While America began as a revolution against the king of England, revolution turned out to be a terrible form of governing, Horwitz says. “There was no ability to tax, so (Gen.) Washington’s army starved. State legislatures had an immense amount of power. There were mobbings in every city with no central authority to put any (revolt) down. Militias formed and closed down the courts.”
So the founders crafted a new document to replace perpetual revolution with a constitutional government, Horwitz explains. None of the framers of the Constitution “believed there was an individual right to insurrection. The Second Amendment was about who got control of the militia. The states did not want the federal government to draft their militias into federal service.”
America, he adds, was founded on “one person, one vote. Not one gun, one vote … Just because you have a gun does not give you a bigger say in government. That violates some of our most fundamental principals.”
What I can’t figure out is whether Horwitz is legitimately goofy about believing that folks who would suggest the Declaration of Independence is a blueprint for just revolution are just as radical and extreme as, say, a Timothy McVeigh, or whether he’s trying to chain the real extremists to those who are not in hopes that it pulls the whole issue under the water. If it’s the latter, he might want to rethink much of his rhetoric.
What I’m disappointed about in Horwitz’ talk is his referring to the Revolutionary War period at all. I’d rather he leave that to you pro-gun guys because using “the founders,” who were slave-owners who denied women basic human rights, as the source justification for anything just doesn’t make much sense to me.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.