The Right Firearms and the Right to Self Defense
Go to the Introduction
Go to Part 2 The Common Good and the Dignity of the Human Being
Go to Part 3 The Militia. An Antiquated Term?
Go to Part 4 The Problem with Governments
Part 5 -Ignorance from Firearms
For those who know little about firearms, self-defense, and use of force dynamics, it’s easy to see the assault rifle as excessive; but, they are far from it. The term “assault rifle” itself is a misnomer in any case.
Assaulting the Rifle
Assaulting the Rifle
The expression “assault rifle” was coined from a German designed weapon developed near the close of WWII, the Sturmgewehr 44. Sturmgewehr translated literally into English means “storm rifle.” In its context as a weapon under German word usage it is more accurately translated as assault rifle.
After the war, the revolutionary Sturmgewehr became the DNA from which most modern rifles are based. While the rifle design was seen as a major development, the term “assault rifle” remains a relic, an artifact if you will, of its origin.
In reality, its development is just part of the normal advancement of weapon technology.
Adding another wrinkle to the semantics of gun terminology, the term “assault weapon” was not even part to the firearms lexicon until 1989. The term was created by anti-gun groups in an attempt to include weapons that resemble military assault rifles in their own assault on the 2nd amendment.
In fact, these types of rifles have been owned by the American public for over 50 years. It is only recently that they have become vilified by anti-gun groups.
These so called assault weapons have the outward appearances of their military siblings. But, they function differently.
Technological breakthroughs occur in almost every field of human endeavor. Weapons are no different.
-This technological breakthrough in rifle technology is no different than the match lock musket giving way to the more reliable flint lock musket.
-This is no different than the development of the more accurate rifle over the musket.
-This is no different than the flint lock giving way to metal cartridge based rifles.
-This is no different than breech loading rifles giving way to superior repeating rifles like the bolt and lever action weapons, which were eventually replaced by semi-automatic repeating rifles like the ones we see today.
The term assault weapon, as used today, has a very different meaning than when the term was coined as assault rifle. It has an evil connotation unto itself. Through manipulation, this type of rifle has been twisted. It’s as though certain weapons are only useful for evil offensive purposes.
If fact, any weapon (or any implement for that matter) can be used either offensively or defensively. It is an extension of human intention.
The Great Equalizer
Firearms are the great equalizer. Modern firearms simply contemporize this equalization affect.
With the firearm, a person must no longer suffer under the oppression of the strong over the weak. A gun puts grandma on equal or greater footing when confronting tweaked out meth freak bent on some heinous deed.
The average decent person is not a highly trained and skilled warrior, nor is he or she necessarily an expert at committing justified violence. The firearm provides a tremendous advantage in this area…for anyone.
A repeating rifle, like the modern ones of today, provide a higher degree of defensive capability on par with the kinds of threats the modern American may encounter in the broad range of instances I have outlined in these essays.
Snipe Hunting with Our Rights
Often, it seems, the argument against modern weapons is that they are not needed for hunting. True. (Although one could, if need be, use them for hunting.) An experienced hunter would agree. They would be correct too.
In fact, most sporting and hunting rifles are based on older military weapon platforms that have been specialized in such a way as to suit them for their particular use.
However, using the hunting argument is an egregious straw man fallacy. We should be outraged by this abusive and deceptive use of reasoning.
Those who use the hunting argument are either ignorantly repeating something they heard or are applying it with deception in order to conceal their true agenda.
Either way, the hunting argument is a mere snipe hunt.
It is unfortunate that many in America today have distanced themselves from firearms to the point that they are easily fooled by this fallacy. They are sent on this snipe hunt. The difference here, however, is that the consequences are much more serious than embarrassment.
In fact, the 2nd amendment is NOT about sporting use or hunting per se.
It’s about the right to defend oneself, against those who threaten us in our homes, in our communities, and our nation. And yes, unpleasant as it may sound or feel, against a government that has turned on its own people too.
We are the people who give our consent to be governed by our government. (And, consent can be revoked by its very nature.) We are its militia (in time of need.) The government exists for us to promote our common good, to protect us from without… and most importantly…from itself. The latter being another element of the common good.
Let’s also remember that the 2nd amendment was just upheld by the US Supreme Court as primarily speaking to a person’s “individual” right to self-defense in the Heller decision as well as the McDonald decision.
To ban repeating rifles like the so called assault rifle would severely undermine a person’s right to self-defense in the broader sense that I have addressed in these essays.
We are the Minutemen of our time (should the need arise.)
These rifles ARE the modern musket of our time.
They are appropriate for our station in time.
Woe to me who may have to face down multiple attackers in my home with my great-grandfather’s double barrel shotgun.
No population would be able to face down an invading army armed with outdated bolt action rifles in this age; they would be outclassed and ultimately destroyed.
And lastly, any contemporary government would be happy to allow you to keep that bolt action rifle knowing it could never be used against tyranny in any practical sense. Although, a government bent on tyranny would probably prefer you didn’t have even that.
It’s not about hunting at all, it’s not just about self defense in the home, it’s not just about national defense, it’s not just about a defense against tyranny. It’s about all of them in their totality.
It’s about life and the God given right to live it freely. Free from danger, free from threats, free from tyranny.
Conclusion
Now, before anyone gets freaked out thinking I am an anti-government nut job or advocate for revolution, that’s not the case. I would, however, implore you to consider this without the raw emotion wrought by Sand Hook. I would implore you to guard yourself from the consequences of temporal myopia wrought by indifference to history.
Understanding why we must be able to possess weapons, and in particular repeating rifles, for protection in a FULLER sense is paramount if we are to have a discussion about gun control.
After that, we can discuss how we can do our best to prevent further tragedies.
While not the purpose of this piece, we are compelled to find answers to our problems. Human life demands it; the common good demands it. We must protect the innocent from horrible deeds like Sandy Hook. But, we must take care so we don’t cause greater problems for ourselves down the road of time.
I think the difference between those who want to take (or control) the guns and the ones who believe in the 2nd amendment as it was intended is this:
It comes down to a faith in the human person.
The former sees the human as so defected that it needs to be controlled, restrained, even enslaved. The human being is thus objectified. The latter understand humans as flawed but also sees intelligence, responsibility, self control, beauty, courage, love, and self sacrifice in the human person. In this latter vision, the human being is recognized as made in the image of God. The former sees something darker.
Sadly, Sand Hook and other events like these will always be part of our existence. We can’t escape that fact.
We just don’t get ourselves off the hook that easily.
The loss of those poor souls is painful, very painful. It should have never happened. Many, many, terrible things should have never happened throughout history.
But, they have. They will.
To chain ourselves…to permit our government to chain us from ourselves… we undermine our belief in the human person as capable of just responsibly to ourselves, to others, to our Nation, and ultimately to God.
The pain suffered from the consequences of slicing off our liberties one finger at a time may be something historians look back on with even greater sorrow than the one we feel now.
No comments:
Post a Comment