 |
| Source of Photo: The Texas Tribune |
Sunday, July 20, 2014
"Where the people fear the government there is tyranny, where the government fears the people there is liberty”, is a quote often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson. John Basil Barnhill probably said it (or some variant) during a debate in the early 20th century. Perhaps it was originally from Jefferson, or perhaps it was a common utterance along the halls and within the arenas of political debate as it demonstrates an easily defended position. The human dynamic is such that we have achieved a means of organizing ourselves into factions which in turn enable us to achieve, in a group, what no individual could do on their own. Indeed, among our many accomplishments in the ability to suspend our immediate gratification (I work now while others rest) in order to reap the benefits in the future (I rest now while others work). The aggregate allows for the distribution of labor, thus maximizing the return.
How is this possible? While distribution of labor is observed in
other social animals, our capacity for sequential thought as well as abstract
modeling afford us an unequaled ability to organize ourselves. Hence, the old standard of the dominant alpha
individual calling the shots may be a bit stratified, and as we start to
examine these layers of leadership, we can analyze the strengths and merits of
how we have come to govern ourselves. To
clarify, agreeing to let a triumvirate hold authority (yes, I said ‘agreeing’)
as opposed to a solitary leader is a radical departure from the natural
standard. This is one of the reasons why
the idea of a system of checks and balances within the Executive, Legislative,
and Judicial branches of our government help to defend the U.S. Constitution as
one of the finer achievements in human history.
Apathy is a corrosive
element. Ignoring our right to vote, as
well as failing to educate ourselves in the political circumstances of our time,
has further degraded what our predecessors achieved. So what if our apathy has allowed for a
consolidation of the triumvirate? Maybe
not in every case, but certainly enough maneuvering has taken place (prompted
by financial contributions perhaps) to place individuals in key positions
within our government to override this system of checks and balances at the
expense of the average citizen’s better interests.
The right of Americans to
arm themselves and to form well regulated militias is something that acts as a
placeholder when the balance of power becomes skewed towards the
authorities. This in no way is
suggesting anything as ugly and primal as an armed revolution; in fact, it is
quite the opposite. Rather, an armed
population serves as a deterrent towards the government strong arm. In 1938, NAZI Germany enacted the Regulations
Against Jews' Possession of Weapons even after relaxing the previous
restrictions of the 1920 for other citizens.
Obviously there were multiple factors at play, but still…this served to
all but eliminate any waning Jewish resistance to being dragged out of their
homes and hauled off like cattle.
Perhaps the IDF and Mossad might have encouraged some soul searching
within the NAZI rank and file.
Weapons restriction is not
about reducing crime. If reducing crime
were the goal, we might see ideas like ‘crime restriction’ floating about the
corridors of congress. What we do see is
an all-out effort to criminalize the long weapon (1994 Public Safety and Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act commonly known as Federal Assault
Weaopns Ban) under the guise of reducing gun violence. However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
shows that, according to data known by law enforcement, the rate of homicides
(males) by “other firearm” (including assault rifles) was unaffected being that
the majority of offenses were carried out by handguns.[1]
Seldom does the media resist
a chance to blame the long weapon rather than blame a lack of firearm
education, a discrepancy in the economy, or any other possible mechanism for an
act of violence (regardless of the weapon(s) used).
Ancient Asians used farming
tools (like the Sai and the Nunchaku) to defend themselves when government took
their swords. Effective measures can
always be taken by a populace to arm its self.
The problem with restriction is that you will never fully eradicate the
object you are trying to control, you will only drive up the price, encourage
clandestine production, and increase the criminal capacity in otherwise
law-abiding citizens. How many mechanics
do you know? How complicated do you think
it is to produce and upgrade a firearm (a “technology” dating back nearly 1000
years)? In this day and age of 3D
printers, weapons as well as components of weapons (silencers et al) can be
created en masse, and nothing will encourage the 3D weapons printing quite like
a deficit of a needed commodity.
But, if it is known that the
people already have means to defend themselves, to unite into a cohesive unit
and to dissuade a militarily dominant authority (remember when Japan DIDN’T try
a land invasion in the 1940s?), perhaps a whole ugly rotten mess of group on
group violence can be kept as it should be: a tragic last resort.
 |
| Source: Bonzer Wolf |
[1] Erica L. Smith and Alexia Cooper,
Ph.D., BJS Statisticians: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hus11.pdf
Your articles just keep getting better and better!
ReplyDeleteThank you!! Alex is an excellent writer!!
Delete