Thoughts On Guns - Don't Tread On Me

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Every single quote above was from Thomas Jefferson, likely from writings to friends and colleagues.  Jefferson was not necessarily an eloquent speaker, but he was a prolific writer, and many of his thoughts about all manner of life showed up in his writings.  When it came to government and arms, he was obviously very distrustful of government, a huge believer in individual liberty and a very staunch advocate of bearing arms, in part to check the power of government.

I will state up front that I do not own a gun, have never owned a gun, nor do I have any desire to own a gun.  Owning a gun for self-defense or protection will not help protect me at all.  But I have no trouble with responsible gun ownership.  Statistically, a gun that is bought and owned for protection and self defense is more likely to be used AGAINST the owner rather than to the benefit of the owner.  I know that most boys go through a "gun phase" when they are around 8-10 years old.  I did and my sons did.  That is normal.  And for those who feel compelled to own a gun, that is a great opportunity to teach proper and safe gun use to the child.  But make sure the gun rack is locked and that the child never knows where the key is kept.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D) of Connecticut expressed his views on guns and the Second Amendment in the following video:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/07/dem_sen_second_amendment_not_meant_for_citizens_to_take_up_arms_against_government.html

"It is laughable also because it is a total bastardization of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not an absolute right, not a God given right, always had conditions upon it like the First Amendment has. The idea that the Second Amendment was put in there in order to allow citizens to fight their government is insane.

If that was the case, we wouldn't have also included treason in the United States Constitution. We basically said if you take arms up against the government, we're going to knock your block off. And that's what the early presidents ended up doing in Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. The Second Amendment is not designed to allow the citizenry to arm itself against the government and nullification is another example of states not really understanding the true nature of that amendment."

I could not disagree with the Senator more.  What I believe the Senator did not say directly, but clearly implied, was that citizens (at least in this country) do not have the right to take up an armed rebellion against the federal government.  I believe that the citizens of this country, or any country, should have the right AND THE ABILITY to take up an armed rebellion against their government should they feel the need.  Now, I do not believe, like Jefferson did, that a bloody revolution every 20 years or so is a good thing.  It is not.  I believe that there is one reason, and only one reason, that citizens take up armed rebellions...to curb abuse of power.  Under Senator Murphy's scenario, unchecked power by the government should not brought to heel by the citizens.  I believe it should.

The Constitution of the United States needs to be preserved.  The Constitution provides checks and balances in the government, and guarantees its citizens certain rights.  And one of those expressed rights is the right to bear arms.  All these are in place to prevent abuse of power.  There is a segment of our population that believes this Constitution is outdated and that we need a new constitution.  One that grants the federal government more power, and grants its citizens fewer rights.  To those who believe this, I will wholeheartedly disagree.  And many would willingly fight to the death to protect their rights now in place.  I do believe that for the most part, the intentions of government are good when they seek to expand their power (and by definition, restrict the freedoms of its citizens).  But we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Ultimately, those good intentions are usually forgotten, and abuse of power ensues.  It was abuse of power by the British government that led our own Patriots to rebel against the monarchy.  Although highly illegal at the time, the rebel colonists stockpiled arms and munitions to prepare for an inevitable armed rebellion against an abusive government.  What started out as quest to attain the "rights of Englishmen" became a fight for political independence when it became apparent that the British had no intent to grant the colonists all rights of British citizenship.  The government imposed a tyranny and created an environment in which the people feared the government.  Checks and balances need to remain in place for the protection of the citizens.

I cannot let this essay end without a few words about the NRA.  I do appreciate that they defend with passion their members' right to bear arms.  And that the NRA exists, period.  I have no doubt that the vast majority of their members are responsible gun owners.  However, what the NRA unwittingly does is arm inner city gangs to the teeth and empowers them to kill many innocent people just on a whim.  I know that killing innocent people on a whim is a moral failing, but the gun is the enabler.  The NRA does not directly arm them...the NRA is not buying guns for these people nor encouraging them directly to own guns.  But they are unwittingly encouraging their right to own guns in order to kill innocent people.  I would like to see the NRA become an advocate for responsible gun ownership and I would like to see them comment more publicly about this.  A convicted felon (especially a convicted murderer) has no business owning a gun.  Their #1 purpose in owning a gun is to kill other people.  This is especially true for gang members, where murder is sometimes part of an initiation into gang membership.  This sickens me.  The NRA also needs to step up and acknowledge that guns do not belong in schools.  Posting armed guards does not foster a true learning environment, nor will it necessarily stop the Adam Lanza's of this world.

What about Newtown, Columbine, Virginia Tech and the way too vast examples of other school shootings?  We can take this all way back to 1966, when Charles Whitman murdered 17 people and wounded 32 others from the Tower at the University of Texas in Austin.  The guns were legally purchased, and there was no reason to deny the purchase of the guns.  Adam Lanza's (the Newtown shooter) mother was a gun collector.  All were purchased legally after the proper background checks.  The purchase of the weapons used in Columbine was dubious, but still legal.  Most of the killers in these mass shootings were mentally ill.  Yet how can we deny the purchase of a gun to someone who collects gun, for example, has no prior felony convictions and is over the age of 18?  And how do you keep these guns from slipping into the hands of someone mentally ill who will shoot a roomful of first graders?  Stricter gun control laws would not have stopped Adam Lanza.  Yet what made him think that shooting a bunch of first graders was an acceptable thing to do?  Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (the Columbine shooters) were by all accounts bright kids, reasonably well adjusted, but were victims of bullying.  They somehow thought that shooting a bunch of their fellow students was an acceptable solution?  I do not get it.  I am not perfect, but I do not understand that line of thinking.  I wish these tragedies never happened.  I am not sure how you keep guns out of the hands of these people.  I am so fortunate that to this point in my life, I have not had to confront this issue.  And how would I feel if I did?  What if my sons were the ones who shot up a school?  Or were among the victims?  I feel deeply for the victims and their families.  No one should ever have to endure such a sick tragedy.

In the end, I deeply disagree with the sentiments of Senator Murphy and I agree with the sentiments of Thomas Jefferson, that the ownership of guns is vital and that the ability to use those guns in an armed rebellion should always remain an option for citizens to protect themselves against abuse of power by their government.  Of course, those who do feel that need to rise up and rebel should understand there will be one of only two outcomes.  One, they ascend to power.  Two, they die.  There will be no in between.  I do favor proper background checks to ensure that gun owners are "qualified" an minimize the chances that innocent people will die because of blatant misuse of guns.  The NRA needs to step up and be a voice for responsible gun ownership.  And take the lead in promoting a safe and responsible gun ownership environment.  They might find this will increase their membership roles and even make this country a bit safer.  And the government needs to quit fearing its citizens and instead applaud the liberty which is this country's founding principle.  Restricting citizens' rights will not make us a stronger nation, and it certainly will not advance the cause of freedom.  In the end, the Senator is wrong on this one.