Skip to comments.The Second Amendment - Commentaries
Posted on 11/06/2003 6:19:06 PM PST by PsyOp
click here to read article
There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotismgovernment. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. Ronald Reagan.
Clearly, there remains to this day a horrible, condescending attitude toward armed American citizens. Havent the British yet gotten over the fact that a ragtag, often disorganized force of American colonials, wielding their own arms, was able to defeat what at the time was the most powerful armed force in the world? Our forefathers, armed with their own flintlock rifles and pistols, and an assortment of musketsthe assault weapons of their erathrew off the yoke of oppression under which they were forced to live. When British broadcasters today demand to know just what it is about gun ownership that Americans defend so vigorously, the answer is too simple for them to comprehend. Simply put, we defend this individual civil right because without our own guns two centuries ago, we would still... likely be British subjects... Alan Gottlieb.
In its proper constitutional sense, the term [militia] means all the able-bodied people who can be trained and disciplined to act in the communitys defense when its attacked. Since it encompasses every able-bodied person, it does not refer to thosesuch as the police, the military, or even the National Guardwho formally compose the official defense forces of the nation. Every citizen able and willing to act in an emergency becomes a potential defender against attacks aimed at the general population. Unfortunately, because of the anti-gun folly of the leftist media and politicians, we have lost sight of this vital element of our defense... The anti-gun crowd seeks to establish a modern version of [the medieval era], a kind of bureaucratic feudalism, in place of the republican self-government established by our Constitution... The answer is not gun control, but self-government, self-defense, and self-control. We must act to live as free people, else like sheep for the slaughter, we will die, and freedom with us. Alan Keyes.
Fifty years ago [Cho Seung-Hui] probably would have ended up, more likely, in a state mental hospital, than in a state university. But from the pictures weve seen, the kind of iconic photograph of the way he was methodical in everything he did, the one thing you can say psychiatrically speaking, is he was not as schizophrenicthat we colloquially think of as delusional or hallucinating. This is a man who planned it out. This was very methodicalschizophrenics are quite disorganized. He wasnt. He was too organized. What you can say, justnot as a psychiatrist, but as somebody whos lived through the past seven or eight years, is that if you look at that picture, it draws its inspiration from the manifestos, the iconic photographs of the Islamic suicide bombers over the last half-decade in Palestine, in Iraq, and elsewhere. Thats what they end up leaving behind... Charles Krauthammer.
The trouble with gun control laws is they target the law abiding. If you disarm good people but not the criminals, instead of making things safe for the potential victims you may unintentionally make them safe for the criminals, said Dr. John Lott, coauthor of a massive study on guns and crime... Both crime rates and shooting deaths have declined in most states which have adopted concealed carry laws, says Dr. Lott. The decline in multiple victim public shootings has been especially pronounced, he said. Bill Landes of the University of Chicago law school and I examined multiple-victim public shootings in the U.S. from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple victim public shootings fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple victim public shootings fell even further, on average by 78 percent, as the remaining incidents tended to involve fewer victims per attack, Dr. Lott said... In applauding the defeat last year of a measure in the Virginia legislature to permit those with concealed carry permits to have a gun on campus, Associate Vice President Larry Hinckler said Virginia Techs strict gun control policy made students feel safer. But there is a difference between feeling safer and being safer, as Virginia Tech has learned to its sorrow. Jack Kelly.
Instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but were disallowed from arguing back. Thats how good their arguments are. Theyre that good. Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zoneat least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs. Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner. But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers... Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if [concealed handgun permit] holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus? If it wasnt obvious then, it is now. Ann Coulter.
Which is safer? More guns or fewer? - Armed college students mean fewer victims
rockymountainnews.com ^ | April 21, 2007 | Glenn Reynolds
On Monday, as the news of the Virginia Tech shootings was unfolding, I went into my advanced constitutional law seminar to find one of my students upset. My student, Tara Wyllie, has a permit to carry a gun in Tennessee, but she isn’t allowed to have a weapon on campus. That left her feeling unsafe. “Why couldn’t we meet off campus today?” she asked.
Virginia Tech graduate student Bradford Wiles also has a permit to carry a gun, in Virginia. But on the day of the shootings, he would have been unarmed for the same reason: Like the University of Tennessee, where I teach, Virginia Tech bans guns on campus.
In The Roanoke Times last year - after another campus incident, when a dangerous escaped inmate was roaming the campus - Wiles wrote that, when his class was evacuated, “Of all of the emotions and thoughts that were running through my head that morning, the most overwhelming one was of helplessness. That feeling of helplessness has been difficult to reconcile because I knew I would have been safer with a proper means to defend myself.”
Wiles reported that when he told a professor how he felt, the professor responded that she would have felt safer if he had had a gun, too.
What’s more, she would have been safer. That’s how I feel about my student as well (one of a few I know who have gun-carry permits). She’s a responsible adult; I trust her not to use her gun improperly, and if something bad happened, I’d want her to be armed because I trust her to respond appropriately, making the rest of us safer.
Virginia Tech doesn’t have that kind of trust in its students (or its faculty, for that matter). Neither does the University of Tennessee. ...
“Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave.” - Andrew Fletcher.
“Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen.” Jeff Cooper.
Personal defense (protecting yourself) is the first principle included in the right to keep and bear arms, as found in the Second Amendment. Personal defense is considered a "natural right" against lawless attacks, that government cannot prevent. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
Only by being armed, can "the people" maintain sovereignty over necessary, but limited government. If government becomes excessively repressive, "the people" are justified in using their arms to overthrow the government and create a new one. Under our model of government and in the thinking of the Founding Fathers, we are either armed or we are slaves. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
"The people" are mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution and in five of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights (First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.) To accept the "collective rights" argument we would have to believe that "the people" in the Second Amendment are not the same people found in the Preamble of the Constitution and the other four amendments. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
The English had a system of government recognizing the right of "the people" to be armed. During ancient times, the English were exposed to raids from Germanic tribes. All of "the people" made up the "militia." The ancient English kings required subjects to be armed at all times. The Laws of Alfred (871-899) and the Laws of Cnut (1020-1023) considered being armed a right and a duty of all male citizens. A person was fined if he failed to have arms available so that he could respond to a community emergency. Such response was known as "responding to the hue and cry." - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
During Anglo-Saxon times a ceremony was conducted when a slave was freed, placing weapons into his hands, indicating his new status as a free man. Having and bearing arms was a symbol of liberty. Anglo-Saxon laws made disarming a free man a Crime. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
In 1066, the Normans (from what would be part of France today) conquered the English and thus began a process of the English losing their rights. Henry II's 1181 Assize of Arms recognized being armed as a right and a duty. But individual English subjects were to possess arms according to their "station" in life. That is to say, subjects could only have certain arms based on their wealth and the amount of land they owned. Because the king feared revolt, the poor could own only certain weapons and certain quantities of weapons. In 1199, King John came to the throne and proceeded to disarm nobles and commoners alike. This action and other efforts to establish an absolute monarch resulted in a revolt in 1215. The nobles forced John to sign the Magna Charta which included recognition that the nobles had a right to correct the king by use of force and recognition of the right to keep and bear arms as established in the Assize of Arms . But the development of firearms and their ownership by the poor and middle classes caused the monarchy to fear this new power in the hands of commoners. Henry VII (1485-1603), Henry VIII (1509-1647), and Charles II (1660-1685) issued edicts seeking to disallow firearms and crossbow ownership to all but wealthy landowners. But even Henry VIII, who sought to establish an absolute monarchy, still recognized the value of an armed citizenry, encouraging in 1511, that every man own, practice, and "have available long bow and arrows. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
Classical Greek Thinking - Aristotle discussed the works of Plato, who advocated an elite "philosopher king." Plato comes across as a naIve, rich kid, who never experienced much of the real world. He thought that a well-educated philosopher would rule his people with goodness and benevolence. The common people were supposed to mind their own business, leaving government decisions to the educated elite. Plato didn't take into account how power and wealth can corrupt even educated people. Aristotle advocated an armed citizenry and a balance of power within government, providing checks against the human tendency to hoard wealth and power for the benefit of a wealthy elite. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
Classical Roman Thinking - Cicero advocated an armed citizenry and a balance of power within government, like Aristotle. Rome at first had a republican form of government and the citizens were armed. The foundation of the Roman Republic rested on an army made up of citizens who provided their own arms. The symbolic end of the Roman Republic came when Julius Caesar marched a professional army across the Rubicon River in 49 B.C., starting a civil war that resulted in the establishment of an imperial monarchy under Augustus Caesar. Although citizens could own arms during the early years of the empire, the end of the republic marked the end of the superiority of an armed citizenry over a standing army. When emperors such as Tiberius sought to increase their power and wealth, they began by disarming the people - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
Governments are formed by "the people" to make life better, not worse. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
As the government of King George ill became more and more repressive against American colonists, it sought to disarm the Americans as it had the Irish, Scots, and other people throughout the world. During 1774 and 1775, the English attempted to disarm the Americans through use of arbitrary search of citizens' homes and seizure of all arms discovered. It also banned importing of arms and ammunition from England to America. They revolted against the king. "The shot heard round the world" was fired when an English army marched on Lexington, Massachusetts, with the intent of capturing the militia's powder magazine and disarming "the people." At the same time, the royal governor of Virginia seized the militia powder magazine at Williamsburg. All of these actions and the resulting American Revolution can be traced to writings of ancient and more recent scholars who advocated a republican form of government based on an armed citizenry. The armed citizens were known as "the militia," and "the militia" was made up of the entire body of the people. Each citizen provided his own gun, and an immediate supply of powder and lead. The armed citizenry provided a balance against repressive government and tyranny. All of this can be read in the speeches and writings of the Founding Fathers. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
The American gun control movement is firmly rooted in racial bigotry. And let us not assume that these roots are unrelated to today's gun control movement. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
In the South, the Ku Klux Klan increased its activities and membership. The Klan disarmed African-American citizens and terrorized those who sought to vote, often with silent government sanction. The wealthy and big business interests financially supported Klan activities. Very poor Klan members suddenly had enough money to purchase new, expensive firearms. What happened to African-Americans is a perfect example of what happens to any people who are disarmed. They were enslaved "in fact" although the Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery or involuntary servitude. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
[In] Anglo-Saxon times a ceremony was conducted at the time a slave was freed, placing weapons into his hands, indicating his new status as a free man. Having and bearing arms was a symbol of liberty. The Klan, state governments, and the federal government made every effort to repress newly freed citizens. They reduced them to such a condition that they could do nothing to secure their personal security and exercise the rights of American citizens. Only in the mid-1950's did this start to change in some respects for African-American citizens. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
Thomas Jefferson envisioned a rural America. A very large percentage of families lived on farms of 40 acres or more. Governments, both federal and state, were small and had only limited powers. "The people" are to be always armed. An armed people will rise up against a tyrannical government. In one of his writings, he complained that many citizens ignored laws requiring them to purchase and own the same type of firearms carried by the regular army. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
Alexander Hamilton envisioned an industrial America. The powers of government will be used to promote business activities. A stronger central government will be needed with the power to maintain a small standing army. In the Federalist Papers, he argued a necessary, small, standing army would pose no threat to republican government because the body of the people are armed. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
For example, the most dramatic growth in the federal government is associated with the commerce clause. This clause delegates the federal government power to regulate interstate commerce. That is to say, the federal government can regulate commerce that flows between two or more states. Many, many laws have been enacted that take more than a "stretch" to be seen as being associated with regulating commerce that flows between two or more states. For example, the gun control law, making it a crime to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a school, was passed under the commerce clause. For this law to be in keeping with original intent, one has to believe that an otherwise law-abiding citizen standing 999 feet from a school with a gun in his or her possession is related to the flow of commerce between two states. It is interesting to note that the greatest increase in federal government growth is associated with business and wealth. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
People can be uncomfortable and feel threatened by people who are different. Following the Civil War there were dramatic increases in immigration into the United States from non-northern European countries. States in the industrial northeast and California experienced the greatest increases. Newspapers openly stated that a major reason for passing the New York State 1911 Sullivan, handgun, licensing law was to limit "ignorant and quarrelsome immigrants" from having handguns. Citizens of foreign birth were not supposed to go about armed. Italians made up seventy percent of those arrested under the Sullivan law the first three years following its enactment. What appears to be selective enforcement echoes the concealed carry laws applied against African- American citizens in the South and not applied against whites. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
The prohibition of alcohol through the 18th Amendment is an example of how government can enact a law (even inserting it into the Constitution) that does not have the support of "the people." "The people" had their booze regardless of the law. Alcohol prohibition produced the following results: a dramatic increase of wealth in the hands of members of organized crime; a dramatic increase in violent crime; passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, placing a $200 tax and requiring registration with the federal government for citizens to own automatic weapons, and short-barreled shotguns and rifles. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
With the 14th Amendment African-Americans were made citizens of both the United States and the individual state where they lived. It said that no state could enact or enforce laws that prohibited from any citizen (black, white, or whatever) the privileges and immunities previously enjoyed by white citizens. The amendment gave Congress the power to ensure that states had no laws or enforced no laws that prohibited the personal rights included in the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) is an example of an artful dodge. A group of nearly 100 white Louisiana men were accused in federal court of violating the civil rights of two African-American men who were murdered. Court action charged the men with violating the murdered citizens' civil rights, including the right to assemble, the right to keep and bear arms, deprivation of life without due process of law, etc.. Three of the men were convicted, including William J. Cruikshank. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions ruling that the federal government had no police powers over private actions. The Supreme Court did not recognize a "sin of omission" on the part of the state of Louisiana, which did not seek to accuse and try the murderers for their crimes. Although the 14th Amendment granted Congress the power to enforce the amendment with appropriate legislation, the court ruled that a citizen whose rights are violated must look to his or her state government for protection of their civil rights and not the federal government. The Cruikshank ruling is an example of the silent sanction of Ku Klux Klan activities by government. According to the ruling, Klan members can deprive African-Americans of their arms and kill them without legal interference from the federal government as long as there is no state law instructing them to do so. This ruling effectively excused the federal government from ensuring for minorities the privileges and immunities enjoyed by white people. States did not pass laws that instructed Klan members to murder African-Americans, but they also did not prosecute whites who murdered them. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
Among all other countries in the world, Switzerland is the only one that has a government based on an armed citizenry. Switzerland has maintained an armed citizenry since the Renaissance and the time of Machiavelli. A Sturmgewehr 90 assault rifle (a select fire machine gun) is kept in nearly every Swiss home in addition to a large supply of ammunition. Citizens can purchase machine guns, anti-tank weapons, howitzers, anti-aircraft guns, and cannons. Government constructs thousands of shooting ranges that are available to the public. Government sells ammunition to citizens at cost. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
Gun control advocates often suggest that the American suicide rate would go down if gun ownership were restricted or prohibited. This position can also be shown to be false. Japan has one of the highest rates of suicide in the world and almost completely restricts firearms ownership. Only the police, the military, a few well-connected wealthy people, and members of organized crime have guns in Japan. People, intent on killing themselves, will find a means to do so, one way or the other. Increased gun control will not reduce suicide rates. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
The right to keep and bear arms, as found in the Second Amendment, is infringed on by state governments and the federal government. In some states and the District of Columbia, all law-abiding citizens have been reduced to a status similar to African-Americans who until recent times were disallowed flfearms ownership and other rights the three Reconstruction Amendments were meant to protect. Except now, government is responsible for denied firearm ownership without the help of the Ku Klux Klan. Throughout the nation all citizens are disallowed ownership of the standard firearms carried by infantry soldiers and officers: the Colt Ml6 rifle and the M-9 Beretta handgun, each with magazines that will hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. All citizens are also disallowed many firearms carried by the military and law-enforcement agencies such as automatic weapons and short barreled rifles and shotguns. - Dr. Joseph L. Bass, A Little Handbook On The Second Amendment, 1999.
A public newspaper makes the multitude too familiar with the actions and counsels of its superiors, too pragmatical and censorious, and gives them not only an inch, but a kind of colourable right and license to be meddling with the government. - Roger L 'Estrange, The Public Intelligencer, August 3, 1663.
The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. - Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford. 1857.
They had for more than a century before been regarded as being of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford. 1857.
Be it enacted... That no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife,... Mississippi black code law titled "Act to Regulate the Relation of Master and Apprentice Relative to Freedmen, Free Negroes, and Mulattoes", 1865.
Sir, I find in the Constitution of the United States an article which declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." For myself, I shall insist that the reconstructed rebels of Mississippi respect the Constitution in their local laws... Nearly every white man in that State that could bear arms was in the rebel ranks. Nearly all of their able- bodied colored men who could reach our lines enlisted under the old flag. Many of these brave defenders of the nation paid for the arms with which they went to battle... The "reconstructed" State authorities of Mississippi were allowed to rob and disarm our veteran soldiers. - Representative Sidney Clark, during a debate in the House of Representatives condemning the enactment of Jim Crow laws in Mississippi.
It is reported that in some parts of this State, armed parties are, without proper authority, engaged in seizing all fire-arms found in the hands of the freedmen. Such conduct is in clear and direct violation of their personal rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, which declares that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - General Rufus Saxton, "Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction", June 20, 1866.
Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion in Poe v. Ullman stated the thesis best: [T]he full scope of liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points picked out in terms of taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. - Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law at Harvard University, American Constitutional Law, 1988.
Indeed, James Madison introduced the ninth amendment in specific response to the arguments of Hamilton and others that enactment of a Bill of Rights might dangerously suggest that those rights which were not singled out, were indeed to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. The ninth amendment, which provides that [t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, ... - Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law at Harvard University, American Constitutional Law, 1988.
The Gun is Civilization by Marko
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.