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 Donate to NOQ Report
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Culture and Religion

Mormons no more: LDS Church wants new branding

Published

on

Mormons no more LDS Church wants new branding

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, often referred to as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, no longer wants to be called by these names. They want the full name of the church used and any references to “LDS Church” or “Mormon” are to be ignored.

LDS Church wants everyone to stop calling it the LDS Church — and drop the word ‘Mormons’

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/08/16/lds-church-wants-everyone/On Thursday, the church released this statement from Nelson:

“The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name he has revealed for his church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with his will. In recent weeks, various church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months.”

This represents another swing of the pendulum for the church. In 2002, a similar de-emphasis on the word “Mormon” was announced. Timed to the arrival of the Winter Olympics in Utah, the church asked news outlets to refer to it by its full name.

Ironically, the statement was released through Mormon Newsroom.

My Take

The church, like nearly all of the big ones around the world, is as much of a business as it is a spiritual denomination. Today, the phrases “LDS Church” and “Mormon” are bad for business. After hitting a high note in 2012 with a major party presidential candidate, the church has taken some public relations beatings.

They want as close of an association with Jesus Christ as possible even if mainstream Christianity views their teachings as abominations. This is a rebrand, nothing more.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Jonathan Van Ness gives Democrats sound advice, gets demonized for it

Published

on

Jonathan Van Ness gives Democrats sound advice gets demonized for it

The Democratic Party is in shambles. They’re still flustered over an election two years ago and have been pointing fingers at each other ever since. The far-left socialists have gained a foothold in the party, making it less likely they’ll be able to make a dent in the coming midterm elections.

“Queer Eye” star Jonathan Van Ness knows this and voiced two apparently unpopular opinions that have enraged his fan base and made him the target of the far left. First, he made the logical statement that going to far to the left will hurt their chances of taking the House and Senate.

That was bad from the progressives’ perspective, but his follow up Tweet sent them reeling into triggered oblivion.

The narrative from the left is that ALL Republicans are racist. Therefore, Van Ness is no longer the leftist hero he once was. Shame. He was actually starting to make sense.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Will Elon Musk face criminal charges over his Tweet?

Published

on

Will Elon Musk face criminal charges over his Tweet

Elon Musk is in deep trouble over a Tweet. Nine little words could land him in court and possibly even in jail.

By Tweeting in the middle of the day, it’s a red flag to the SEC. The other, more important question that Musk must answer is whether or not he committed fraud by claiming he had the funds to buy the shares. He didn’t, and that alone could make his Tweet criminal.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.