While going out for lunch with some co-workers a couple of days ago, I had a very disappointing realization.
Our conversation had moved to politics at one point the topic came up about citizens being safe and secure. I had mentioned that these are nice to have, as long as freedom and liberty isn't sacrificed. As a point of reference I brought up the existing gun laws and attempted gun control attempts.
My point was that what the people that are for gun control don't realize is that they are willing to give up freedom for (IMO, perceived) safety. And that might fly in Euro monarchy turned socialist type countries, but here in the US of A, that dog don't hunt. That our patriots fought, bled, and died so that we had these freedoms and it wasn't our choice to make to give them up.
I was asked my opinion as to the extent of allowing just any body potential deadly weapons and I replied up to and including that which is allowed by military and law enforcement. With the possible exception of WMDs like Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons. So they asked me if I thought citizens should have machine guns. Yes. Planes and tanks? Yes. Battle ships and submarines? Yes.
They said that was crazy. Why should an ordinary citizen need this? And my reply was why shouldn't they? What if it becomes necessary to fight against authorities that have abused their power. If the government and law enforcement is allowed to out-gun the people then we are no longer free people but subjects and that this is a concession that these authorities are above the people. And that if the people were to take up arms against them, maybe they should ask them selves why this would happen and what they need to do to keep the people happy to prevent this.
Then they said that some kook or kooks could go postal and kill innocent people. And I answered saying that this WILL happen. It's inevitable. It happens now, even with the restrictions we have and would still happen even if the restrictions were increased. But these tragedies are one of the costs of freedom. But if all citizens were allowed to bear, the extent of these tragedies would be lessened. If you want to be free, this is a risk you must assume and with it comes the responsibility of being prepared to defend against such a scenario. If one would rather feel secure and be a subject, there are plenty of other countries they can move to.
Their answer to this is that we aren't truly free and you couldn't have a society in which there is 100% freedom. I agreed to this as this would mean chaos and anarchy, but that protecting oneself and defending against tyranny is a necessity for any level of true freedom. Otherwise, we would be, at best, well cared for subjects.
And when I brought up how our founders felt about this and how the current restriction laws are unconstitutional, they said that lawful courts made this decision lawfully. To which I rebutted that they were not lawful and just because an appointed body chooses to ignore the constitution, its bill of rights, and the intent behind them doesn't make it right and that this is why our founders provided this as a right to the people. There has to be accountability to the people in all branches of government.
But there has to be restrictions, they argued. Look at free speech, for instance. That doesn't mean you can say anything you want. You can't slander. You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater or 'bomb' on an airplane. Limiting guns is no different. And I countered with the fact that this is comparing apples to oranges. True, laws do restrict the things you can utter. But you can do these things, but you will be arrested if you do. It's completely different. A more accurate comparison is that you are not gagged when entering a theater or plane just because you MIGHT do this. Or, even more accurate, have your tongue removed because you could say something that is not allowed. And besides, the 1st amendment is another in which people have twisted the words to their intent. By "right to free speech" our founders didn't mean freedom of expression, which is not the same and what most people thinks this means. They were talking about delivering public speeches and that the government is not allowed to prevent, abridge, or limit this.
So, after this long-winded recount of this conversation, I come back to why I am disappointed. These co-workers I had this discussion with are what I would consider flag waving, capitalism loving, Americans. If even they have fallen into such thoughts of allowing subjugation for security, as our founders warned of, what hope is left for this republic? Can we ever right this ship?
"I don't think Hank done it this way" - Waylon