Connect with us

Everything

Bastille Day reminds us why we DO need to defend personal Second Amendment rights

Published

on

Noah Shusterman wrote a stirring essay in the Washington Post on the history of the French Republic and the storming of the Bastille, and how that may have influenced America’s founders in writing the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment.

How could a society defend itself, though, without relying on professional soldiers? The 18th-century answer to standing armies was the citizens’ militia, in which all citizens were part-time militiamen. In any other society, freedom existed at the whim of the military leaders, but an armed, trained, and organized society depended only on itself. Hence the militia’s necessity to a free state.

He then destroyed his own point by veering off into the “well regulated militia” dry well in justifying trashing “the modern Second Amendment.

As a result, it has become harder to understand what these “well regulated militias” were and why they were “necessary for the security of the free state.” But the storming of the Bastille serves as a reminder that those who would haul out the founders to defend the modern Second Amendment would do well to remember how much American society has changed since the 1790s.

I say it reminds us even more why we need to aggressively defend individual liberty, including the right, and even the responsibility, of citizens to be armed.

This country has changed in technological advancement and our approach to many social problems–solving them with money and Uncle Sugar versus individual ingenuity. But it hasn’t changed in the fact that America alone stands against tyranny in the world.

As wonderful as the French Revolution and the storming of the Bastille were, we need only advance a decade to see where it led. The Revolution turned on itself, with 10,000 dead by execution, and Napoleon Bonaparte took over as dictator. France’s reliance on its professional army put it squarely into World War I, and handed the country to the Nazis in World War II.

America certainly has geographic advantages that make invasion of our home land rather impossible. And Switzerland also has some geographic protection, but that wasn’t the main reason Hitler refrained from invading that small nation. Multiple stories have circulated around the Internet (many apocryphal):

When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home. Switzerland also had a decentralized, direct democracy which could not be surrendered to a foreign enemy by a political elite.

There is some truth to the story about the Swiss. Each citizen owns a government-issued rifle, and is trained in the military of how to use it. Shooting is their national sport. No nation on earth would be insane enough to try to take and hold Switzerland.

It’s the same with America. Even if a foreign enemy forced a political surrender (yes, unthinkable but possible) by our government, each citizen would repel and resist the enemy. We are armed and dangerous.

The only argument against citizen ownership of guns is crime. Yet in states where legal gun ownership is highest, crime is lower than areas where gun ownership is lowest. Citizens who defend themselves against violent criminals aid and assist law enforcement over and over again.

Since the crime argument doesn’t hold water (though anti-gun activists keep trying to fudge numbers), they resort to Constitutional pretzeling, and essays on “a well-regulated militia.” These twisted arguments are simply not the intention of our founders in writing the Second Amendment.

The founders wanted individuals to have the right to bear arms–individually. Because at the time the militia is necessary, it will form, organically. Attempting to keep a well-regulated militia active at all times isn’t possible without a reason for it to organize. America, through our history, has at times eschewed a large professional army, and at times built one, and maintained it.

Discarding the possibility that our professional army would ever falter or turn against its citizens is incredibly short-sighted–and naïve. Our nation has already consolidated far too much power in the federal government. Arguing that an armed citizenry is unnecessary because our government is the essential will of the people is foolish and history shows that.

French history shows that.

The fact that 1789 is a long time ago doesn’t change human nature. Power still corrupts. An armed citizenry is a natural check against that power and corruption. Watch Europe over the next few decades and where it’s heading, then tell me we should all disarm. And don’t cite Japan, Australia and Canada as examples.

Japan is a homogenous island. Australia is a lightly populated isolated island. And Canada is a more pluralistic, lightly populated nation with the longest undefended border in the world and two oceans separating it from everywhere else. America is the bulwark against tyranny in the world, and the only way we can retain that power is by having an unconquerable, large, productive, democratic nation.

And that means an armed nation.

Bastille Day is a great reminder–and thank you Mr. Shusterman for your essay. But instead of reminding us to question why we need a personal right to own guns, we should be reminded why it’s more important than ever to defend that right.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

Video Double play: Busting the gun grabber’s musket myth.

Published

on

By

Gun confiscation bingo

Two videos that eviscerate the Liberty Grabbers ‘One shot’ musket myth.

It is a bedrock principle (if they have any) of the Liberty grabber Left that back during the ratification of the US Constitution the only weapons in existence were flintlock musket that took 5 minute to reload. Thus there wasn’t any school violence because it would have taken too long for the perpetrator to kill anyone.

As it typical of the lore of the national socialist Left, this is a lie of the first order. A previous video celebrated the “Assault Weapon” tricentennial, which was bit of the tongue in cheek variety since there were other repeating “Military Style” weapons in existence before this time period. These will be detailed in future articles. Meanwhile we present two videos that also bust the ‘Musket Myth’, one a short presentation from the Royal Armouries on the Jover and Belton “Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket”

Royal Armouries
Published on Aug 30, 2017
Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson, gives us a peek at the Flintlock breech-loading superimposed military musket, by Jover and Belton (1786)

This is a very relevant piece since the inventor Joseph Belton corresponded with the Continental Congress in 1777:

May it Please your Honours,
I would just informe this Honourable Assembly, that I have discover’d an improvement, in the use of Small Armes, wherein a common small arm, may be maid to discharge eight balls one after another, in eight, five or three seconds of time, & each one to do execution five & twenty, or thirty yards, and after so discharg’d, to be loaded and fire’d with cartridge as usual.

“It was demonstrated before noted scientists and military officers (including well known scientist David Rittenhouse and General Horatio Gates)”

This destroys the mythology that the founders had no knowledge of this type of repeating firearm technology that existed already.

The second is a humours dissertation on the subject from video raconteur Steven Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/

from a few years ago that also eviscerates this bit of Leftist mythology.

Published on Feb 10, 2015
People have been telling us for years that the 2nd amendment was written in a time of Muskets, and that it doesn’t apply to the evolved weapons of today. Is it true?

So why is this important?

Two primary reasons. One that these factual examples demonstrate that the founding fathers knew of these technological advances. Therefore, they destroy any Leftist pretences that the 2nd amendment be confined to muskets. Second that, school violence is something other than an issue of guns.

Continue Reading

Immigration

House proposal makes DACA permanent and grants citizenship to illegals

Published

on

When Donald Trump issued an executive order in Sept. 2017 rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) order issued by Barack Obama, he was cheered by his adoring fans for appearing to keep one of his campaign promises regarding the illegal immigration problem. However, as the old saying goes, appearances can be deceiving.

The reason I call it deceiving is because Trump’s order was merely a technicality—sort of a Rescind-In-Name-Only moment—used to buy the time necessary to make DACA permanent, which has been his “big heart” goal from the beginning.

Of course, any permanent legislation needs to come from Congress, which should have been problematic for Republicans who campaigned for years against Obama’s handling of illegal immigration. But in today’s Republican party—owned and operated by Trump—such commitments have become secondary to the requirement to please Dear Leader.

For example, just days after Trump’s deceptive order, Mitch McConnell went on record in support of negotiation with Democrats and the president—but I repeat myself—to save DACA and create an amnesty plan and eventual citizenship for approximately 1.8 million DREAMers.

Though past attempts have failed, election-season fever is sweeping Washington, so Trump and Republican party loyalists are making another push to get the job done.

After conducting several days of Nancy Pelosi-style meetings behind closed doors, Paul Ryan released an immigration plan yesterday that will legally protect DREAMers while also providing over $23 billion for another Trump promise—a border wall.

Wait a minute! I though Trump promised us that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. I suppose that’s just another in-name-only moment for the New York liberal.

Back to the House proposal. DREAMers can apply for “nonimmigrant status” which is essentially a newfangled way to say visa. The extra visas necessary to handle these requests will be available due to new restrictions that will lower the number of legal immigrant applications, which means legal immigrants will be effectively moved to the back of the line.

But that’s not the worst part.

Once obtained, these visas become the first step on a pathway to citizenship, which means that years down the road, 1.8 million illegals—probably more—will have jumped the line to US citizenship ahead of legal immigrants, despite the rhetoric from Trump and the GOP claiming otherwise.

Though this proposal may or may not pass, making DACA permanent and creating a pathway to citizenship are broken promises. But as I wrote a few days ago, breaking promises has become a job requirement in the age of Trump and today’s GOP.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Politics

Like Obama, Trump has earned his Nobel Peace Prize too!

Published

on

After Trump signed an agreement with N. Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un, promising to end joint military drills with S. Korea—because drills are so “provocative”—and to withdraw US troops from the Korean peninsula in exchange for Un’s pinky-swear promise to destroy his nuclear arsenal, the deal-maker-in chief announced to the world that everyone could “sleep well” now that N. Korea was no longer a nuclear threat.

While Trump’s pre-emptive, unconditional surrender to N. Korea’s “loving dictator” contained absolutely no details on how this East Asia Nirvana would come to fruition—Trump said he didn’t need them because he has “one of the great memories of all time“—it had enough substance to rekindle rumors of a Nobel Peace Prize for Trump.

In recognition of what Sean Hannity called Trump’s Reagan moment, two Norwegian lawmakers have nominated Trump to be the 2019 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for taking what they called a “huge and important step in the direction of the disarmament, peace, and reconciliation between North and South Korea.”

While there are those who feel Trump is undeserving of receiving what would essentially be nothing more than a participation trophy because he failed to actually win anything, I have to take a stand in defense of Trump because he’s just as worthy to receive something he didn’t earn as his predecessor was.

Early in his presidency, Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing to earn it other than sounding like he would “work for a world without nuclear weapons.” Absent of any accomplishments to that end, the Nobel Committee awarded the Prize to Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

In Trump’s case, he too lacks any verifiable accomplishment and has done nothing tangible to earn the Nobel Peace Prize. But like Obama, Trump’s efforts in Korea make it appear like he’s done something he hasn’t, so the fact that he hasn’t doesn’t matter.

The administration appears ready to live down to the Nobel Committee’s low expectations. Since all that’s required is for Trump to vaguely take a “step in the direction” of disarmament, Secretary of State Pompeo made the bold proclamation that the White House would set that as a goal by hoping to have “major, major disarmament” within the next 2 ½ years—which, coincidently, is the time of the next presidential election.

In an interview with Trump’s daily intel Team, FOX & Friends, Kellyanne Conway stated that Obama had his Nobel Peace Prize handed to him, but that Trump would earn his.

I have to say she’s right. Obama did have the Nobel Peace Prize handed to him while doing nothing to earn it. And if we use “doing nothing” as our barometer, it means Trump has “earned” the right to the Nobel Peace Prize too!

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.