Guns and Liberty

The Honorable Ron Paul ( I so seldom use that honorific) writes this week about guns and gun control.

The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.

It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying, "That could never happen here, this is America." But history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish decades from now.

Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.

The knee-jerk reaction to events such as school shootings is that weapons that dispense a lot of lead in a short period of time are probably too dangerous for "The People". This may be true; but if it is true then The People are worthy of neither the freedom nor liberty that guns guarantee. (A Subject for another discussion)

Risking offense to each and every one of my libertarian and paleoconservative friends that stress that change must come but it must come at the cost of no blood I offer this - history teaches such notions are naive and misplaced.

Now, slow down just a bit and hear what I am saying. I am not advocating an armed revolution nor am I saying such a thing is necessary. I wrote a few days ago that it is time that our intellectual ponderings about what is wrong and how things ought to be are all well and good but will ultimately accomplish nothing. We must become reactionaries to the cultural demise and ever increasing reliance on government to solve every problem. We must tame the beast before it devours us. This will not occur without a solid and dedicated commitment.

This commitment must be deeper than mere words and political actions. We must also realize that as Jefferson stated in his often repeated quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Do we believe we are so enlightened in this age that bloodshed is no longer required at times to effect change? How foolish, the government certainly does not ascribe to that viewpoint.

Do George Washington's words still not ring true? "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." I think his view of government is still true; as a paleoconservative I accept government as a necessary evil - an evil that must be contained and restricted to the most minimal of roles and powers.

Revolution is not required today; we still have many other nonviolent means to bring about change. However, if we fail in this generation what options will our children be left with? Do we suppose that a failure on our part will result in a government that is more or less tyrannical? I presume that if we fail our children will yearn for the liberty of their fathers.

It is thus extremely important to retain the right to keep and bear arms; arms comparable in relative capability to the musket on the mantle in 1792. That musket was a military weapon, suitable for hunting man and beast. We cannot submit to the notion that our children be left with only single-shot "plinkers". The Second Amendment means a lot more than that.

Dr. Paul leaves us with this warning:

Gun control may have faded as a political issue, but the mentality that Washington knows best-- and that certain constitutional rights are anachronisms-- is alive and well. Look for gun control advocates to bide their time and look for new ways to resurrect the issue in 2008 and beyond.