The following article appeared in the
American Thinker on February 8th
Here's a simple thought experiment
regarding the 2nd Amendment. What do you think the U.S. would be like if we
didn't have it?
Without the 2nd Amendment, firearms
would likely be highly restricted and controlled. Various state legislatures
might not vote for that, but it would come about through a combination of
federal action, judicial decisions, and bureaucratic decrees. Violent crime
would probably be higher as an unarmed citizenry is easy prey for
criminals. In all likelihood, America would look like other Anglo
countries such as Australia and Great Britain with respect to gun
ownership.
![]() |
AR 15 |
That's the easy part of the answer.
But there's more to it than that. Without the 2nd Amendment, might not the
social and cultural landscape of America be different from what it is
today?
To understand why, look at how far
within living memory the U.S. has drifted from its founding principles. The
country has been pushed further and further to the left by undemocratic means
in the form of judicial decrees and bureaucratic edicts, many of which have no
basis in written law or the Constitution. Abortion, homosexual marriage,
transgender rights, and massive illegal immigration are examples. And think of
all the statewide referendums that have been overturned by the courts because
the results went against the progressive agenda. So much for “every vote
counts.”
Furthermore, we live in what is
called an “agency state.” Loosely written laws give government bureaucrats the
power to set rules and regulations that have the effect of law. We've seen
government departments like the EPA, staffed by environmental radicals, running
amok with their regulatory power. Probably no federal government agency is
innocent of bureaucratic overreach, some more than others, which is why the
country is choking on 'laws,' many of which people neither know of nor can
understand.
What does this have to do with the
2nd Amendment and gun ownership? Simple. Most office-bound bureaucrats,
left-wing judges, and government elites are not exactly prime examples of
virile American manhood. Quite the opposite. When you think of this government
class, which is predominately male, a picture of a feminized metrosexual
springs to mind, especially the higher up you go in the hierarchy.
This point is this. In the back of
their minds, even if it is buried at a subconscious level, these people fear an
armed citizenry. An armed citizenry puts a check on how far and how fast the
government class dares to push its progressive agenda by unconstitutional
means. True, the 2nd Amendment by itself has not completely stopped the
unconstitutional drift to the left, but one has to believe it has prevent what
could have been from being what is.
Without the check of a 2nd Amendment,
how bold would those who hold government power would be? Some real
possibilities: Perhaps home schooling would be illegal; many aspects of
political correctness might be weaponized by bureaucratic 'law'; unapproved
speech might be criminalized; racial quotas might be more prevalent; web sites
like the American Thinker, Drudge, etc. could be curtailed and talk
radio muffled.
Here's an interesting second
question. What would Europe look like if it had a Second Amendment? Would the
people in the various countries of the EU have lost their
national characteristics and rights to make their own laws to
unelected bureaucrats in Brussels? Would the European states have allowed the
EU to dictate to them on Third-World immigration? Would European men be
hiding under their beds in fear of Muslim immigrants terrorizing
their women? Specifically, would Europeans have allowed their rights as
citizens be so usurped by the elite that today they are more subjects than
citizens?
Some would say that Europe has been
so emasculated that a 2nd Amendment would not make much of a difference.
Perhaps, but then again, would the population of Europe have been neutered in
the first place if it had an armed citizenry equivalent to what exists in
the United States?
The bottom line seems clear. As far
as the United States goes, the 2nd Amendment is necessary, but
by itself insufficient, to maintain freedom in America. The 1st Amendment is
equally vital, as it protects the right of religion and free speech. The rights
in both amendments must be aggressively defended and put to use. As to
firearms, one does not have to be a hunter or target shooter to support
both the 2nd Amendment and groups that defend it like the National
Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America,
and the Second Amendment Foundation. Nor
does one have to be a member of the press to exercise the right of free speech.
The rights guaranteed to us under the 1st and 2nd Amendments must be
exercised. If not, they will atrophy like muscles that are neglected which is
what the left and its running dogs in the Democratic Party sincerely hope
for.
No comments:
Post a Comment