Nathan Key

Husband, Father, Thinker.

 

 
 
If you don’t know what this post is referencing, here’s a quick summary:

President Obama and a lot of Senators & Representatives are using the Legislative Recess to host town hall meetings across the country in order to present information about the Healthcare Reform Bill (and other agenda items). At some of these meetings, attendees have shown up with guns and rifles. The press took a hold of these stories and have blown the whole thing out of context, making these attendees seem like violent revolutionaries intent on perpetuating violence against the President.

Facts:
  • Some attendees to these town hall meetings DID bring guns.
  • These attendees all live in States where they are allowed to carry weapons on their person as long as they have concealed or open-carry weapon permit.
  • These weapons were often unloaded.
  • Most instances were approved by the organizer of these town hall meetings.
  • Weapons were never used. Weapons were never even drawn- they were holstered for the duration of each meeting or event.
Ground rules:
  • I’m NOT going to argue here that gun violence is a good idea (I’m a pacifist by nature and I think there are non-violent answers to almost every situation).
  • I DO want to discuss exactly what the 2nd Amendment is for and why these attendees were well within their rights to bring along guns to these meetings.
* * *
A Little History

Suppose for a moment that you live in a society where the only people who are allowed to have weapons are government approved military and police forces. The government uses the military and police force to uphold the peace and create security for the people they govern. And as long as the intentions of the government remain good and honest, it’s true that the people will be protected and secure under this rule of law. Thomas Hobbes, in fact, was a proponent of the STRONG monarch who ruled with an iron fist and kept his subjects safe from anything that would threaten them- including themselves.

But what happens if the government turns on its own people? What happens when Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots appear? What happens when selfish dictators arise who are only concerned with keeping power and use any force necessary to keep themselves and their advisors in control of the people they rule?

When governments turn evil, the people have a right- and perhaps and obligation- to institute a new government. One that represents that people it governs in fairness and justice. To that end, the people require a means of bringing about such a government and this is where the right to bear arms comes in.

The people need arms in order to combat the arms that the government has. It’s basically another check and balance to ensure that the people are well defended against their own government- in case their own government turns on them.

Alexander Hamilton said it this way: “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

In other words, the people should have as much power as the military. They should have the right to defend themselves against their own military. This does not mean that individual revolutionaries had the right to overthrow their own government. It does not mean that people have the right to kill each other needlessly with weapons. It doesn’t even mean that individuals have the right to go hunting and shoot deer.

Plain and simple, it means that the People should never be put in a place where their government is able to enslave them.

Granted, these laws were put in place before Tanks, Heavy Artillery, Missiles, Nuclear Explosives, and other weapons of mass destruction were invented. The reality is, the people of this country are not in a position to resist our own government. It’s just not reasonable to give everyone a Tank or a Nuclear Missile Silo in order to maintain a balance of power between the people and the military.

Why They Did It

The principle of the People’s right to be defended against their own government still remains true- even if the reality is that we’d have a hard time actually overthrowing our own government if it actually came to that (which I’m not suggesting, by the way). By entering town hall meetings with guns, these attendees were proclaiming their right to be defended against their government. It wasn’t an attack. It wasn’t an assassination attempt.

It was a symbol.

It was a symbol that was meant to remind Congress and the President that they are not our Rulers. They are not dictators who are allowed to put any policy into place, merely because they want to. They are representatives of the people. They are responsible to the people they govern and they should not expect to be allowed to continue to thwart the will of the people.

The people didn’t want the Bailout of Wall Street or the Bailout of the Auto Industry. They didn’t want a government takeover of AIG or these outrageous “stimulus plans” that aren’t working and never will. They didn’t want Homeland Security or the Patriot Act. And yet, Congress keeps pushing these bills through, regardless of The People's opinion about them!

And, each time one of these bills passes, it makes the People more and more angry. So before we blame this on Healthcare- it’s not the fault of this Healthcare Bill in particular. It’s a culmination of mistrust that’s been building to the point where the People are sure that Washington is going to push through anything they want, regardless of the People they represent.

And that’s where guns come in. Not as a weapon; these guns weren’t intended to be used to perpetuate violence- they weren’t even loaded half the time. No, these guns were being used to send a message. They’re symbolic.

They carry the symbol that The People have a right to be represented fairly. They carry the symbol that The People have a right to remove those in power from their role as governors if they continue to represent their own agenda rather than the will of the people.
* * *
Now, it’s true that because of the massive military that we have there in the United States, The People will not literally be able to remove those in power through sheer force- that’s what elections are for.

But you've gotta agree that bringing along a voter ballot isn’t really quite as effective in sending this message home, is it?
 


Comments

Chris

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:28:15

I agree.

 

Nathan

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:57:30

Thanks Chris.

 

Nick

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:14:45

I absolutely agree as well. Good Read, thanks Nathan.

 

Mr. Salk

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:33:42

It is a symbol; a symbol of potential violence.
It is fear, aggression and latent assault. Carrying a gun, even unloaded and holstered, is a declaration of the means to kill. That’s a lot of motivational baggage to decipher before having a diplomatic conversation.

 

Gio

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:47:57

If carrying a gun is "a declaration of the means to kill," then that says a LOT about the SS agents, military personnel, local law enforcement, FBI agents, CIA, etc that are swarming these same events. Doesn't it?
Chances are, the citizens carrying in their weapons have a lot more to fear than the officials mentioned above. After all, the citizen who is legally carrying their permitted weapon has probably never fired at another human being. Whereas, all of the above probably have.
I don't see much room for a diplomatic conversation there, either. Just try appproaching a police officer and saying "hey, I don't feel totally comfortable with you carrying that gun, tazer, baton, and hand-cuffs around... would you mind disarming for me?"

 

Gio

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:50:54

Yet the govt tries to do the same to us... just by force.

 

Nathan

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:57:20

I can see you're point, Mr. Salk, that a gun seems like an obstacle to effective communication. And, I agree that it may not be the very best way to engage in diplomatic conversation.

But that's from my perspective as a FL resident where we aren't allowed to open-carry weapons. We're only allowed to carry concealed weapons (with permit).

So if I see a gun, it's always in the hand of a police officer or someone who is breaking the law.

But that's not the case in a lot of these states where people are showing up with weapons. They're in open-carry states where they take their weapons with them everywhere. As Gio said, they've probably never fired these weapons at a human or ever intend to (unless for defense purposes). If I lived in a state like that, the appearance of a gun wouldn't automatically put me on the defensive.

So, I think it's all about perspective.

Most of the media coverage is from people who don't like in open-carry states and so they react as you did- "The only reason to have a gun is to kill someone." But that's not really the only reason.

 

Nathan

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:59:00

ALSO: Sorry about the spelling/grammer errors... I'm working on an old browser that doesn't have spellcheck or the ability to edit in real-time... BLAH!

 

Mr. Salk

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:25:13

Killing is a guns purpose. It is the only reason. The rule of gun ownership is to never pull it unless you intend to use it, and never use it unless you intend to kill with it. There are no stand offs or negotiations with civilians. There is only 2 seconds until death. Yes, that’s just scary rhetoric. But I personally own several guns and have packed heat on occasion so I’m not totally coming out of the Blue Fields here.

 

Curious

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:42:00

If Martin Luther owned a gun, would he have taken it to mass (only as a symbol)?

 

Nathan

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:01:37

I think it's hard to say whether Luther would have or not.
I know Jesus wouldn't show up with a gun.
I know I wouldn't either.

 

Gio

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:50:06

Guns are not used only for killing. When one sees a police officer, they feel fear. Why? Is it because the police officer is so big and bad that they inspire it just by their bulky stature? Well, that would certainly scare me, cuz I'm a little dude. But what makes me FAR more apprehensive around cops is that they carry arms. A bunch of bike cops recently responded to a call in San Antonio, TX. And they dismounted their bikes with tazers in hand, ready for action. There was NO REASON for that kind of response, nothing was going on. Why did they do it? Did they actually intend to tazer anyone? Probably not. But it certainly did scare the poop out of people. Guns (and tazers, etc) are used as an instrument of fear. They are used against us by our own govt and we are expected to just take it because they are "authorities" and we are only lowly citizens. It's only a matter of time before we are oppressed by some such govt. As my dad always used to tell me, "When Castro came into power (in Cuba), the first thing he did was take away our guns." I'm not for the proliferation of firearms, by any means. But I think we have just as much to fear from govt possession of weapons as we do from our fellow citizens. Power is among the stongest aphrodesiacs, they say. It's the govt who has power, not Joe the Plumber.

 



Leave a Reply