Mac-Coleman

7-8 April 2013 –

I want to respond to the recent liberal blather over guns in our society.  I respond even though I know that this recent crisis probably is just a convenient distraction from talking about the imminent crises in society: the staggering national debt and continuing government budget deficits that exacerbate the problem.  Fortunately, efforts to create more federal laws to restrict gun ownership seem to be stalled.  Maybe we can stop them completely with clear thinking and decisive action. 

The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is part and parcel of the Constitution of the United States.  The right of citizens, independent of government, to bear arms was one of the antecedent rights that far-sighted Founders insisted upon as a precondition to assenting to their new nation’s founding document.  The rights stated in the first ten amendments to the Constitution precede any authority given by our Founders to a constitutional structure of laws.  The right of citizens to bear arms, to be a people’s militia—a militia of one, if needs be—to defend personal liberty against government or criminal tyranny, is as fundamental to an American’s Liberty as is any other statement in the entire Bill of Rights.  To infringe upon it is to invite tyranny. 

That is the argument.  There is no other that even approaches its importance.  Nonetheless, advocates of restricting Second Amendment rights argue that the violence that men do in this life stems from the weapons in their hands, not from the evil or sickness in their hearts.  Advocates for gun restrictions never seem to pinpoint or address the ongoing societal and personal flaws that impel individuals to belch out wanton violence.   Their argument is lazy; and, its insistence on societal versus individual remedies abets government tyranny.  It squelches Liberty. 

Furthermore, we should define and control the lexicon of our argument.  For example, allowing others to voice the argument as a “gun control” problem is classic range-gate stealing of the frequency of the original signal of fundamental rights to a distant one of political tinkering for effect.  Once we use their terms, we are forced to waste time countering arguments about the wrong things at the wrong times for the wrong reasons.  Everybody loses using the liberal lexicon; but, we look the more foolish.  “Assault weapons” is another term that moves the focus from individual rights and responsibilities to scary nonsense.  A semi-automatic .22 caliber rifle, no matter how nasty-looking the plastic doo-dads are that adorn the newer models, is still just a semi-automatic .22 rifle.  Assault is an act by individuals; it is not the weapon they use.  Name the actor, not the prop.  The horror of mass killings is another topic that quickly should be deconstructed.  If someone kills ten others and then himself in a mass murder/suicide, most people want a cogent sound-bite to counter the seemingly senseless act.  Mentally-ill, suicidal people responsible for committing horrendous crimes seems most often to be the accurate description of the event; the weapons the sick people stole to commit the crime are not the casus horribilis.  Important:  Using the lexicon that best defines our freedom and liberties best assures our freedom and liberties. 

After thirty-four years of being in the management of violence, I can say with surety that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.  Taking away fundamental freedoms will never guarantee peace and security without also imposing totalitarianism.  Then, there will be no right or wrong, no liberty, only compliance.  As I have said to my children from youth to adulthood:  Welcome to the fight.  I now add this:  The fight has always been for Liberty.