< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Every country needs a 2nd Amendment


SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Every country needs a 2nd Amendment

John Stossel (via QandO) has an interesting piece at Real Clear politics on gun control and US second amendment rights. He concludes with a quote from a federal appeals judge and East European immigrant,
"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late."
Few saw the Third Reich coming, but they should have. With the benefit of hindsight the rise authoritarianism of fascism in Italy, communism in Russia, the Spanish civil war and the violent struggles between various mad factions of communists, Nazis and assorted other thugs in Germany they should really have been more prepared. By the time Hitler gained absolute power it was too late of course, but the country had been prepared for such an outcome for decades with increasing socialisation and ever deepening governmental control over every aspect of normal life. It was not peculiar to the Nazis, it was the outcome of the application of social theory of government that was most advanced in Germany at the time. The previous fifty years had led people to expect the government to provide for them and organise society, Hitler stepped up and took the final move. If it hadn't been him then it would have been communists doing precisely the same or someone else, the chances of Germany through the government at that stage undoing the state control of every aspect of life and averting totalitarianism were virtually nil. The Weimar government had required detailed registration lists of gun owners and when he engineered total power Hitler knew exactly who needed disarming. From that point no one could turn back the tide. It is a bit of a tired observation, but the first act of any dictator is to disarm the people, why make it easier for them?

Naturally now it is expected that our nice governments full of caring policy makers looking out for the best of the populace won't devolve into authoritarian madness. But up until the first world war that was also the situation in Germany and with bizarre crap going on like tracking football fans with AWACS planes on the chance they will get into a bit of biffo is governmental "concern" for us really all that crash hot? The idea that a free society needs protection from within as well as from without is rather unfashionable, but I'd rather wear leg-warmers and big hair than slink round an authoritarian hell-hole. As the article concludes
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
The amendment authors knew what they were talking about...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Posted by Chefen | 10/20/2005 10:09:00 PM


Anonymous Ed Snack said...

You should emphasize the other important phrase "A well regulated Militia", as most free to carry and concealed carry etc laws have absolutely nothing to do with "A well regulated Militia".

10/21/2005 11:22:00 AM  
Blogger Chefen said...

The militia I believe is able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 44, with maintaining it being at the states discretion. Whether concealed carry or not, or something like Switzerland where they get to keep guns at home, is irrelevant to the thrust of the idea.

10/21/2005 06:02:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home