Bill Schneider is wrong

What I’ve Learned from Gun Nuts | Travel & Outdoors | New West Network:

I consider my right to bear arms one of my basic freedoms, but not the only one, so buckle up, gun nuts. I happen to think other amendments to our constitution such as Number 1 (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition), 13 (abolishing slavery), 14 (equal protection under the law), 19 and 26 (right to vote for women and all citizens over 18) and others might actually be more important than Number 2.

Then you would be wrong.

If the vast majority of the population does not own guns because of government intervention, and said government decides to re-institute slavery, what are you going to do about it?  Protest?  But then the government brings its full muscle to bear in order to censor you, to prohibit your meeting with like-minded individuals, to invade your house for no reason other than to find anti-slavery literature, and finally, it removes your right to vote because you have been arrested for transgressing its own “laws”…what are you going to do about it?  You have no arms.

The right to keep and bear arms protects all other rights.  There is no other way to defend basic freedoms if a governing authority decides to abolish them.  That is what makes it the most fundamental right.

via Ride Fast & Shoot Straight


3 Responses to “Bill Schneider is wrong”

  1. While I agree :”Number 1 (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition), 13 (abolishing slavery), 14 (equal protection under the law), 19 and 26 (right to vote for women and all citizens over 18) and others” are VERY important. History teaches us that the above are all only kept by exercising the “Right to Bear Arms”. Period.
    Another excellent post

  2. Sean LM Says:

    I just sort of stumbled on here by happenstance and felt like leaving a note — I get where you’re coming from, but I think it’s an imbalanced way to look at our society as it actually operates.

    The government can and will do a lot to restrict freedom of expression (for example, it could be any other right) “at the margins,” with the consent or at least without the resistance of large portions of the population. Hence, free speech zones. Rights infringement is not a dichotomy – there are degrees of oppression. The government needs no jackbooted stormtroopers to wiretap American citizens, legalize torture, and define down habeas corpus. It can and did do all that with the relative acquiescence of the American people. Indeed, if someone responded to our government’s current excesses with armed rebellion, many people would probably consider them to be fringe elements who ought to be put down by the state.

    Thus, if I am going to dedicate my time to aggressive defense of some of my natural rights, I’d rather spend that time on things that can be and are being circumscribed in a big way, right now, while we conduct our ordinary lives. It would be pretty disproportionate, and counterproductive, for me to respond to warrantless wiretapping with a shooting spree.

    Once the government instituted martial law or some similar measure, people would suddenly become much more aware of the full extent of the tyranny they had allowed to creep over them. Resistance would grow louder, and yeah, maybe some protests would achieve something. It’s worked before. If not, actual stormtroopers at your door is in fact the right time to respond with armed rebellion, and I think most people would agree. But this eventuality is really, really unlikely – and though you might say it’s not as unlikely as I suggest, just dwell on it a little. The government can get away with a hell of a lot without rounding up dissidents and burying them in shallow graves.

    Plus, if the American military decided to bring its full weight down upon a population armed with a handful of pistols and rifles, we’d be fucked.

    If we then waged an irregular guerrilla war against them, personal guns would be useful, but improvised bombs would probably be more so – and all the best guerrilla weapons, like RPGs, are usually beyond the pale of legalization even for groups like the NRA.

    This is what I’m trying to say, in sum: I believe in gun ownership, and understand how in an abstract thought model it is really the right that protects all others, but as far as how I live my life from day to day in the real world, I think it is more rational to be a rights absolutist about other things. What is the actual utility, for your personal liberty, to being a hard-line gun advocate?

    In my book, the best reason to be a gun nut is because hell, guns are awesome.

    • I’m not a gun nut. I’m a liberty nut.

      I have already dwelt on it–a lot. The gov’t are already getting away with far more than they should be allowed to. Eventually, sooner or later, the gov’t will get far too full of itself and begin killing or “disappearing” people it doesn’t like. It has happened this way in other countries in the past, and I see no reason why this country should not follow the universal pattern.

      Also, you might want to read up on the Oath Keepers. I believe that the military won’t be the problem. The real problem will be the police. It’s not going to be a simple military vs. civilian dichotomy. It’s going to be a total cluster****.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: