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.