Today Judge Andrew Napolitano has a column explaining why the early Americans wrote the Second Amendment into the U.S. Constitution. A lot of people, however, are afraid of freedom and personal responsibility, and love the government and want government to be all-powerful and armed with all the weapons imaginable while the rest of the population are disarmed and defenseless.
I have written this recently, but I’ll reiterate this: It is astonishing to me how people who think of themselves as “liberals” really want government agents, government police and government military to be armed, but not private civilians to be armed, nor their neighbors. And this despite so many more incidents now in the news on a daily basis and on YouTube showing police all across America bullying, intimidating, assaulting, tasering, injuring, shooting, and murdering totally innocent civilians, many of whom were not even suspected of anything. And many amongst the police are drugged up on hard drugs, prescription drugs and steroids.
And we see the problems that men and women in the military are having, injuries and brain traumas, dismemberments, and personal problems such as divorces, abusive relationships, drug abuse, depression and PTSD. Many in the military are also drugged up on hard drugs as well as prescription drugs such as anti-depressants. And in the military there is widespread violence including sexual assaults perpetrated against women as well as males. By and large now, police and military are, in my opinion, a sick and dangerous culture, as I have written here. (Also in that linked article I discuss how the U.S. government already has a history of turning the guns against the American people and that the people have a right to protect themselves from the government.)
But Judge Napolitano writes very well and succinctly in regards to those issues and the Second Amendment. Here are some important excerpts:
The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
Now, the Judge’s statement that refers to “shooting tyrants” and regarding “the right to shoot at them effectively” can be considered very controversial and can be misconstrued if taken out of context. No one is referring to “shooting military personnel or cops” or assassinating government officials. But when government bureaucrats and their armed agents get out of control and act like murderous tyrants, that is when the people, the average civilians, have every right in the world to use whatever means necessary to protect themselves and their families. They would in essence be protecting themselves form criminals, because, when government bureaucrats and their armed agents act criminally against the people, then that is exactly what they are: criminals, and we must call them that.
Perhaps even more controversial are these videos, posted just recently, by Larken Rose who discusses his article on the people’s right to fight back against government tyranny.
Rose explains very matter-of-factly,
If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny….
Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice–even if the injustice is called ”law”–that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow ”government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.
(Here is an interesting interview of Larken Rose.)
We live in a really screwed up time now. The so-called “law-and-order conservatives” and “constitutionalists” believe in the individual’s “right to bear arms” but they simultaneously and incoherently love authority and they love armed governmental authority such as police and military and would not come to the defense of someone who “resisted” a criminal with a badge and governmental officialdom. And the so-called “liberals” say they believe in “individual rights” but they do not believe that the individual has a right to be armed to defend oneself, including from government tyrants. Such incoherence is largely due to government schooling, of course.