The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
A question posed on the Internet a couple of years ago asks; “I don't see why you oppose a gun registration and licensing system. First, do you think that driver's licenses, license plates, and road tests are a bad idea? If so, then I can understand (though I disagree) with your position, which I'd characterize as anti-regulation absolutist. But if you support or are at least indifferent to the infrastructure that surrounds car ownership, why would you be opposed to national serial numbers and gun ownership licenses?”
In this neighborhood I suspect I’m preaching to the choir, but…
I hadn’t heard the term “anti-regulation absolutist” before, but it sounds like a fair description of my attitude towards government licensing regulations. In general I do oppose most licensing. Certainly I want to know that my Doctor is qualified to practice medicine, and I suppose that a license indicates that he is qualified. However, let's get something straight here. Driving, or being a doctor, is not a Constitutionally protected individual right (despite what some people seem to think), but gun ownership is. People are not required to have a driver's license, if they never drive on a public highway. When people drive on government built and maintained roads, the government can (and does) tax you for road maintenance and has the right to determine if you are capable of driving, as a matter of public safety.You may then ask, "isn't gun ownership a question of public safety too?"That depends on your definition of "public safety". Yes, public safety is threatened when the occasional nut shoots at people “because the voices told me to” (the Texas Tower incident in 1966 is a good example). But there is a more fundamental definition of "public safety". That is the security of the nation, and the people, from tyranny. The protection of these two "public safeties" far outweighs the harm caused by the occasional crime spree by disturbed individuals. And they are occasional, abit well publicized incidents. Excluding suicide and "righteous” shootings (when a criminal is shot by a citizen in self defense), death by gunshot in the United States is statistically irrelevant, given the size of the US population and the prevalence of guns in public.
America's Founding Fathers were students of history, and they saw what happened when the citizens were disarmed. Sooner or later they were oppressed by tyranny, whether imported, or of the local variety. Their suspicion of government, and the need to keep the country safe from foreign invasion were uppermost in their minds when they wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
One of the basic disadvantages of the State knowing who is armed and who isn't, is that the State knows who has to be disarmed if they are to impose any kind of tyranny. The Weimar Republic in 1920s Germany imposed universal gun registration, largely in an attempt to control the gangs of political thugs (Nazi, Communist, Socialist, Spartacist, whoever) roaming the streets. The German people, being a law-abiding sort, complied. When the Nazis came to power, one of their first acts was to disarm the German people, most especially the Jews -- and we all know how that turned out. The problem with tyranny is that by the time it's here, it's too late to do anything about it. As with all bad things, it's easier to get rid of tyranny early on, or even better, prevent it from taking root at all. The best guarantee against tyranny is an armed citizenry.
Nobody wants an armed revolution either. As we’ve seen from around the world in the last few years, rebellions and civil wars are ugly, and all they do is smash up the infrastructure and kill a lot of innocent people. But the implication of an armed citizenry, ready, willing, and able to rise up and fight for their rights, would certainly make most prospective dictators seriously consider another line of work. There is another Thomas Jefferson quote that I think is quite appropriate to the subject; “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Another characteristic we have inherited from the Founding Fathers, was their suspicion of government. And it's not up to us to trust government -- we don't, which is why the Constitution limits governmental power in the United States. By allowing licensing, we give the State the ability to deny a license. But the State cannot deny us a Constitutional right, unless we specifically say it can (as by our voting to deny convicted felons or the insane the right to own firearms). Betrayal of the public trust or gross incompetence is about the only acceptable reason for the withholding of a Constitutional right. But licensing takes it to the point of official refusal to issue a license, which is a contradiction of the Second Amendment, or any Constitutional right. "Because the Cops say you can't" is not sufficient reason to deny a Constitutional right.
This is not a situation of "Trust us, we'll never do that" either. We would be incredibly naïve to fall for that nonsense. In all of history, assumption of government benevolence has been betrayed, sooner or later, and the greater the power of the State, the sooner the betrayal. We are not reassured by the denials of politicians. Licensing and registration are infringement, and that's prohibited by the Second Amendment.
This is not a situation of "Trust us, we'll never do that" either. We would be incredibly naïve to fall for that nonsense. In all of history, assumption of government benevolence has been betrayed, sooner or later, and the greater the power of the State, the sooner the betrayal. We are not reassured by the denials of politicians. Licensing and registration are infringement, and that's prohibited by the Second Amendment.
And no amount of gun registration will protect the public from an individual who wants to kill total strangers, there were mass murderers in the Soviet Union, where private firearms ownership was totally illegal. The only way criminals could be prevented from buying handguns is if there are no handguns available, but that doesn't work either. Even in England, where private handgun ownership is all but impossible, people are still regularly being killed by criminals with handguns.A huge number of people will simply ignore any such law, which means that the law will be useless. Over 200 million guns in circulation means that the job of registration is too large a task, and too costly a task to be attempted. In Canada, this has proven to be the case, and they have a smaller and far more docile populace than the United States.
The answer to the question "Why not gun and gun owner registration?" is simply: "Because the Constitution says it's none of the government's business."
No comments:
Post a Comment