Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Protecting Against the Oppressive Government

The Libertarian Solution published an article exhorting the fact that an "armed citizenry is the last resort against oppression; the right to bear arms is the freedom from which all other freedoms flow."

The article written by a young-looking Austin Raynor, draws on the writing of the Founding Fathers.

As George Washington wrote, “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” George Mason said, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And before anyone can object that these guys were 18th century slave owners who denied human rights even to women and anything they had to say over 200 years ago should have little relevance in today's society, Mr. Raynor breaks out the "modern" examples.

History has borne out this observation. Genocide is almost always preceded by disarmament of the intended victims. Adolf Hitler, following the institution of strict gun control legislation in Germany in 1935, proclaimed: “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”

After legislating gun control in 1929, the Soviet government murdered 20 million of its own people. Turkey implemented gun control in 1911 and shortly thereafter murdered 1.5 million Armenians. Gun ownership was also outlawed prior to widespread executions in China, Cambodia, Guatemala, Rwanda, and Uganda. Over the past 100 years over 56 million people have been killed by their own governments.


As if reading my mind, anticipating every rebuttal, he goes on to say.

Genocide is unlikely to occur in the United States, though it is important to note that Germans in the 1920s possessed similar sentiments concerning their own country. Short of genocide, however, but frightening nonetheless, is the boundless usurpation of liberty that occurs under a government that knows no bounds. Thomas Jefferson aptly observed: “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Now we're talking, "Genocide is unlikely to occur in the United States." All reasonable people know this. So what's the problem then? The problem is, in Austin Raynor's own words, "the boundless usurpation of liberty that occurs under a government that knows no bounds."

So, my question to him and all the other hard-line Libertarians and 3%ers out there, what are you planning on doing with all your guns about this? The "usurpation of liberty" is a gradual business, which by the way, enjoyed great popularity under President Bush. When are you protectors of liberty going to open fire?

My feeling reading this article and whenever I hear the tough talk from these people is that they live in a fantasy world, one in which they will one day have to stand up against overwhelming odds and if necessary go down in a blaze of glory. With most of them it's something I call "grandiose victimism." In some cases, the truly disturbed ones, they actually believe they'll come out on top in an all out war with the oppressive government, a modern version of the colonists vs. the redcoats.

The problem is, none of these people should have guns because they're too unstable and dangerous. I covered them in my very popular analysis entitled The Famous 10%.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

10 comments:

  1. "When are you protectors of liberty going to open fire?"

    After the usurpers fire.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, mike, the so-called protectors of liberty are opening fire in random locations all across this nation, just read the newspaper.

    Of course, the mired gun addicts call them random nut-cases, but aren't they all?

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is a really great argument against the genocide thing at:
    http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/gunsorxp.htm

    Whoever compiled the tally of genocide victims has a different definition of defenseless than I do. I myself wouldn't declare the largest military machine on the planet "unable to defend itself", but by adding 20 million from the Soviet Union, this list does. After all, Stalin's most infamous terror fell heavily on the Soviet Army, culling tens of thousand of officers, and executing three out of five marshals, 15 out of 16 army commanders, 60 out of 67 corps commanders and 136 out of 199 division commanders. In one bloody year, the majority of the officer corps was led away quietly and shot. It may be one of life's great mysteries as to why the Red Army allowed itself to be gutted that way, but obviously, lack of firepower can't be the reason.

    So, AztecRed for all his bluster will just march off to be slaughtered like a sheep.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AztecRed says he's going to open fire "After the usurpers fire."

    That sounds pretty dramatic, but what if they don't open fire, what if they just keep chipping away at your rights? What if they make some of the guns you own illegal and come to your house to arrest you? Then, being true usurpers, as soon as they get you in the cell disarmed, they'll kill you.

    Either you think this is a likely possibility, in which case you have to shoot first, or you don't, in which case you can stop all the exaggerated tough talk. What do you say?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "That sounds pretty dramatic, but what if they don't open fire, what if they just keep chipping away at your rights?"

    Then they become irrelevant and I ignore them like many other things I don't like.

    "What if they make some of the guns you own illegal and come to your house to arrest you?"

    Then I will resist.

    "Then, being true usurpers, as soon as they get you in the cell disarmed, they'll kill you."

    They won't get me to a cell unless I want to go. And I don't want to go.

    "Either you think this is a likely possibility, in which case you have to shoot first, or you don't, in which case you can stop all the exaggerated tough talk. What do you say?"

    I don't have to shoot them first anymore than I have to punch a school yard bully first.

    First you ignore them. If they keep bothering you, then you resist them. If you don't willingly comply, they'll force you to comply. And in that case, you're justified in using force in return. If they decide to shoot you for noncompliance, then anyone who wants is justified to shoot them in return.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What if they make some of the guns you own illegal and come to your house to arrest you?

    If they do that they're no longer considered legitimate government agents and will be resisted the same way as any common thug breaking into my home.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The problem is, none of these people should have guns because they're too unstable and dangerous. I covered them in my very popular analysis entitled The Famous 10%."

    Try to take our guns away, Fuckwad, and find out just how dangerous we are.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't know at what point I would resist a tyrannical government by violence, except to say that it is indeed a last resort and we are nowhere close to that point.

    If I did know, I would not announce it publicly.

    We as a country currently have the ability to resist a tyrant, even if individuals or small groups do not. That's the level it should be. The ability by itself will slow a tyrant from his eventual goals.

    ...and removing our ability to resist, even if done by well-meaning people for the best of intentions makes it easier for a tyrant.

    Pragmatic arguments about crime, self-defense and the relative levels of misuse of guns support the concept of gun rights, but other arguments are more important. Slowing Tyranny is pretty important, and the threat of violence may allow some other solution to work before actual violence is needed. Additionally, the constitution is important, and the government should not be allowed to re-interpret it for their benefit without amending it. Would freedom of the press limited to government licensed journalists be a good idea?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sevesteen, I like almost everything you say, especially the way you say it, but do you really mean this?

    "Slowing Tyranny is pretty important."

    Do you really think the fact that civilians own guns is doing that?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Slowing Tyranny is pretty important."

    Do you really think the fact that civilians own guns is doing that?


    I hope that there is never a need.

    However, until gun rights are taken from us, there is a limit to the amount of oppression that can be imposed without a successful revolution. I'd rather fight the political battle for gun rights now than the physical battle against oppression later.

    Or more likely, have my grandkids unable to fight against oppression.

    ReplyDelete