The American Revolution started with the battles at Lexington and Concord when the British Army left Boston to capture John Hancock and Samuel Adams in Lexington, and an arms cache in Concord.
These two tactics are time tested. If you deprive a movement of its leadership and its means of resistance, you can keep a people subjugated.
This was not the only time that the British Army had taken lead and powder away from the Colonials. It was, however, the last straw that precipitated the “shot heard ‘round the world.”*
Later, when the serious work of ratifying our Constitution took place, patriots from every colony remembered this bitter lesson, and birthed the Second Amendment.
“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.”
History had taught our framers, nay every colonist, that government, regardless of its archetype, could only be trusted to do one thing: to grow into an intrusive and controlling behemoth. So, it was a natural progression that the right of self-defense, from persons or from government, would become the law of the land. It is ironic; most colonial patriots subscribed to the thoughts and ideas of English philosophers and thinkers like Francis Bacon or John Locke, and English politicians like James Burgh. Burgh wrote: (emphasis mine)
“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, who’s property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.”
It is not a leap to connote that being the subject of a king, dictator, president, or any other government official is on par with being an indentured slave. A simple way of declaring and maintaining personal liberty and freedom is to rely on your own determination and a personal cache of arms. It is logical and reasonable that a citizen’s personal cache should be equal to or superior to his attacker’s, lest it be of no value for protection or defense.
The Second Amendment is a specifically stated natural right to self-protection necessary to ensure a free and liberated society. It is also a restriction on the Federal Government designed to reduce the likely hood of tyrannical or despotic behavior.
Estimates show that between 55 and 80 million homes in America possess at least one gun. I believe that is one of the reasons our nation has not been attacked by a standing army, and why our nation continues to function as a Republic.
If shallow minded, oppressive, and intimidating politicians continue their efforts to remove guns from law abiding citizens, one or both situations could change.
I am not sure which I fear the most?
*Concord Hymn; Ralph Waldo Emerson; 1837
That’s my nickle