Would George Washington want American citizens to acquiesce to oppression?

March 11, 1:01 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

6 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

          Photo courtesy of Oleg Volk

I have written before (with more here) about the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV). Stopping violence (whether "gun violence," or other kinds) is, of course, a laudable goal. It's CSGV's proposed method of doing so that I find abhorrent--a government monopoly on force. This week, CSGV president Mike Beard has continued pushing that theme, making the rather . . . remarkable assertion that George Washington himself would have approved of citizen disarmament. To build his case, he quotes Washington's Farewell Address (reproduced in small part here).

“Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.” Indeed, Washington advised American citizens that “your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.”

Beard then goes on to make the connection to the need for his radical citizen disarmament agenda.

Listening to the Address again, I couldn’t help but think of the current debate over gun control in America. One of the ideas that has gained great currency among right-wing commentators in our country is that the Second Amendment grants . . .

Wrong! The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, doesn't grant anything--it protects a preexisting, fundamental, natural (or God-given, if you prefer) right. Sorry for the interruption, but the fiction of the Bill of Rights "granting" rights needs to be debunked wherever it's voiced.

. . . individuals the right to stockpile firearms against our Government and take violent action should it become “tyrannical.” This disturbing argument was advanced by the National Rifle Association (NRA) in its amicus brief in D.C. v. Heller (“The Framers sought to effectuate their purpose of guarding against federal overreaching by guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms … Arms dispersed among the people would prove far more difficult to confiscate”) and even gained currency with Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in the case (“When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny”).

That's right--to say that private gun ownership must be protected to ensure the people's ability to fight back against a tyrannical government is a "disturbing argument," according to Beard. He then goes on to further condemn the idea of citizens resisting the government by force of arms, referring to it as "insurrectionist chest-beating." What Beard forgets (or more likely, has chosen to ignore) is that when he called for obedience to the laws of government, Washington assumed that the government itself obeyed the Constitution. So long as it does, we the people are indeed obligated to abide by the Constitutionally enacted laws of the land. It's when the government exceeds the authority granted to it by the Constitution that all bets are off. As John Locke said:

Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.

Would it be impolitic to point out that there is a growing school of thought that believes the government has exceeded its Constitutional authority for years, and is only getting worse in that regard?

----------

Meet the new Gun Rights Examiner:

Gene German is our Wisconsin Gun Rights Examiner.  Please welcome him aboard.