Publius Returns

Disarming America

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared." - Cicero, 42 B.C.

There are three characteristics that, when taken together, distinguish man from the rest of the animal world: An opposing thumb, the ability to reason, and the ability to compose music. Unlike the rest of the animal world, the only integral survival tools available to Homo Sapiens are the first two. Man has always used those abilities to provide for himself and his family and to defend against his enemies. Being without claws and relatively weak, man’s use of rocks and sticks made their debut eons ago. With ingenuity, he continued to advance his weapons to spears, bows, and finally guns, missiles, and bombs.

One can picture his prehistoric ancestors rushing around with few clothes, throwing sticks and stones at one another. A bit laughable when one can also picture the devastation and carnage wrought by the weapons used during the Second World War and the much more efficient weapons of today.

It is undeniable, however, that people, countries, cultures, religions, and economic systems will not cease to threaten or be threatened anytime soon. It is equally without argument that people will always be threatened by the common criminal.

For those with the least amount of common sense, the idea of utopia or heaven on earth is not possible. People who seek power, who cannot tolerate the culture of others, or who are threatened by the advances and prosperity of other civilizations will always resort, at one time or another, to the use of weapons to engage and win over their supposed adversaries. The US, as well as every other advanced nation, uses that realization to arm themselves in a defensive posture against such threats, real or imagined. People the world over see this as necessary, the most obvious reason being to thwart such aggressive conquerors as Hitler.

Thus, most people agree with the need for national defense. However, many do not believe that this need trickles down to the everyday citizen. Many believe that one does not need a gun to protect oneself. They do not seem to see the similarities between national defense and defense of the individual. Others do not see the need for national defense either, believing that some form of touchy-feely approach to the world will solve all ills. While laudable in their good intentions, they are deceived by their naiveté.

In the very early years of this nation, people were required to have a weapon. Most did to supply their families with meat in any case. In today’s world most simply obtain their meat from the grocer. And many see hunters as brutes from a time past. Their stance might be changed by one visit to a slaughtering house prior to its being displayed so innocently on the grocer’s shelf.

Many people, primarily those in the larger cities, see guns as a danger to them and to Americans in general. They believe that if guns are taken away from everyone, the danger posed by guns will cease. They work at making this seem real from almost every conceivable angle. There are hundreds of bills in Congress and the state legislatures at any given time, trying to further restrict or abolish guns. Now and then they get one passed, and as illustrated in the last Publius blog, they continue to take small bites out of America’s heritage. They are bound to continue this until there is nothing left.

Many foreigners, whose gun rights have already been taking away, see America as the last great hope. They know the devastating results brought about by the abolition of the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Almost every dictatorial and tyrannical regime was the result of removing guns from the general public. Even England and Australia did not vote on the subject. Their parliaments simply said bring your guns in or go to jail.

Here is the question: What will you do when the US government comes to you and says “Bring all your guns in tomorrow for confiscation or face jail; resist and risk death.”? Will you resist or quietly hand over all your guns like others have in the past in Germany, Cuba, the Philippines, England, Australia and every other nation on earth? Even Canada and Mexico have much more restrictive gun laws than the US. There is an even more pertinent question: If you are law enforcement, military, national guard, secret service, or any other government employee, will you follow the government’s orders? You understand, do you not, that you have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. There should be no question in your mind what you are going to follow and what it is your duty to do. If there is, you need to move to one of the countries mentioned above. Such illegal orders do not override the constitution.

The primary reason set down by the 2nd Amendment was not so that we could hunt or compete or plink with guns. Any reasonable person understands that. The 2nd Amendment was provided for several reasons, all having to do with defense, both of country and of self and family. Those principles have not changed, nor will they. The men who set our country in motion knew well that tyrannical governments oppress the people unless they can defend themselves. It is inferred within this statement that people have, as well, the right to protect themselves against any violent threat to themselves or their families. Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, was specific in explaining that silence is not the same as abolition. The constitution does not say that individuals do not the have the right to keep and bear arms. The concept that they do is so well understood that saying so is to insult the intelligence of even the most backward citizen.

It appears that many people do not feel threatened by either the state or the violent criminal. They instead feel threatened by those who legally obtain, own, and safely use guns. The new head of Homeland Security feels these people might be a threat to the nation. Many, she believes, are radicals and extremists who are a danger to America. That sort of reverse logic is what an authoritarian government wants people to think. They see such people not as loyal patriots but as threats to their new world order.

In Chuck Baldwin’s recent account entitled Gun Confiscation is Tyranny is the following quote”

“If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)”This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?”As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now.”

While the threat of physical violence is not the only peril we face in America, without the second amendment there is no U.S. Constitution.