Posted on 07/31/2004 3:25:36 PM PDT by tpaine
Gun Control, Patriotism, and Civil Disobedience
by Jacob G. Hornberger
The State of California recently enacted a law which requires owners of semiautomatic weapons to register their gun with the state. But when the law went into effect thousands of California gun owners, although risking a felony conviction, refused to comply with its requirements.
The gun owners were immediately showered with harsh criticism, not only from their public officials but from many of their fellow citizens as well. The critics implied, among other things, that since the law had been passed by the duly elected representatives of the people, the gun owners, as members of society, had a duty to comply with its terms.
The controversy raises important issues concerning liberty, property, government, patriotism, and civil disobedience.
As I have repeatedly emphasized, by adopting the welfare-state, planned-economy way of life, the American people of our time have rejected and abandoned the principles of individual freedom and limited government on which our nation was founded. But they have also rejected and abandoned something of equal importance: the concept of patriotism which characterized America's Founding Fathers.
There have been two different notions of patriotism in American history. The one which characterizes the American people of the 20th century — the one which is taught in our public schools — is this: patriotism means the support of one's own government and the actions which the government takes on behalf of the citizenry.' The idea is that since we live in a democratic society, the majority should have the political power to take any action it desires. And although those in the minority may not like the laws, they are duty-bound, as "good" citizens, to obey and support them.
The distinguishing characteristic of this type of patriotism is that the citizen does not make an independent, personal judgment of the rightness or wrongness of a law. Instead, he does what he has been taught to do since the first grade in his government schools: he places unwavering faith and trust in the judgment of his popularly elected public officials.
The other concept of patriotism was the type which characterized the British colonists during the late 1700s. These individuals believed that patriotism meant a devotion to certain principles of rightness and morality. They believed that the good citizen had " duty to make an independent judgment as to whether his own government's laws violated these principles.
And so, unlike their counterparts in America today, these individuals refused to automatically accept the legitimacy of the actions of their public officials. Let us examine how "real-world" applications of these two concepts of patriotism differ dramatically.
In the late 1700s, the British colonists were suffering under the same type of oppressive regulatory and tax system under which present-day Americans are suffering. What was the reaction of the colonists to this regulatory and tax tyranny? They deliberately chose to ignore and disobey their government's regulations and tax acts. Smuggling and tax evasion were the order of the day! And the more that their government tried to enforce the restrictions, the more it met with disregard and disobedience from the citizenry.
Sometimes smugglers or tax evaders would be caught and brought to trial. The result? Despite conclusive evidence of guilt and the judges' instructions to convict, the defendants' fellow citizens on the juries regularly voted verdicts of acquittal.
And civil disobedience was not limited to economic regulations and taxation. There was also widespread resistance to conscription, especially during the French and Indian War. Those who were conscripted deserted the army in large numbers. And those who had not been conscripted hid the deserters in their homes. This was what it once meant to be a patriot — the devotion to a certain set of principles regarding rightness, morality, individualism, liberty, and property; and it meant a firm stand against one's own government when it violated these principles. If an American of today were magically transported back to colonial America of the late 1700s, he would immediately find himself at odds with the colonists who were resisting the tyranny of their government.
How do we know this? By the way which Americans of today respond to what is a much more oppressive and tyrannical economic system: with either meekness or, even worse, with ardent "flag-waving" support for the actions of their rulers. And what is their attitude toward their fellow citizens who are caught violating the rules and regulations? Again either meekness or fervent support of their rulers.
This brings us back to the individuals in California who are refusing to register their guns.
As our American ancestors understood so well, the bedrock of a free society is private ownership of property. And there are fewer more important rights of private ownership than the unfettered right to own weapons. Why is ownership of weapons so vitally important? Not for hunting. And not even to resist aggression by domestic criminals or foreign invaders. No, as history has repeatedly shown, the vital importance of the fundamental right to own arms is to resist tyranny by one's own government should such tyranny ever become unendurably evil and oppressive.
The lesson which Americans of today have forgotten or have never learned — the lesson which our ancestors tried so hard to teach us — is that the greatest threat to our lives, liberty, property, and security lies not with some foreign government, as our rulers so often tell us; instead, the greatest threat to the well-being of all of us lies with our own government. .
Those who believe that democratically elected rulers lack the potential and inclination for destructive conduct against their citizenry are living in la-la land. Of course, the proponents of political tyranny are usually well motivated. Those who enacted the gun-registration law in California point to those who have used semiautomatic weapons to commit horrible, murderous acts. But the illusion — the pipe-dream — is that bad acts can be prevented through the deprivation of liberty. They cannot be! Life is insecure — whether under liberty or enslavement. The only choice is between liberty and insecurity, on die one hand, and insecurity and enslavement on the other.
The true patriot scrutinizes the actions of his own government with unceasing vigilance. And when his government violates the morality and rightness associated with principles of individual freedom and private property, he immediately rises in opposition to his government. This is why the gun owners of California might ultimately go down in history as among the greatest and most courageous patriots of our time.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
bang
Indeed! BUMP
I am grey, & shaped like a beerkeg...
Give up my rifle? NEVER!
Thanks for the bump.
Which is why everything John Kerry says about "hunter's rights" is such a crock. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
read later
BTTT
You, you...radical!
Which is why everything John Kerry says about "hunter's rights" is such a crock. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
6 E_AS
______________________________________
While the Bush administration admits that our RKBA's is an individual right, they reserve the power to 'regulate' that right by banning so-called assault weapons. -- Just like CA.
I see no choice, - just an echo.
And I'd bet that regardless of who is elected, we will see a renewal of the AWB within a year.
Phil, -- you got that right..
Of course, we have more than a "principle" to justify resistance to the gun-grabbers, we have one of the specifically enumerated rights contained in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
The right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms does not arise from the Constitution, it precedes the Constitution. The Second Ammendment merely prohibits the government from infringing on that right.
Too bad the make-up-our-own-rules-as-we-go liberals refuse to take it seriously.
Pinging the choir for some preaching...
Freedom ain't free bump!
Not a "renewal" as such. Once it expires it has to become a completely new law and is subject to all the rules for passage as every other law proposed. Meaning it has to pass through at least four committees and lots of layers to kill it. This is why of the approx 5000 laws proposed each year only about 10% ever make it to the President. Lot's of ways to kill it including the venerable filibuster.
nightdriver wrote:
Of course, we have more than a "principle" to justify resistance to the gun-grabbers, we have one of the specifically enumerated rights contained in the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
The right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms does not arise from the Constitution, it precedes the Constitution.
The Second Ammendment merely prohibits the government from infringing on that right.
Too bad the make-up-our-own-rules-as-we-go liberals refuse to take it seriously.
______________________________________
Curiously enough, we have our own contingent of "make-up-our-own-rules-as-we-go" FReepers, who support CA's so-called'power' to outlaw assault weapons.
I'll ping a few to review your well said comments..
That is the function of the 2nd amendment in a nutshell.
We stand ready.
Ahhh to be young again, and to have faith!
Dream on soldier. It's a done deal, imo.
Amen, brother.
It's radical recognition. Other radicals, for some reason, seem to easily recognize and relate to it.
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.