Brilliance Fogged

I like Charles Krauthammer. I admire his style.  He debates matters armed with facts.  He is calm and rational.  His stature among conservative commentators is for me one of brilliance.  But his ideas, his position and his attempt at logic regarding the "gun control" issue has fogged that brilliance for me.

Krauthammer has said that the crowded America we live in today needs to stop acting as if we are still the western frontier.  Sir Charles says that there is no "need" for guns like the AR-15 in the hands of American citizens.  I would prefer that we not focus this debate on his use of the word "need" because in my mind it is not up to the government, nor up to the community I live in to tell me what I "need" when it is my "right" to own any kind of firearm that I want.  And just in case you have forgotten, that "right" wasn't bestowed upon me by the government, or by the ATF, or by my community, my "right" to defend my own life was bestowed upon me by God.

Years ago I was responsible for the annual "Law Day" program of the Northern Kentucky Bar Association.  It had been our tradition to arrange for local lawyers to speak at area schools on May 1st, national Law Day, as our way of advancing the principles of the "rule of law" over the "rule by force" comparison which the original Law Day proclamation had sought to highlight.

While speaking to a classroom of seniors at one of the area's better schools I posed this question: "Can any of you tell me how many rights are granted to us by the United States Constitution?"

After a little thought a hand went up and the answer was "Ten?".  Incorrect.  Then another tried "26?"  Also incorrect.  Then several more attempts to answer with different numbers followed.  All incorrect.  The correct answer is "none".  It is our most fundamental principle in this nation that all of our rights come to us as a gift from God.  The Constitution was written in order to protect our God given rights from being meddled with by any man, or group of men however organized, whether as a government or not.

The bright young teacher also admitted that she had never thought of things that way.  And she was teaching the class!

My right to defend myself is clearly implicit in my "right to life".  God gives us life, men cannot take it away, at least in this country unless they adhere strictly to the dictates of due process.  Because I have the right to life, as do all others, I have the right to defend my life and that of others from anyone who seeks to illegally take it from us.  The government did not give me that right and therefore they may not claim any authority to regulate it.  In fact with Constitutional protection, my right "shall not be infringed".  Infringement is encroachment, it is trespass.  My God given "right" is protected against trespass, protected from encroachment and as such is unfettered.

In fact only those who have been lawfully denied the liberty of exercising their "rights" should have any of their firearm rights "encroached upon".  Those who lose the benefits of their liberty by conviction of a felony, who have been declared mentally unfit to exercise their liberty or who have not yet attained the age of responsibility which is rewarded with full liberty have no liberty which is subject to encroachment.  For the rest of us, we should be able to own, bear, wear and use when justified any weapon necessary to put an end to whatever threat puts our lives in immediate danger.

Krauthammer's approach is an abandonment of these fundamental principles.  He has not to my knowledge gone so far as to over state his position by asking if then, by my logic, we should be able to own nuclear weapons, a common goofy question sometimes asked by gun control advocates.  The answer is "of course not".  Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction.  But Charles attempt to justify his position on gun control teeters close to this kind of hysterics.

One cannot both stand up for God and country, espouse the founding principles of our nation, and at the same time ignore the history which brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty.  Our forefathers gathered arms, and ammunition, and stockpiled huge armory's of weapons including cannons and other weapons usually reserved for warfare.  But they did not do so as a military,  nor as a government, but as private citizens.

The "shot heard round the world" in reference to the battle at the Concord bridge was the response of private citizens to the attempt of the king to disarm them.  The British military was under orders to find their weapons, seize them and destroy them.  Why?  Because tyranny only exists when its subjects cannot resist.

Our right to arms was not protected so inviolably so that we can hunt for food, but so that we wouldn't have to be like hunted animals, unable to defend our own lives.

I've read several, though I'm sure not all, of Charles Krauthammer's statements on this issue.  He is simply wrong.

But then again we disagree on abortion, higher energy taxes and evolution.

Despite my respect for him and his reasoned approach to important issues, I am disappointed that a man of his stature would exhibit such fogged reasoning by advocating in favor of gun control. 

Comments

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

A "tool"?

Is that what government is to you?

That sounds like you prefer a government of men and not of laws.

I thought you have been extremely critical of our President for arbitrarily using government in this exact fashion.

To a King, the government is a tool.

You oppose genocide, ethnic cleansing, and slavery, and yet you endorse those exact acts by using government as a "tool" when it comes to foreign policy.

Father forgive him for he does not know what he is saying or doing.

[Marc's Reply: Firearms are the tools I was referring to, not government.]

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

If you show me a case of genocide or ethnic cleansing I bet I could show you a former colony or a region labeled a state using arbitrary borders imposed by the mandates of the victors of war.

War begets War.
Death begets Death.
And interventionism is the mother of both on the global level.

A strong defense requires the courage to step out when required.

Reality dictates that the fingerprints of the west will be on all things global, but a boot on the neck and a gun to the head are neither fingerprints nor are they productive.

God Bless.

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

I am not sure I agree that a democratic society is an inalienable right.

And I know I disagree about recruiting government to achieve my christian missionary goals.

And I never allow my faith to influence how I feel about government. Government must be rational in order to be relevant. By definition, faith has no part in reason. If my faith can be explained by reason, then ergo ... it is not faith.

I think you are wrapping your warmongering in a flag robe topped with a cross.

I consider that being a demagogue.

God Bless.

[Marc's Reply: My life is an inalienable right and I have every right to defend it, with whatever tool is necessary to defeat the threat against me. That's not religion nor is it a statement regarding democracy.]

[Mr. Scott Ryan]

Do those rights extend to all human beings across the globe?

Because if they do, how can you justify your views on Foreign Policy?

Interventionism is force and when individuals and nations claim the right of self defense, the typical response from those on your side is that "the forceful response to force is an act of war".

An aggressive response to force is self defense. The initial aggressive act (the use of force either by economic or military means) is the true "act of war".

The response is a "God Given Right".

For example;

A guy runs into a theater with an assault rifle and starts firing off rounds. Someone pulls out their concealed firearm and blows the guy away.

Who committed an act of aggression and who exercised self defense?

A nation has been exploiting a region since the end of WW2 for its resources by the use of economic and military force. Factions within that region fight back using terrorism.

Who committed an act of war and who is exercising self defense?

I will admit that the line is a bit more blurred in the ladder, but the only reason why that is the case, is because of the nature of interventionism. Interventionism strings out the cause and effect over decades as opposed to seconds.

If one chooses to be sanctimonious, then one must also be sincere if they do not wish to be looked at as a hypocrite or as being irrational.

God Bless.

[Marc's reply: You overstate my position on use of military force. My filter is this - we do have the right to defend ourselves by pre-emptive action when faced with a clear and present danger to our national security or national interest. I don't have to wait for the guy with the gun to shoot at me. If I see him point a gun in my direction and vow to shoot me that's all I need. Same with military force.

Now, as it relates to initiating military action absent a clear and present danger to the USA, I limit my belief as to when we may properly force to prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing etc. We are not content Christians, we are activist missionaries. Liberty and democracy are not the spoils of our wars, they are basic human rights and we cannot sit idly by and watch people be slaughtered or enslaved and be consistent with our fundamental core belief that these rights belong to all human beings. Otherwise we say "well, we are entitled to these rights, but in so far as other countries are concerned......not so much."

Thanks for the comment.]

[K Elaine]

"Weapon of war" - where did this come from? Think it is a mistaken use of language in this debate... Handguns are standard issue are they not? So, why start saying, trying to sound all reasonable, that it is just these "weapons of war" that we need to rethink, the government needs to get a handle on... The left is NOT reasonable.

[Marc's Reply: Thanks for the comment. I've edited the post. I failed to see how my intention might have been misread. I appreciate the insight.]