Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Big Bang - Local view.

One of my favorite bumper stickers claims that “An armed society is a polite society.” Works for me. For those of you who remember the Cold War, we had a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) when the Soviet Union and the United States were the two nuclear superpowers. Although nuclear proliferation throughout the globe has, to some degree, removed the certainty of mutual destruction, the principle still endures. If you possess the ability and the will to retaliate, then those who seek to harm you will be very cautious and careful to not provoke you. Although each of the major powers had a sense of the overall capabilities of the other, there were generally some knowledge gaps regarding deployment schemes and technological upgrades. In other words, it was the unknown factors that led to a reasonable hesitancy to engage the opponent. Even when a nation had the firepower to destroy an adversary, it was aware that the opponent could, in turn, decimate it. Stalemate.


When proposed, the Second Amendment to the Constitution was deemed to be a necessary reiteration of an individual’s right to protect himself/herself. Clearly the Founders believed that an armed citizenry was a major deterrent for those in government who were inclined towards tyranny. It should be obvious that all governments drift toward tyranny when their power accumulates to the level that the citizens feel impotent and frustrated. It should also be noted that tyranny is not only the outgrowth of evil intent, but can morph from the government’s overzealous efforts to do “good.” Elitists who manipulate the levers of state power always believe that their visions for a society are superior to the competing ideals. So, given the geometric growth of our out-of-control government and its plethora of laws, rules and regulations that circumscribe and limit our freedom, then an armed citizenry is critical if freedom is to endure.

Another vital aspect of our right to bear arms is in the realm of personal protection. If a potential perpetrator suspects that a likely target may be packing, the perp may hesitate and seek greener pastures. It follows, therefore, that if ALL citizens could exercise their rights to bear arms, then opportunistic criminals would find their targets of opportunity severely curtailed. This represents the local community version of Mutually Assured Destruction. It shouldn’t require a JD in Constitutional Law to understand that many states and localities have “infringed” upon a natural right by their implementation of overly restrictive laws and ordinances that in essence disarm the populace. The McDonald v. Chicago and D.C v. Heller were helpful, …..but not definitive. Certainly two of the most toxic anti-Second Amendment cities were put in their places (somewhat), but the narrow SCOTUS margins encouraged the disarmament crowd to continue tweaking their restrictive measures in hopes of passing Court muster. The slim margins within the court were further compounded by the narrow scopes of the decisions. The likelihood of a clear MAD policy in the realm of personal protection will always be at risk as long as state and local governments seek to usurp our natural and constitutional rights. In addition, if the SCOTUS fails to unequivocally and emphatically uphold and restore our rights to bear arms, then those who wish to do harm, within and outside government, need merely to target more selectively.

It has been argued that a citizenry that can be armed would not be a deterrent against terrorists. After all the argument goes, a terrorist is committed to martyrdom, and an armed citizen can do nothing to short-circuit his (or her) fast track to paradise. My understanding of the theology underlying martyrdom is that the terrorist must destroy infidels to earn his ticket to the heavenly realm and its bevy of virgins. If the crazed zealot unsuccessfully executes the mission, then he/she simply becomes a dead spiritual warrior with no appreciable heavenly benefit. In my view an armed and observant citizenry has the capacity to preempt fast-track trips to paradise. If the alert, armed citizen is present when an individual with theologically-based murderous intent begins to implement the deadly plan, the conscientious and armed citizen can, perhaps, help the zealot to meet his maker….and enjoy eternity alone.

Health conscious people, dentists and accountants all warn us that prevention is the best cure for whatever may ail us. It follows, therefore, that when confronting crime, terrorism or an out-of-control government, then a forewarned and well armed citizenry may be our best and maybe our only cure. When one watches the news or reads the papers, one becomes aware that ALL of our natural rights as identified in the Constitution are under assault. Thoughtful citizens must understand that our rights cannot be taken or given away. Concerned citizens must exercise every available mechanism for protecting our rights. Free citizens will NOT allow our rights to be infringed or abridged.

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

1 comment:

  1. "Free citizens will NOT allow our rights to be infringed or abridged."

    I'm a stickler for purity in my thought, so let me throw out a problem with this statement for which I hope you have a solution. I agree, for example, to have my property rights infringed in the form of taxation to provide for a common defense. If we don't have a common defense it is an unfortunate inevitability that a coercive state will arrive and deprive me of even greater liberty than the property rights I sacrificed to pay for defense.

    It seems that some measure of infringement is necessary to avoid an even greater infringement, although the boundaries are undoubtedly gray.

    ReplyDelete