by Glenn Fairman 12/1/13
“God made Man but Sam Colt made them equal.” • It is said that the 2nd Amendment follows hard upon the 1st so as to serve as its bodyguard—providing the added incentive of coercive force by a wary citizenry to guarantee that those initial cherished liberties, expounded by our Founders, did not go the way of the 10th Amendment. The 2nd amendment, interpreted as the right to bear arms by a free people, has not escaped that yawning chasm that has opened up between the political Right and Left, and the rationale behind this stratification falls along the same familiar tensions of individual vs. collective. The nature of men, having proved insufficient in wisdom for the eradication of evil, must then paradoxically utilize the equalization of deadly force to not only suppress the jaundiced glint in our neighbor’s eye but the tyranny that arises when men esteem the chimera of ordered equality over liberty.
Of all laws that are deemed to have their origin in nature, the Law of Self-Preservation is indeed the most fundamental. Each person, ceteris paribus, has been deemed to have an a priori right to guard the sanctity and value of their life through any means necessary, assuming their attitude is one of general peace with men and not of the character of brigands. The friction arises with the inherent inequality of humanity, evidenced in their disparate size, strength, and stature. Now, while defensively brandishing a knife or cudgel poses a strong inducement in mounting one’s stout defense of life or property, the use of a firearm has irrevocably changed the dynamic relationship between both predator and victim. Since criminals, from the dullest to the most sophisticated, are deeply concerned with maintaining both their own freedom and their “skin,” more than a passing thoughtful consideration is generally weighed within a criminal’s nefarious equation when deciding whom he shall next fall upon.
Assuming that the above statement is true, it would seem logical that municipalities or states whose concealed and open carry gun laws were the most relaxed would be the same areas which would have the lowest rates per capita of crimes either committed with force, or through the threat of deadly force. Therefore, should we be surprised that national statistics bear this position out? Conversely, regions that have severely forbidden either the sale of handguns or the lawful concealment thereof should reflect elevated levels of crimes against both property and life. And generally, we find that this premise, especially true in the major urban centers, to be consistently affirmed.
Accordingly, the current murder and violent crime rates in the Washington DC, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, and Philadelphia areas are astronomical, despite having hardened laws against concealed carry. These misdirected laws have indeed the net effect of proscribing their citizenry from effectively protecting themselves from criminals–miscreants who care not a whit for the asphyxiating legal technicalities that burden and condemn honest citizens. And as governments have increasingly sought to regulate the sale, transportation, and use of handguns and “assault rifles,” they have increasingly begotten a nation of sheep by laying bare their population’s throats to packs of increasingly dangerous and feral werewolves. Can it be any longer doubted that the same misplaced compassion that would outlaw firearms has willed these darkened hearts through government’s calculated legislation of filial destruction and subsequent moral anarchy?
In the concrete jungles of our urban cities or in our seemingly tranquil suburbias with their flaccid social disintegration, many Progressive-minded levels of government have made the considered decision that in lieu of a debauched and malicious portion of its citizenry, it is far better to effectively disarm their constituent fiefdoms in order to show them that superficially they have their best interests at heart. All the while, and with their fingers testing the winds, those same politicos are deftly side-stepping the fact that those cretins with pernicious intent will handily acquire guns elsewhere, or commit their menacing acts with a baseball bat or a lawnmower blade if necessary.
We now see in Great Britain, a country that has elevated to the status of fetish the disarmament of its society, a towering crescendo in property and violent crimes, as men and women even possessing rifles and shotguns are fearful of using them for fear of being charged for killing or maiming thugs in self-defense. Within the milieu of such a nation of rabbits, the fabric of trust and safety erodes and sends a subliminal message to society that emboldens the brazen and terrifies the weak and defenseless.
America’s 2nd Amendment, once thought to be the most secure of our organic rights, has come under assault by forces that believe that the monopoly on significant coercive force should be limited to the agents of the State; and as Dennis Prager has wisely said: “As the State grows larger, the individual in fact grows smaller.” Our government exists to guarantee our lives, liberties, and our properties. Not only has it proven itself insufficient to this foundational task, but it has actively conspired to disrespect our personal sovereignty and safety, having wandered far afield of its fundamental mandate. Meanwhile, tireless energy is spent attempting to instead equalize and homogenize us—mandates that had never once entered into the minds of the Founders.
Perhaps the best indicator of where the 2nd Amendment is going is by looking at the booming sale of handguns and noting that, of itself, this barometer is rooted in the anxiety and trepidation that Americans feel for both the safety of their families in perilous economic times and as a hedge against the predations of a regime that has forgotten its minimalist confines and spilled over into the imperial, the unilateral, and the arbitrary. Gun manufacturers have mockingly named Barack Obama as their Man of the Year for his contribution to a veritable tsunami of firearm sales. This, in itself, might evoke a good belly laugh if the stark implications of it weren’t so damn depressing.
Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca. He can be reached at email@example.com. • (1255 views)