Often times I hear or read the opinion of some anti-gunner,
who claims that gun control is justified because private citizens aren’t
allowed to own grenades and bombs and tanks, and so other military hardware can
and should be controlled. They claim
that the founding fathers were talking about muzzle-loading rifles and muskets
when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, not “automatic” AR-15s with “high
capacity clips.” They use fighter jets
as an example of items that the government can own that citizens cannot own,
and use that as precedent to counter claims that citizens were intended to be
as well armed as the military by the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.
“The military has fighter jets and thermonuclear warheads!”
they claim, “your logic is flawed because if you accept that the founding
fathers wanted us to be as well armed as the government, then you must accept
that they wanted nuclear weapons in the hands of citizens! Common sense restrictions are all we are
asking for!”
I can counter their claim no better than Edward Abby just
did – I’ve linked over to Borepatch since he is the one that brought this to my
attention. Go. Link.
Read. Discuss.
Done? Read the whole
thing? Good.
I agree 100% with one exception:
The rifle is not the weapon of democracy – it is the weapon
of a free man.
A free man doesn’t need thermonuclear warheads or fighter
jets or long range bombers to remain a free man. Those are offensive weapons that lash out at
others and take the fight to them; the weapons of the aggressor and the
tyrant. He doesn’t even need hand grenades
or mortars. All he needs is a
rifle.
The reason that I believe this is simple –as long as a man
has a rifle, he can never be subjugated by another. He can never be forced to do something which
he doesn’t choose to do on his own free will.
The only thing that will keep tyranny from winning in the long run is
for the free men of the world to remain individuals and demand their
self-determination from the Other. That
Other can take a free man’s life through violence if he has the stomach for it,
but he can never force the free man to bend to his will as long as that rifle
is in that free man’s hands.
A rifle in the hands of a man is a defensive weapon that
defends the free will and self-determination of that man. As long as he holds it, he is free.
If you take away the rifle, you’ve forever destroyed freedom
in this country.
So we’ll give up hand grenades and fighter jets if that
makes you feel safer, but the rifle is the first item that you’ve tried to ban
that will affect our ability to defend ourselves, and our ability to be free
men. We are drawing a line in the sand
this time. You’ve gone as far as you’re
going to go. Thus far, and no
further.
No comments:
Post a Comment