity of his daughter's body,
because
some "Liberal" has said that guns are too dangerous to be allowed in the
home?
The
cruelty inherent in that suggestion is staggering!
Again,
the threat when it arises is savage and immediate.
The
Police can only respond later--
maybe
to start the punishment process after the damage has been done;
often
only to file a report, on which no action is ever taken.
And
no Police work, however skilled,
can
ever restore your daughter's innocence. (As for your grandparents' silver?
That
will be melted down without a trace.)
It
is fundamentally wrong, morally wrong,
to
deny the law-abiding mainstream the right to use logical tools
to
defend themselves against such thuggery!
But
again to return to the utilitarian.
As
the expectation of the would-be burglar, robber, rapist or arsonist,
is
increasingly for the muted response, he is emboldened;
we
will all have more crime with which to deal.
As
his expectation tilts towards an expectation of having to deal with an
armed victim,
comfortable
and effective in the use of weapons,
he
will consider changing his ways; we will all benefit.
And
if he still persists; it is a lot cheaper to bury him than to house him
for life in a penal colony.
He
must make his choice.
We
will make ours.
The
favorite "arguments" of the foes of freedom are actually not arguments
at all.
An
argument, philosophically, is an appeal to reason.
The
constant focus, the endless iteration of the details of every gun accident
or incident in the
"liberal"
media, is an appeal to fear.
The
tortured but ostentatious law suits, now being filed by ultra-
"liberal"
urban administrations against the manufacturers of firearms,
are
appeals to greed, intended in reality as a restraint on trade.
They
will probably persist until the gun manufacturers
gather
enough evidence of an illegal conspiracy,
outside
the scope of the initiators' duties in city government,
to
strip away any pretense of personal immunity.
And
the perpetrators will then run like rats,
leaving
a sinking ship. (Or does anyone really believe that these suits
just
all happened to arise independently, with no collusion or ulterior design?!)
The
Times In Which We Live
There
are indeed tides in the affairs of men,
which
flow for a time in one direction and then ebb and flow in another.
While
eventually it may turn, the tide throughout 20th Century America--
with
only an occasional hesitation--
has
been flowing towards an ever greater Federal power
--an
ever more intrusive and restrictive Central Authority.
It
would be difficult to imagine a time less suitable
for
stripping away the public's right to private arms;
that
which the Fathers--Federalist and Jeffersonian alike--
saw
as the last line of defense against despotic Government.
The
bulk of the Declaration of Independence is not quoted much these days--
and
for good reason.
It
reads as an indictment of unrestrained and intrusive Government;
and
this is the age of unrestrained and intrusive Government.
Consider
just a few of the things Americans have witnessed since the New Deal,
from
a Government we are now asked to trust with every right we possess:
In
1934, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government's repudiation
of
its own contractual obligations to pay the holders of "Gold Clause" bonds
in gold.
Of
course, the entire reason for the gold payment clause in the bonds
was
as security against a devalued currency.
But
when the Government under Roosevelt decided to devalue the currency,
it
repudiated that security. (Talk about trust in Government!)
In
1942, the Court upheld Federal regulation of agriculture,
which
penalized a farmer for growing food for his own table on his own farm (Wickard
vs. Filburn).
Was
that what the farm boys fought for at Lexington and Concord, Trenton or
Yorktown?
Did
they suffer the winter at Valley Forge for that sort of Society?!
In
the 1930s, the Federal Government began to police private employment agreements
between
worker and employer.
In
the 1960s, it moved on to decree that Americans could no longer exercise
private racial,
religious
or ethnic preferences in employment, or in places of public accommodation.
In
the same era, the Federal Government assumed a role
as
the guarantor of health care for the aging and retired.
In
the past decade, the Federal Government has taken action to prevent attempted
seduction
or
even flirtation in the workplace.
On
the pretext of protecting children in a religious community,
where
the practitioners kept personal military weapons
(ie.
tools which General Washington said should be issued to the householder);
it
has wiped out that community--men, women and children!
What
these and a great many other contemporaneous political innovations have
in common,
is
that all involve radical extensions of the functions the Fathers gave to
the Federal Government.
We
have retrogressed to a Central power more intrusive by far
than
the Eighteenth Century British Government, repudiated by the Patriots.
We
recognize that in this age of "politically correct" education
--both
public and private--not even all Conservatives
will
see these innovations in the same light.
But
no one remotely aware of the origins of a free America can fail to see
a pattern.
A
people who once celebrated the rugged individual--
the
rights of every man to be unique,
and
the duty of each man to be responsible--
no
longer even respect the type, or the old ethic that sustained him.
For
those who still cherish the Spirit of '76--the armed Minute Men,
ready
to fight for liberty at a moment's notice--
these
are increasingly the "times which try men's souls."
This
is a Chapter in a debate handbook for the young Conservative,
designed
to suggest an approach to the persuasive arts.
It
is not a pamphlet calling for any more violent action.
But
if we continue to lose the political debate for a free America,
we
will soon come to a point where we will be faced with a true crisis of
the Will.
The
rest of the World has not suddenly embraced Liberty--
as
the Fathers knew it--but only economic Utilitarianism.
Unwilling
to really trust individual members of its varied societies--
outside
of Switzerland and the former Settler states in Africa--
it
has never even considered the utility of an armed citizenry.
It
will continue in the present economic path
only
until some new Pied Piper leads the collectivists off in another direction.
At
that point, you can be certain that the type of American "Liberal,"
who
could not wait to follow the British Fabians into a "Welfare State,"
will
be on the same bandwagon.
If
what is left of the American tradition is further subverted,
you
need not wonder at your children's future.
With
modern electronic propaganda,
surveillance,
and
the methodology of control,
freedom
lost will be freedom gone.
Neither
your children, nor their children's children,
will
ever likely know its like again!
is
Published by:
Rhine
Publishing Co.
PO
Box 455
Bainbridge,
PA 17502
If you would like to have your essay
published
as part of the American Wisdom
Series
submit your manuscript to Rhine
Publishing Co
at the address above for consideration,
or e-mail us
at the address shown on our home
page.
Click Here to Return to "The American Wisdom Series" home page.