In the "Free State" of Maryland, the minions of Martin O'Malley in
the General Assembly have taken upon themselves the opportunistic window
of post-Sandy Hook America to further limit the right of the citizenry
to purchase the weapon of their choice.
Earlier this
week, several thousand conservatives traveled to Annapolis for a rally
to support their 2nd Amendment rights. It was a huge success and
hopefully opened the eyes of a few legislators that the people are not
going to let this freedom slip into the nothingness of O'Malley's
presidential aspirations. While I applaud the collective action of my
fellow conservatives, once again it seems that we may lose this fight
because we are not using the correct message.
Simply
put, the question should not be whether the people have the freedom to
exercise a governmental supported right but if we as free people have
the right to defend ourselves.
The focus of the two
questions are as different as night and day. The first question gives
the authority to the government to expand or limit the ability to
purchase a weapon; the latter addresses the fundamental issue of
self-determination.
If we stay locked into the first
question, I believe that we will not be successful because the
proponents of this weapon grab bill will point to
the 2nd Amendment itself, which reads: "
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." The sentence as read puts the emphasis
on the security of a free State. The free State (Republic) will be
manned by a well regulated Militia made up of people who have the right
to keep and bear Arms. The 2nd Amendment was primarily designed as a
vehicle to protect the Republic against foreign invasion (England) and
internal insurrection.
I know some people may take offense to my
interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. However, it is important to keep
in mind the writings of the founders - they did not trust anyone -
themselves, the people and the government. One of the principal
supporting documents of the Constitution is Federalist Paper #9 says in part, "Should
a popular insurrection happen in one of the
confederate states the others are able to quell it." In fact, in the
same year the Constitution was passed by the Congress, the state
government used militias to end
Shay's Rebellion who were fighting for the farms of Revolutionary War veterans in Massachusettes.
If
we are concerned about freedom, the correct question is not whether we
have the right to own a weapon, it should be whether the people have the
liberty to protect themselves, their families and their property.
According to John Locke, whose
Two Treatises of Government is the foundation of the writing of Thomas Jefferson, "The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into
commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of
their property."
In our Democratic Republic, we the
People transfer some of the authority to protect our property (our
lives, liberty and estate) to the government; however, we do not
renounce or give up the authority to do so. It is this crucial message
that we are not making when we limit ourselves to just arguing that
government should not limit our right to own a weapon. The weapon is
just an instrument of how we choose to protect out property which we
have a God-given right to fulfill for ourselves and our families. Even
more importantly, in this debate, we are giving the government the
decision whether or not to grant us the right to protect ourselves.
I
am imploring my fellow Conservatives to not ask for the government to
allow you to keep a piece of hardware; instead, it is paramount that the
dialogue be changed to whether the people (or any individual) have the
right to protect their families, their children and their property. Too
often, we pick the right battles but pick the wrong ammunition to win
the fight.
