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.