On Arms

Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. -- Andrew Fletcher, 1698

Andrew Fletcher (1653 - September 1716) was a Scottish writer, politician and patriot who strongly supported Scottish independence and urged limitations on Royal power. His words were no less true in his day than they are in the 21st century.

The American experience is unique in the world in that we were able to rebel against the English Crown utilizing an army of citizen soldiers, many of whom provided their own weapons. We should have been easily defeated and might have been had it not been for British hubris, long supply lines and the assistance of the French. But how did the Colonists, basically emigrants from England where the populace was historically subserviently obedient to the crown, manage to defeat the British Army? The answer, is actually quite simple: Those who arrived on this shore as Englishmen soon morphed into self-reliant Americans.

Historian Frederick Jackson Turner believed that the frontier experience shaped the American character. And no one can deny that our frontier experience ingrained the early colonists with a reliance on their own abilities and on their arms to protect themselves in a rich, beautiful but unsettled land. Self-defense was a necessity as what government that was available could not provide protection to all settlers. The distances were too great and the transportation system consisted of either shoe-leather or horses. This meant that people had to be able to protect themselves if they were to have any protection at all. Those that would not or could not do so tended to stay within the forts where other armed men could protect them, for they left the safe walls of the fort at their own peril. (You could say that these individuals evolved into the present day metro-sexual progressives.)

As early Americans opened up the frontiers they did so with firearms by their sides. It was more common to see men with guns than without and nobody thought anything about it. Common sense indicated that no one had anything to fear from an honest man who was armed and people understood that self-reliance meant self-defense. The wide-open spaces of the American frontier allowed free men to rise and prosper as much as their God-given ability and efforts would allow. But then, as now, there existed elements of society that sought the easy life at the expense of other people’s labor. And here I am not talking about politicians and lawyers, but about outlaws who thought nothing of taking what they thought they could for they knew that law enforcement was far away and could not respond effectively.

The point of all this is that Americans have, both historically and culturally, have been comfortable in the presence of weapons. It is only in recent decades that the liberals have pushed for disarming society with the totally erroneous view that a disarmed citizenry would lead to lower violent crime and lower crime overall. We’ve seen the fallacy of this argument but, like their intellectual ancestors who were afraid to leave the safety of the fort, they prefer their freedom be protected by others in their employ. As a centerpiece of their argument against the “evil gun” they perpetuate the ridiculous, mediaeval belief that an inanimate object can be evil in and of itself. Those who have looked evil in the proverbial eye know the truth of the matter is that evil walks among us and it is called man. For only man, with his base motives, can be evil. To deny good honest men the right to self-defense is to deny a basic human right. A right that comes not from any society or government, but from God directly to man.

There are those who have abdicated this right and have willingly donned the shackles of slavery. They still refer to themselves as “free” but how free is any human being that places him or her self at the mercy of evil? How free is anyone who is afraid to walk alone at night or without the protective presence of bodyguards or police? And, having been in law enforcement for three decades, I can assure you that the police can’t be everywhere for everyone. The police will respond, and upon arrival will sincerely wish they had been their earlier; but even with the advances in technology and transportation, they most likely will be handling the crime scene rather than the crime itself.

Now before someone accuses me of promoting vigilantism, I must point out that there is a distinct difference between protecting yourself and hunting evil in order to take retribution. Self-defense is not vigilantism and hunting evil is the province of law enforcement after the crime has been committed.

The founding fathers in their writings were strong proponents of the right to bear arms. So strong that they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights second only to the right to speak, the right to worship as you wish, freedom of the press and the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for the redress of grievances.

While Amendment I of the Bill of Rights dealt with several issues all surrounding freedom of worship and speech, Amendment II, now commonly called the 2nd Amendment, dealt with only a single issue: the right to keep and bear arms. We are lucky that the Supreme Court has finally, in the 21st Century, defined legally what my 3rd grade teacher taught me in Idaho over 50 years ago. The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms; but it is important to remember that this, though protected by the Constitution, comes not from the government. The right to bear arms stems directly from the natural, God-given right of self-defense. (Note: Before any of my British friends decide to weigh-in on this issue, please remember that we settled the matter in 1776. Despite the churlish manner in which the current administration has dealt with your PM and Her Royal Highness, we really do like you for many things. But your socialized health care and your attitudes towards arms are not traits we admire.)

Liberal anti-gun advocates are fond of disabusing the idea of self-defense saying that weapons can only lead to more violence. They cling to a utopian idea that if everyone is disarmed then all will be safe but in doing so they fail to understand or accept the very basics of human nature. The liberal, with his unceasing desire for a completely secular society, disabuses the idea that God gave man any rights and believes that the state is the grantor of rights. Liberals do not like individual freedom except as they alone define it and this usually means free from any reference to religion, morality or conservative thought. Even worse, liberals tend to project their own altruistic ideals to others. A noble projection, but the reality of the situation is quite different: If everyone is disarmed, the first man to have a club will rule.

Conservatives look at life and freedom differently. First, we know that in the absence of divine guidance and the acceptance of religious morality, evil is possible in all men. Government alone cannot bring order to a society. For a government to attempt to do so would require such draconian measures that no man would be free to think, live and pursue happiness. Second, we know that if everyone has a club, all men are very careful about how they swing theirs. So it is with modern firearms.

After long years studying the traits and commonalities of criminals I have come to the conclusion that they are attracted to weakness and thrive on timidity. An armed citizenry makes the criminal’s life much more complicated, as the last thing they want is an actual armed confrontation. When they commit a crime they target the weak and defenseless leaving the strong alone because it is safer and easier. I’ve often thought that liberals, having descended figuratively from that early settler who was afraid to leave the fort, find comfort in being part of a large, unarmed herd figuring that there is safety in numbers and that the predator will take someone else. This is especially true if they are one of the liberal elite standing in the middle of the herd.

The rest of us, however, would prefer to meet that predatory criminal on level ground with the ability to protect our homes, our families and our lives. We do not intend to don the chains of slavery by abdicating our right to bear arms and be free men and women. More importantly, we do not intend to spend our last minutes on earth wondering why the police have not yet arrived.

As a matter of disclosure, I have been a proud Life Member of the NRA since 1975.