Anarchy For Dummies: Weighing In on Gun Control

I do not own a firearm, nor do I have any plans to ever purchase one. I do not trust myself to operate a firearm safely, so I just don’t want to have one around. I don’t see the point of hunting, and I don’t shoot recreationally. I like John Woo movies, but that’s pretty much the extent of my personal appreciation of guns. Given this, I don’t think I could possibly be labeled as a gun enthusiast, or whatever euphemism or pejorative your personal preference would dictate. I mention this because I have a rather strong, perhaps even unique, stance on gun control, and I don’t want to be dismissed out of hand. My stance is this: there should be no gun control whatsoever.

Pro-gun lobbyists have their points about defense and protection, and the anti-gun lobby has its points about safety and crime. These arguments don’t really intersect in any meaningful way, so this line of inquiry is mostly moot, becoming little more than an overblown shouting match. Like most people, I think one side has a better argument in this regard, but my opinion isn’t really important. Facts are important. Watching people argue their opinions on gun control is a lot like watching a debate between Coke and Pepsi; it’s a matter of personal preference, and not likely to be resolved in this way.

Perhaps realizing this, both sides scramble to find an authority to support their claim. And when discussing possible legislature in this country, there is no higher authority than the Constitution. Thus arises the battle over which side is supported by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Before going any further, let’s take a look at the text of this troublesome clause. The Second Amendment, in its entirety, reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The point of contention here is that some people feel that “shall not be infringed” can be interpreted to mean, “can be infringed if you feel like it.” Some people think that it only applies to the military, despite the fact that it protects “the right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

Now, maybe you think I’m not being fair. Maybe you think there’s some subtle nuance I’m missing in the wording, or that something is lost in the translation due to antiquated language. I’ll be the first to admit that the Constitution is not perfect. That’s not just a figure of speech, I mean that you’d actually be hard pressed to find someone who thinks the Constitution isn’t perfect. Despite this, no document is going to be completely relevant to its people 200 years later. In this case, however, it may be more relevant than ever.

Maybe the reason there is so much quibbling over the wording is the fact that it seems to equate the militia and the people. One side or the other of this debate feels the need to emphasize one aspect, either militia or people, over the other. To attain a deeper understanding of the meaning of the, one must evaluate the cultural context. Militia and people are equated in the document because in the 18th century, they were the same thing. One notion that is mistakenly made is that their usage of the word militia means the same thing as “military.” This could not be farther from the truth. When the Constitution was in the process of being ratified, there was great concern over the power of the federal government going unchecked, which is why the Bill of Rights was drafted. Representatives were nervous about the possibility of a large national army gaining too much power, so they insisted that the citizens be permitted to fight back should the occasion arise. The dangers of excessive force were still fresh in their minds.

Historically, the most fascist governments are the ones that earned their power on the good will and confidence of their people. The banner of freedom can easily be made to prop open the door to tyranny. Our country was never meant to meddle outside its own affairs. We were never intended to be a major player on the world stage. Our current policy of expansionism requires a large military force, a force which has no problem placing a towel over someone’s face and forcing water down their throat. How long can such a force maintain our best interests? It is not unreasonable to think that in 50 or 100 years that power could be turned inward to suppress its own people. This is the real reason the framers of the constitution sought to arm the people of their country, to protect citizens from their own government.
It has been pointed out that countries that have strict gun control have not slid into fascism, but none of these countries have the most powerful military in the entire world. Australia, Canada, Spain, Germany, these are not the countries you think of when you hear the phrase “military might.”

The idea of overthrowing the US government is certainly not a popular one, and I’m not suggesting it. The first amendment is still alive and kicking in this country, though privacy has certainly taken a hit. And while I hope that our freedoms continue to be protected, we shouldn’t just assume they will. Obviously the decision to enact violence is not one to be taken lightly. We should take our cues from the early days of our country, which suffered years of abuse and pursued every possible peaceful resolution before finally taking up arms. However, if the government fails us, and we have no options left but to organize a militia, I’d like for them to be armed with something better than single shot hunting rifles.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” This quote has been taken out of context and used to justify just about every war our country has entered since these words were published after his death. What Jefferson actually wrote those words in regards to was Daniel Shays’ rebellion in Massachusetts. He felt that the revolutionaries had been misinformed, however he applauded their resolve. Their passion served as a warning to the government that its people were not complacent, and would not allow themselves to be suppressed. A progressive government is one that fears its people.

I’m not a frightening person, and I don’t know any one person that the government would be afraid of. But if the power structure ever grows too big and threatens to trample us, we will stand united against it. And if that fails, we’ll stand united with some really big guns.

A Curious Old Thing

For years, almost too long to count, it stood upon hallowed ground. Its predecessor usurped, a gnarly old leather thing done in by too many years of torture, the work of feline adversaries, the newcomer began its reign of nearly a score. But time is unkind to such things, and soon the champion grew ragged and tough. It had become a legend of the room, but in the end such things are of little consequence. Not in cruelty, not in wrath, the reaper came; an angel visited this gray path and took the thing away. It was stolen off in secret, to lead a life of temporary exile before being tossed aside as the garbage it was regarded as. In its place sat not just one, but two pretenders to the throne.

When at last came the end of the thing’s brief banishment, instead of fading away as planned, it returned in triumph. The two usurpers were tossed aside and the thing reclaimed its place of honor upon the rusted plain. But this was not the moment of joy it seemed to be.

Its subjects, tired of the twin bumbling charlatans that had replaced the thing, welcomed it back with open arms; but in its glory they hated it all the more. During its displacement, it had grown weaker still. A treasonous bile was building just below the surface, as they continued to honor it with their presence, while at the same time flirting with newer and better things. At last it was almost replaced, but fate stepped in to spare the thing. With two failed attempts to unseat it, its tyrannical grip was absolute. Finally, its subjects’ mettle hardened by defiance, the thing was overthrown.

Now it sits alone in darkness, divided against itself. Exposed to the cold and the elements, it awaits its fate. Will it be delivered to a new domain, until the very fibers of its being finally yield to the wretched claws of age? Or will it be carried away to parts unknown to anguish in obscurity until the cold, bitter end? It is not my place to judge, though that does seem to be the position I have found myself in. Here I sit, upon the tarnished crimson plains, looking out at another world, a distant lonely world. Its dark winds tease upon my face, and they are cold. Looking out, I cannot help but feel a longing for that master which for so long supported me and those closest to me. It does not deserve this. Yet it was I alone who violently plucked it from its place of resting, throwing it to the merciless winds of circumstance. The emptiness is staggering, as I await the thing’s replacement. Though I look to the future, I refuse to close that portal to the outside world. I want to feel the chill upon face. The cold seems to be personified by its ill will, impotently slashing at my face with all the fury of a handful of feathers. Once it is carried away to its own fate, I will be glad, but I will not look away, I will not turn away. I will feel it. I will make myself feel it.

By the way, I totally got a new couch today.