In America we believe governmental authority comes from the
consent of the governed, a concept that is meaningless if that consent cannot
be revoked. If government has a total monopoly on force, then it's very easy
for government to disallow the revocation of consent.
The 2nd Amendment, and the constitutional debate surrounding
the Bill of Rights, makes clear that the purpose of prohibiting the
infringement of the right to armaments is for just such a reason. The arguments
against any standing federal armed force make it clear that it was they who the
founders were worried about on this issue, not the common folk.
Of course, things have changed, and technology has
accelerated greatly, meaning whereas in the past the army had access to
comparatively tame firepower (black powder weapons), they now have access to
missiles, drones, tanks, aircraft, and a high level of organization never
foreseen in 1787 (though they were leery of any standing military). Civilian
armaments cannot compete; even in just the area of infantry weapons, all but
the most basic military weapons are banned or highly regulated. Clearly, if
we're going to update the law in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, by any
standard civilian access to arms has fallen behind.
There are some who will, no doubt, point in horror and
disbelief that anyone could say something so heartless after an event like Las
Vegas. Don't I know that someone used a machinegun to murder a crowd of people?
Yes, and we have already seen that miserable harpy use this as an excuse to call
for the continued banning of suppressors, which has nothing to do with
anything. The gun debate is punctuated by examples of evil people doing evil
things, followed immediately by emotional calls to "do something."
But we have seen in Europe that even a functionally total ban on firearms has
done little to prevent mass killings.
"But don't you know that guns make it worse?"
Perhaps, perhaps not. It certainly seems that way this time, but it didn't when
Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City. If he had decided
to open fire from a bell tower he might have murdered fewer children. But such
things miss the point. Banning guns in America is literally impossible for a
host of reasons. Even if Congress passed a bill banning guns and the President
signed it tomorrow, there would be major changes in how we operate as a
country, but terrorists and deranged individuals intent on murder would still
be there and they would still be able to accomplish their goals through other
means.
Even if it were possible to eliminate all guns and to
prevent all violence by terrorists and maniacs, there is another even more
insidious threat: government violence against its own people. The 20th century
should put to rest any doubts about this. Unchecked governments can and have
killed their own people, and in staggering numbers. The estimates for the 20th
century put the number of dead at over 100 million innocents.
So now we've come full circle. Do we truly want
"dangerous liberty" or "peaceful slavery"? Even someone who
knowingly chooses peaceful slavery might be shocked to find out being
peacefully slaughtered is still in the cards. If you're defenseless, it always
is.
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment