Wednesday, August 19, 2009

The Right To Arms

Ed Abbey, writing in 1979.

The Right to Arms

Edward Abbey

If guns are outlawed
Only outlaws will have guns
(True? False? Maybe?)

Meaning weapons. The right to own, keep, and bear arms. A sword and a lance, or a bow and a quiverful of arrows. A crossbow and darts. Or in our time, a rifle and a handgun and a cache of ammunition. Firearms.

In medieval England a peasant caught with a sword in his possession would be strung up on a gibbet and left there for the crows. Swords were for gentlemen only. (Gentlemen!) Only members of the ruling class were entitled to own and bear weapons. For obvious reasons. Even bows and arrows were outlawed--see Robin Hood. When the peasants attempted to rebel, as they did in England and Germany and other European countries from time to time, they had to fight with sickles, bog hoes, clubs--no match for the sword-wielding armored cavalry of the nobility.

In Nazi Germany the possession of firearms by a private citizen of the Third Reich was considered a crime against the state; the statutory penalty was death--by hanging. Or beheading. In the Soviet Union, as in Czarist Russia, the manufacture, distribution, and ownership of firearms have always been monopolies of the state, strictly controlled and supervised. Any unauthorized citizen found with guns in his home by the OGPU or the KGB is automatically suspected of subversive intentions and subject to severe penalties. Except for the landowning aristocracy, who alone among the population were allowed the privilege of owning firearms, for only they were privileged to hunt, the ownership of weapons never did become a widespread tradition in Russia. And Russia has always been an autocracy--or at best, as today, an oligarchy.

In Uganda, Brazil, Iran, Paraguay, South Africa--wherever a few rule many--the possession of weapons is restricted to the ruling class and to their supporting apparatus: the military, the police, the secret police. In Chile and Argentina at this very hour men and women are being tortured by the most up-to-date CIA methods in the effort to force them to reveal the location of their hidden weapons. Their guns, their rifles. Their arms. And we can be certain that the Communist masters of modern China will never pass out firearms to their 800 million subjects. Only in Cuba, among dictatorships, where Fidel's revolution apparently still enjoys popular support, does there seem to exist a true citizen's militia.

There must be a moral in all this. When I try to think of a nation that has maintained its independence over centuries, and where the citizens still retain their rights as free and independent people; not many come to mind. I think of Switzerland. Of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland. The British Commonwealth. France, Italy. And of our United States.

When Tell shot the apple from his son's head, he reserved in hand a second arrow, it may be remembered, for the Austrian tyrant Gessler. And got him too, shortly afterward. Switzerland has been a free country since 1390. In Switzerland basic. national decisions are made by initiative and referendum--direct democracy--and in some cantons by open-air meetings in which all voters participate. Every Swiss male serves a year in the Swiss Army and at the end of the year takes his government rifle home with him--where he keeps it for the rest of his life. One of my father's grandfathers came from Canton Bern.

There must be a meaning in this. I don't think I'm a gun fanatic. I own a couple of small-caliber weapons, but seldom take them off the wall. I gave up deer hunting fifteen years ago, when the hunters began to outnumber the deer. I am a member of the National Rifle Association, but certainly no John Bircher. I'm a liberal--and proud of it. Nevertheless, I am opposed, absolutely, to every move the state makes to restrict my right to buy, own, possess, and carry a firearm. Whether shotgun, rifle, or handgun.

Of course, we can agree to a few commonsense limitations. Guns should not be sold to children, to the certifiably insane, or to convicted criminals. Other than that, we must regard with extreme suspicion any effort by the government--Iocal, state, or national--to control our right to arms. The registration of firearms is the first step toward confiscation. The confiscation of weapons would be a major and probably fatal step into authoritarian rule--the domination of most of us by a new order of "gentlemen." By anew and harder oligarchy,

The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an "equalizer." Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed--but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.

If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rules. Only the government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.

7 comments:

christian soldier said...

the Founders knew their history--tyrants always take away the capability to fight back --example===
Bible---Hebrews had to go to the Philistines to have their plows sharpened..no blacksmiths- thus- no way to make weapons--
NO thing ever changes when it comes to disarmament...
C-CS

Pastorius said...

I do not see a difference between the first and second Amendments. I see them as being two parts of a whole.

In other words, I believe the 2nd Amendment is given to us by God to back up the 1st Amendment, which is;

1) Our Right to Free Speech
2) Our Right to Freedom of Expression
3) Our Right to Freedom of Conscience


The right to bear arms (protect oneself against violence) is granted by God, not by man, not by the Legislature, not by the President, and not by the Judiciary.

Please, tell me if you disagree. Because I would love to hear a reasonable argument against my opinion.

LL said...

To be a sovereign individual you are required to protect your home, your community and your family. That is a basic tenant of being a free people.

Unknown said...

MR,
Nice use of history. That is a fine article.
LL,
Great addition.
Pastorius,
That is an interesting comment. I disagree with your from God bit. It would be interesting to hash out some day. I personally believe more in LL's POV. If you don't protect yourself, God won't do it for you.

midnight rider said...

The Founders' intent in creating the Bill of Rights was not to grant Rights to the individual but to affirm and protect the rights they believed God granted to every person.

Thus, Pastorius, I am in 100% agreement with your position.

A privledge is granted by man. Rights are a gift from God.

Pastorius said...

Culturist John,
Two reactions to your comment;

1) laughter (who are you, the clay, to say to the Potter ...?)

2) it doesn't matter, to me, whether you believe in God-given rights or "Natural" rights.

I am amused by people who are "convinced" there is no God.

Logic tells us we can not prove a negative. So, being convinced there is no God is illogical.

That being said, question whether that there is a God, but that he is amoral is, somewhat, Reasonable, if not logical.

:)

We should talk about this on the radio show sometime.

midnight rider said...

CJ -- thank you for the compliment. Wish I could claim the article as mine :)