Monday, May 26, 2014

The Importance of the Second Amendment

Richard Ebeling emails:

Dear Bob,

I have a new article on the news and commentary website, “EpicTimes,” on “The Importance of the Second Amendment.”

The continuing attempt by some in the United States to weaken or de facto eliminate the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution must make us remember why the right of gun ownership and self-defense is so important.

First, how many people’s lives might have been or might be saved if individuals have the ability to protect themselves and their families against the lethal assaults of violent attackers?

And, second, and equally if not more importantly, how are people to protect themselves against oppressive and murderous government? In 1943, the poorly armed Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto held off for over a month the German forces that were attempting to clear them out and send them to their deaths in the concentration camps.

Anti-communist Lithuanian and Ukrainian partisans resisted Soviet reoccupation of their countries for almost ten years after the end of the Second World War due to their possession of arms acquired in the fight against the Nazis.

Violent resistant to political oppression should always be viewed as a last and never a first resort in the battle against tyranny precisely due to its potential destructiveness and unpredictable consequences.

But a free people can never assure their freedom in the long run if they lack a final means for opposing the loss of their liberty


  1. Wenzel thinks no people can ever take on the govt with violence in defensive guerrilla wars, so don't even try.

  2. Where have I ever said that?

    My point is that in most cases it is stupid to confront the government directly? Are there laws you think violate your freedom? Why aren't you shooting now?

    1. You said that during the Bundy incident and have made the claim repeatedly that the government would not lose in any sort of encounter with citizens.

      A number of people have responded by disagreeing and providing info from experts on guerrilla and 4th gen warfare with your assessment, but you still always act as if there is no chance for the people to win in a fight. The point is not to win in a traditional sense, but to make it ugly enough where the other side just gives up. Delta Force and black hawk down vet Paul Howe, for instance, completely disagrees that the govt would win if it tried to fight the people and do mass raids of gun confiscation bc of the nature of 4th gen warfare.

      I completely agree that it should be a last resort, but I have seen most libertarian types I normally agree with like Gary north acting as if it is pointless to try bc the govt has better technology. Too many people who are actual experts on the issue completely disagree with Gary "y2k" north and his comments.

  3. I just wish to say, as I highlight in my article, that the right-to-bear-arms as a means of self-defense against an oppressive or dictatorial government should always be used as a last resort.

    All means of legal redress should be pursued in society to attempt to protect people's rights to their life, liberty and property.

    Especially in a democratic political system in which freedoms of speech, press, and assembly are still available to those who object to actual or potential abuses of political power, all peaceful and lawful avenues should be followed to correct or reverse violations of citizens' rights by their own government.

    Why? First, in a still functioning democratic society any use of force to gets one's own way will be viewed as illegitimate by a large majority of the population, and will only serve to de-legitimize one's own argument against governmental abuse.

    Second, violence of all sorts carries with it the potential for societal harm and destruction of life, health and property. And, as I mention in the article, always has the possibility of disastrous unintended consequences that can result in outcomes even worse than the abuses being opposed.

    But there have been times in history when governments have become so "closed" and tyrannical and abusive of their power, and in which all reasonable methods of peaceful resolution have been taken away by political authority that the victims of such tyranny have had no alternative than to take up arms for the protection of themselves and others in society.

    The American Revolution is one of the clearest cases in which the case was made that no other avenue was left to the people whose rights were being violated by a government.

    The danger of such action, and its unintended consequences, however, can also be seen in the French Revolution. The people took up arms against a corrupt and oppressive monarch, but in that instance its outcome was the reign of terror by those who asserted their political power in the name of "the people" following the overthrow of the the French king.