Why Do We Have the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms?
by James Arthur, Knoxville Tea Party
see Part 2 below
Dialog on Second Amendment, Part I
Doofius and Smarticus explore what it's for, and why we have it
Citizen Doofius: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?
Citizen Smarticus: So that the citizens could defend liberty. So that if we ever had a Hitler, we could stop him.
Doofius: Isn't that absurd, given modern weapons and armies?
Smarticus: Not at all. In Federalist 46, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, calculated that any federal army trying to take over the country would be outnumbered by armed citizens twenty-to-one. Today, armed citizens would outnumber federal troops (including reserves) by twenty-five to forty or fifty-to-one, depending on how you estimate it.
Doofius: But surely citizens alone would be little match for a trained, disciplined army?
Smarticus: Not necessarily, but that's why the Framers of the Constitution provided that the citizens themselves were to also organize into local groups, choose officers they trusted, and train together in their communities. (See Federalist 46, Madison, 1788).
Doofius: What were those groups called?
Smarticus: The militia.
Doofius: But we don't have militias today.
Smarticus: No, we don't. Maybe we should.
Doofius: That's a preposterous scenario. That could never happen in America.
Smarticus: Correct, not while the citizens are armed. But it has happened over and over in Europe and other countries around the world (starting two World Wars, in recent memory). In fact, more countries have been conquered or collapsed than not in the last century, many more than once (e.g., Germany, and see the short histories of France, Spain, and Italy below).
Doofius: Are you saying that the mere existence of the Second Amendment helps deter mischief & ensure America's long-term security, and stability?
Smarticus: Yes. European countries have failed often in the past century, haven't they? We haven't. Their philosophies of government produced collapses and failures that brought us communism, Marxism, Nazism, Socialism, the Holocaust, the Holodomor (Ukraine), Stalin's reign of terror, Mao's Great Leap Forward, and two World Wars. The American philosophy–that ordinary people should be able to rule themselves, and that government must therefore be limited, with checks and balances that included an armed citizenry–did not produce this result. While other countries were spreading chaos, ruin, and murder, America spread liberty, opportunity, and prosperity, instead.
Part II
Recap From Part I: Citizen Doofius: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?
Citizen Smarticus: So that the citizens could defend liberty. So that if we ever had a Hitler, we could stop him.
(In Part I of this dialog, Citizens Doofius and Smarticus discussed America's founders' plan to keep America permanently safe from tyrants and tyranny, in part by ensuring that The People would always be able to be armed, and explored how other countries in Europe and all around the world without this wise protection have fallen to tyrants and invaders over and over, since. We continue...)
Citizen Doofius: Well okay, you have some points. But what's your solution to this gun problem?
Citizen Smarticus: I don't think it is a problem. Yes, there's a cost to it, a cost to ensuring our liberty, but that's a fact of life, not the same thing as it being a problem.
Doofius: I'm not following you.
Smarticus: Let me illustrate.
What's your solution to "the alcohol problem?" Shouldn't we ban alcohol?
Doofius: What do you mean? We tried that, and it didn't work.
Smarticus: Well, according to the Centers for Disease Control, between car-crashes, liver, cancer, and other diseases, the United States has 88,000 alcohol-related deaths each year. That's eight times as many from firearm murders.
But strangely, the people who say they are only concerned about taking Americans' firearms “to save lives” don't seem to be very worried about many, many more lives lost to alcohol. Why is that?
Could it be that they are just repeating an argument, but haven't really thought it through?
Doofius: Well yes, some people drink irresponsibly. But most people don't, and there's not much we can do about those few people—that's human nature. The freedom to make those choices is part of living in a free society.
Smarticus: Exactly my point.
To continue, what's your solution to the "tobacco problem?" According to the CDC, 480,000 Americans die every year from tobacco, a recreational substance that's grown with federal subsidies! And yet the people who want to take away something that guarantees our nation's liberty don't see to be at all up in arms (if you'll pardon my pun) about tobacco, a recreational substance. Why? If saving lives were their motive—and I'm not saying it isn't—why aren't they clamoring about that?
Doofius: That's different. Smoking is a personal choice people make for themselves. It doesn't affect other people.
Smarticus: Not if you believe the CDC. They say that 41,000 of those 480,000 annual deaths are from second-hand smoke. If you believe that, second-hand smoke all by itself is four times as big a problem as firearm murders.
I could go on and on about drinking, smoking, fast food, sugary drinks, allowing teenagers to drive automobiles, and so forth, but you get the idea—these are things we take for granted in a free society.
The disarmers who claim they are just wanting to save lives (by taking away something that guarantees our liberty and security) aren't the slightest bit concerned about banning purely recreational things that literally kill a hundred times more Americans each year.
Doofius: I'm beginning to see your point—these are all part of living in a free society where people can make their own choices, including the freedom to make bad choices.
Smarticus: Indeed. And in the extreme, choosing to murder someone is a very, very bad choice. We punish it severely, but there is no way to completely prevent some few people from making it. We don't shackle everyone in advance in fear of what some might do. Rather, we allow the citizenry to live free, and punish the few who make evil choices.
Can you handle a more controversial, hypothetical example without getting too upset?
Doofius: Yes, I'm enjoying this. Go ahead, hit me.
Smarticus: Again, according to the CDC, more than two-thirds of America's 37,600 new AIDS virus infections in 2014 came from a tiny segment of our population, homosexual men.
by James Arthur, Knoxville Tea Party
see Part 2 below
Dialog on Second Amendment, Part I
Doofius and Smarticus explore what it's for, and why we have it
Citizen Doofius: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?
Citizen Smarticus: So that the citizens could defend liberty. So that if we ever had a Hitler, we could stop him.
Doofius: Isn't that absurd, given modern weapons and armies?
Smarticus: Not at all. In Federalist 46, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, calculated that any federal army trying to take over the country would be outnumbered by armed citizens twenty-to-one. Today, armed citizens would outnumber federal troops (including reserves) by twenty-five to forty or fifty-to-one, depending on how you estimate it.
Doofius: But surely citizens alone would be little match for a trained, disciplined army?
Smarticus: Not necessarily, but that's why the Framers of the Constitution provided that the citizens themselves were to also organize into local groups, choose officers they trusted, and train together in their communities. (See Federalist 46, Madison, 1788).
Doofius: What were those groups called?
Smarticus: The militia.
Doofius: But we don't have militias today.
Smarticus: No, we don't. Maybe we should.
Doofius: That's a preposterous scenario. That could never happen in America.
Smarticus: Correct, not while the citizens are armed. But it has happened over and over in Europe and other countries around the world (starting two World Wars, in recent memory). In fact, more countries have been conquered or collapsed than not in the last century, many more than once (e.g., Germany, and see the short histories of France, Spain, and Italy below).
Doofius: Are you saying that the mere existence of the Second Amendment helps deter mischief & ensure America's long-term security, and stability?
Smarticus: Yes. European countries have failed often in the past century, haven't they? We haven't. Their philosophies of government produced collapses and failures that brought us communism, Marxism, Nazism, Socialism, the Holocaust, the Holodomor (Ukraine), Stalin's reign of terror, Mao's Great Leap Forward, and two World Wars. The American philosophy–that ordinary people should be able to rule themselves, and that government must therefore be limited, with checks and balances that included an armed citizenry–did not produce this result. While other countries were spreading chaos, ruin, and murder, America spread liberty, opportunity, and prosperity, instead.
Part II
Recap From Part I: Citizen Doofius: What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?
Citizen Smarticus: So that the citizens could defend liberty. So that if we ever had a Hitler, we could stop him.
(In Part I of this dialog, Citizens Doofius and Smarticus discussed America's founders' plan to keep America permanently safe from tyrants and tyranny, in part by ensuring that The People would always be able to be armed, and explored how other countries in Europe and all around the world without this wise protection have fallen to tyrants and invaders over and over, since. We continue...)
Citizen Doofius: Well okay, you have some points. But what's your solution to this gun problem?
Citizen Smarticus: I don't think it is a problem. Yes, there's a cost to it, a cost to ensuring our liberty, but that's a fact of life, not the same thing as it being a problem.
Doofius: I'm not following you.
Smarticus: Let me illustrate.
What's your solution to "the alcohol problem?" Shouldn't we ban alcohol?
Doofius: What do you mean? We tried that, and it didn't work.
Smarticus: Well, according to the Centers for Disease Control, between car-crashes, liver, cancer, and other diseases, the United States has 88,000 alcohol-related deaths each year. That's eight times as many from firearm murders.
But strangely, the people who say they are only concerned about taking Americans' firearms “to save lives” don't seem to be very worried about many, many more lives lost to alcohol. Why is that?
Could it be that they are just repeating an argument, but haven't really thought it through?
Doofius: Well yes, some people drink irresponsibly. But most people don't, and there's not much we can do about those few people—that's human nature. The freedom to make those choices is part of living in a free society.
Smarticus: Exactly my point.
To continue, what's your solution to the "tobacco problem?" According to the CDC, 480,000 Americans die every year from tobacco, a recreational substance that's grown with federal subsidies! And yet the people who want to take away something that guarantees our nation's liberty don't see to be at all up in arms (if you'll pardon my pun) about tobacco, a recreational substance. Why? If saving lives were their motive—and I'm not saying it isn't—why aren't they clamoring about that?
Doofius: That's different. Smoking is a personal choice people make for themselves. It doesn't affect other people.
Smarticus: Not if you believe the CDC. They say that 41,000 of those 480,000 annual deaths are from second-hand smoke. If you believe that, second-hand smoke all by itself is four times as big a problem as firearm murders.
I could go on and on about drinking, smoking, fast food, sugary drinks, allowing teenagers to drive automobiles, and so forth, but you get the idea—these are things we take for granted in a free society.
The disarmers who claim they are just wanting to save lives (by taking away something that guarantees our liberty and security) aren't the slightest bit concerned about banning purely recreational things that literally kill a hundred times more Americans each year.
Doofius: I'm beginning to see your point—these are all part of living in a free society where people can make their own choices, including the freedom to make bad choices.
Smarticus: Indeed. And in the extreme, choosing to murder someone is a very, very bad choice. We punish it severely, but there is no way to completely prevent some few people from making it. We don't shackle everyone in advance in fear of what some might do. Rather, we allow the citizenry to live free, and punish the few who make evil choices.
Can you handle a more controversial, hypothetical example without getting too upset?
Doofius: Yes, I'm enjoying this. Go ahead, hit me.
Smarticus: Again, according to the CDC, more than two-thirds of America's 37,600 new AIDS virus infections in 2014 came from a tiny segment of our population, homosexual men.
Should we ban homosexuality?
Doofius: Outrageous! Of course we shouldn't!
Smarticus: (wryly, with a twinkle in his eye) But this is the major source of new HIV infections, not to mention hepatitis, and other public health risks. Surely we have to do something?
How about just a little commonsense regulation, like requiring homosexual registration, permits, training courses, and licenses? Surely that's not limiting their freedom—they can still keep their lifestyle choices—it's just commonsense regulation for their own safety. If saving every life no matter what freedoms it costs is what matters, that would save lots of lives.
Doofius: (alarmed) That's a police state! How can you even say that? That's shocking, like Nazi Germany!
Smarticus: You're not worried about saving all those lives?
Doofius: Freedom is more important, much more important!
Smarticus: Even if it has some costs?
Doofius: Yes, absolutely.
Smarticus: Precisely. Thank you. That was my point.
Doofius: One last thing. You keep saying that citizens owning firearms and the Second Amendment were meant to be the last safeguard of liberty, if we ever got in such a bad way that we were threatened with dictatorship. But do you think it would really work?
Smarticus: Let's ask a survivor of Austria's Nazi occupation, Kitty Werthmann, what she thinks.
Smarticus: It certainly is. I hope you'll agree with me now, that everything in a free society has a cost. Freedom is not free. But that cost is more than repaid a hundred times over by the benefits, the safety, prosperity, security, and yes, even by the lives saved every year—and over the centuries too—of a society where men are free, and, by being able to defend their freedom, prevent the need to defend it from ever arising.
And remember this: living in a free country run by the People means trusting our fellow citizens to have respect for the laws, prudence, and restraint, and even, together, the wisdom to run our government. If you don't trust The People with firearms, you're saying you do not believe in the fundamental theory of America—that a free people is fit to run their own lives, and even to hold the reins of their own government—either.
Doofius: Outrageous! Of course we shouldn't!
Smarticus: (wryly, with a twinkle in his eye) But this is the major source of new HIV infections, not to mention hepatitis, and other public health risks. Surely we have to do something?
How about just a little commonsense regulation, like requiring homosexual registration, permits, training courses, and licenses? Surely that's not limiting their freedom—they can still keep their lifestyle choices—it's just commonsense regulation for their own safety. If saving every life no matter what freedoms it costs is what matters, that would save lots of lives.
Doofius: (alarmed) That's a police state! How can you even say that? That's shocking, like Nazi Germany!
Smarticus: You're not worried about saving all those lives?
Doofius: Freedom is more important, much more important!
Smarticus: Even if it has some costs?
Doofius: Yes, absolutely.
Smarticus: Precisely. Thank you. That was my point.
Doofius: One last thing. You keep saying that citizens owning firearms and the Second Amendment were meant to be the last safeguard of liberty, if we ever got in such a bad way that we were threatened with dictatorship. But do you think it would really work?
Smarticus: Let's ask a survivor of Austria's Nazi occupation, Kitty Werthmann, what she thinks.
- KITTY WERTHMANN: The government said that children were playing with guns and we had hunting accidents—people accidentally shooting each other—and we had criminals again, murderers.
- The only way that they could track the murderer was by the, um, serial number of the gun. “So bring your— your gun, to the police station, then we can register the serial number and we can track the criminal.”
- And we thought that was a good idea. So gladly we did that. Not long afterwards they said “No it did not help, we could not track all the criminals; the best way to have no more crimes and no more people getting hurt, bring your guns to the police station.”
- And they already know [sic] who had guns because we [had] registered our guns.
- Keep your guns and buy more guns and stack [sic] up on on your ammo—a gun is no good if you don't have any ammo.
- Dictatorship did not happen overnight. It took five years. From 1938 until 1943, we had a full-blown dictatorship.
- Had we kept our guns we would have fought a bloody battle to the last men and women to keep our freedom, but we had no guns.
- A classic example is in Switzerland it is law that everybody has to have a gun. And Hitler took every country in Europe except Switzerland. And Switzerland did not have a war for more than 600 years.
- Hitler never tackled Switzerland. So keep your guns. Keep your guns.
Smarticus: It certainly is. I hope you'll agree with me now, that everything in a free society has a cost. Freedom is not free. But that cost is more than repaid a hundred times over by the benefits, the safety, prosperity, security, and yes, even by the lives saved every year—and over the centuries too—of a society where men are free, and, by being able to defend their freedom, prevent the need to defend it from ever arising.
And remember this: living in a free country run by the People means trusting our fellow citizens to have respect for the laws, prudence, and restraint, and even, together, the wisdom to run our government. If you don't trust The People with firearms, you're saying you do not believe in the fundamental theory of America—that a free people is fit to run their own lives, and even to hold the reins of their own government—either.