Michael Johnson M.A.

The “assault weapons” ban is due to expire sometime next year. A spokesman for the Bush administration appeared to be floating a trial balloon a couple of weeks ago about having the ban extended. This has people who value the second amendment are “up in arms.” Meanwhile, those who tend to favor gun control are wondering aloud why a simple “common sense” ban on these weapons should cause so much of a commotion.

Before the subject of “assault weapons” is explored, it is worthwhile to first consider why one would need any weapons at all. Thousands of trees could be killed to provide the paper that would be needed to discuss that subject properly. To my way of thinking, though, there is an answer which can be summed up in only a few simple sentences. If you have any real sense of self-worth, self-respect, or dignity, then certain things are not for sale at any price. Some of those things will include your life and the lives of your family. Similarly there will be certain things that you simply will not do for any reason. Unfortunately, however, there are some people in this world who will not take “no” for an answer. The mugger who accosts you on the street, the burglar who breaks into your house in the middle of the night, the rapist who targets your wife, daughter, sister or sweetheart, all want something from you, that you are not willing to give. Furthermore, they will not back down other than for the threat or pain of overwhelming destructive force directed against them. When those people demand what you will not sell, or want you to do that which you will not do, then your only real alternative is the use of force. Attempting to use force without weapons when one’s opponent is using force with weapons is normally guaranteed to be an exercise in futility. Those people who don’t take “no” for an answer usually go armed as a matter of course, because they often rely on force to get their way. Thus, for those who feel that their self worth, self respect and dignity are worth retaining, there is no reasonable alternative but to be armed.

However, there is another category of individual who sometimes wants to use unlawful force against you and which may also be lawfully resisted by force; tyrannical governments. This is not a popular subject for discussion today and even raising the issue brings accusations of being an “extremist.” However, our Founding Fathers had a different view and provided crystal clear guidance in this regard when they wrote the Declaration of Independence which laid out the reasons that they broke with England. In the second paragraph of the Declaration it states:

…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Founding Fathers saw rights as coming from God, not from the government. Government’s duty was to help people protect their God given rights. Hence, government could not have authority to abridge those rights because these rights were unalienable. In order to understand what that means it will be helpful to consult Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition:
Unalienable Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental.

So, we have rights being granted direct to you by God, as unalienable rights which can not be abridged. We are then given a test to determine whether or not a government is legitimate, and that is whether or not the government is acting with the consent of the governed. Note that if the government does have the legitimate consent of the people for whatever it is doing, the government does not need weapons to keep the people in line. By definition it isn’t doing anything to them they didn’t want done in the first place, so it has no need for overwhelming coercive force.

Now, why do the people need the same type of weaponry that the government normally wants to keep to itself? The answer is that when the government becomes too destructive of the rights of the people then they have to abolish it; which they arguably would have a hard time doing if the government actually had a monopoly of force. The absurdity of that position was pointed out by Patrick Henry in the speeches that he gave in debate against the adoption of the Constitution. Quoting from the speech he gave on June 5, 1788:

… The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and have no longer a aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

Even Alexander Hamilton, arguing for the adoption of the Constitution in The Federalist, #29, did not want to see the federal government have a monopoly of force.

… but 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. This appears to me to be the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

Thus it can be seen from looking at the Declaration of Independence, where the Founding Fathers set forth their theory of what government is and how it should operate, and speeches and essays from Founding Fathers who were on both sides of the debate on whether or not to adopt the Constitution, that the People were intended to be able to keep and bear military grade weaponry. Anything less would put the People at a disadvantage against the enforcers of a government run amok, and the Founding Fathers did not want that. The speech by Patrick Henry is particularly important because it was as a result of his opposition that the Federalists realized that they could never get the Constitution adopted unless they included a Bill of Rights. Thus the first ten amendments to the Constitution were born as a check on the power of the government and a test to be used to determine when the government was over-reaching itself to the point it would have to be slapped down.

In a nutshell, the second amendment is not about hunting anything other than government officials who are abusing their powers. In order to be able to carry out that hunt properly, the people are to be able to keep and bear the exact same arms that the government troops use; (level playing field and all that- Keeps things sporting as the Brits might say- also keeps the government types walking small. Don’t want them erecting statues of themselves all over the place and doing Lord only knows what else back in the secret police stations).

Now no one likes the thought of the average citizen having to take up arms against an oppressive government. Furthermore, EVERYONE prays that when the government gets out of line, it can be rebuked and corrected through the “democratic” process. However, our Founding Fathers were so concerned about the dangers of Federal tyranny that they wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution as a “last ditch” way of preserving the rights of the people from the tyranny of an oppressive State. An armed citizenry was the final hedge against Federal tyranny; but if we allow our Congress to usurp THIS right, which ones will fall next?

Bio: Mike Johnson has an MA in Anthropology and is a former US Naval Officer who served during the first gulf war.