When I was a little kid, I asked my dad about an image I had seen of really huge numbers of prisoners being marched to their execution in a forest clearing, guarded by perhaps five or ten men with rifles. I wanted to know why they didn't just rush the guards. I mean, it's one thing if they were heading to another miserable day at work camp, but these people were being led off to be killed, and they knew it. I mean, for God's sake, what did they have to lose?
I was six. My dad looked at me. He had served in the latter days of WW2 in Europe as a U.S. Army intelligence officer. No parachuting onto the decks of enemy U-Boats at night to steal Enigma machines -- just unexceptional, unheroic, 2nd Lieutenant grunt work. He'd been to the camps though, seen some horrible things. When I asked him why they didn't fight back or run for the woods, he said, without any arrogance or contempt or jingoism, "I don't know Billy, I can't figure that one out myself." Then there was a long moment. "But I can't imagine Americans just walking off like that, either."
Now when he said he couldn't imagine Americans marching off to their deaths, he meant, obviously, Americans like the ones he knew. Kids who grew up hunting, kids who got a BB gun for their fifth birthday -- tough, adventurous, American kids whose mom's never gave a second thought to them shooting their eye out with a Red Ryder air rifle.
Now before we go any further, I want to be crystal clear about something: I don’t believe for an instant in any genetic nonsense about slave races or nations of pure-bred heroes. That’s a deadly trap, and the end result of such thinking is a place on the watchtower machine-gunning starving prisoners. But humans are the most successful species this planet has seen, not for being ferocious or fast or strong or even intelligent, but for their malleability. Humans can, and do, adapt to anything. It is their culture that determines what is in their hearts.
Consider the case of Jews in Germany, during the 1930s. Here was a people who had been so tormented and persecuted and psychologically beaten down that they had come to believe the outrageous slander that they were guests in their own country. Behind their shuttered doors at night, they created cocoons of astonishing culture and beauty, a symphony of violins and cellos and poetry and literature. They were far over-represented in occupations we rightly esteem as among the most noble of our species: surgeons, musicians, teachers and scientists.
By any measure of human decency, these were the people that should have been helping to lead a ravaged Germany back to respect and prosperity. Yet they were massacred in their millions by brutes and sadists who sent millions to their deaths while listening to symphonies.
If it is possible to write a clearer lesson on human nature, then I cannot imagine it, nor can I imagine the amount of blood it will take to convince people unwilling to look reality in the face; that reality being that compassion, culture, law and philosophy are precious, rare and acquired habits that must be defended with force against people who understand nothing but force. The great failure and staggering tragedy of European Jews is that they could not accept that some of their neighbors were not as decent, humane and educated as they were. A culture that learned to survive by turning inward simply never was willing to face the reality of what they were up against; namely, that hoping for compassion and humanity from the likes of the Nazis was akin to reading poetry to a hurricane. This denial -- and that is the only word for it -- is, in the final horrible analysis, a form of arrogance, almost: the refusal to see things for what they are. A people of astonishing internal beauty simply could not look into the face of such ugliness without turning away. And now they are dead.
And there are many intelligent, enlightened, gentle and good-hearted people today who believe exactly the same thing. If we let this moral blindness continue to gain ground, then they will get us all killed, too. And then who will put their boot on humanity’s neck for the next thousand years?
I recently visited a website that featured a picture of Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, with the caption: My hero! Someone who thinks his way out of trouble! The implication, of course, is that force and violence are universally to be rejected and despised as unworthy of thinking people (or Vulcans).
Well bucko, Spock carried a phaser as well as a tricorder, and he used it when he had to. If the Star Trek future represents a hope for our species at its most reasonable and open-minded best, it would be well to remember that the Enterprise carried a hell of a lot of photon torpedoes because the cause of human decency cannot be advanced if all the decent humans lie dead.
To the many who scorn the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution as the dangerous plaything of illiterate, mindless oafs who enjoy loud noises, let me simply refer you to that great unbiased and incorruptible teacher: History.
Ask yourselves why intellectual elites so love totalitarian states where people are unarmed and dependent sheep. Look at the examples of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam, and the horrors they have inflicted at will on their own people. And when contemplating your ever-so-sophisticated foreign policy, ask yourselves what compassionate and non-violent options you are left with when facing a determined, heartless bastard like Hitler, Napoleon, Ghengis Khan or Attila.
Some say that the time for real evil like that has finally gone. I hope you are right, I really do. I don't want to go fight those bastards; I'd rather barbeque and watch the Gators. I'm sure the Jews in 1930 Germany thought such things could never happen again, not in the heart of European culture and civilization. I'm sure every bound and beaten musician, surgeon, philosopher and painter being lined up at the side of a ditch thought exactly that.
Freedom is preserved by free people. Our 40th President wrote that “no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.”
I believe gun ownership is the truest form of freedom, and here's why: It says you are your own person, responsible for your own actions. You are, in other words, expected to behave as an adult. It says, furthermore, that you should not be collectively punished for the misdeeds of others. In fact, those that abuse this freedom by committing crimes are thought of and dealt with much more harshly by gun owners, as a rule, than Hollywood celebrities, precisely because a free person understands the responsibility that comes with freedom.
This, to my mind, is the fundamental difference between the Europeans and the U.S.: We trust the people. We fought wars and lost untold husbands and brothers and sons because of this single most basic belief: Trust the people. Trust them with freedom. Trust them to spend their own money. Trust them to do the right thing. Trust them to defend themselves. To the degree that government can help, great -- but TRUST THE PEOPLE.
We as a nation suffer an appalling number of handgun-related deaths each year -- perhaps 11,000 of them. The number is not important; each is a personal tragedy and those lives can never be replaced.
If we attempt to reduce this horrible number by banning handguns, we are taking away the property of a person who has broken no laws, by a government whose legitimacy is determined by a document that specifically allows that property, namely guns.
Destroy that trust by punishing the innocent, by pulling a plank from the Bill of Rights, and the contract between the government and the people falls apart. Once the Second Amendment goes, the First will soon follow, because if some unelected elite determines that the people can't be trusted with dangerous guns, then it's just a matter of time until they decide they can't be trusted with dangerous ideas, either. Dangerous ideas have killed many millions more people than dangerous handguns -- listen to the voices from the Gulag, the death camps, and all the blood-soaked killing fields through history.
The Framers, in their wisdom, put the 2nd Amendment there to give teeth to the revolutionary, unheard-of idea that the power rests with We The People. They did not depend on good will or promises. They made sure that when push came to shove, we'd be the ones doing the pushing and shoving, not the folks in Washington. And by the way, gun rights supporters are frequently mocked when they say it deters foreign invasion -- after all, come on, grow up, be realistic: Who's nuts enough to invade America? Exactly. It's unthinkable. Good. 2nd Amendment Mission 1 accomplished.
But back to the undeniable domestic cost: when confronted with the idea of banning handguns to reduce this horrible toll, many handgun defenders are tempted to point to the numbers killed on the highways each year -- perhaps four times that number -- and ask why we don’t ban cars as well.
The logical response is that bans on travel -- cars, airplanes, etc. -- are a false analogy compared to banning guns, because cars have a clear benefit while guns don't do anything other than kill what they are aimed at.
While that is exactly true, I think it misses the point, which to me is simply this: we'd never ban automobile travel to avoid thousands of highway deaths. It's clearly not worth it in both economic and personal freedom terms. We choose, reluctantly, and with many a lost loved one in mind, to keep on driving.
Here is my dry-eyed, cold-hearted, sad conclusion: I believe that the freedom, convenience and economic viability provided by the automobile is worth the 40,000 lives we lose to automotive deaths each year -- a number made more horrible by the fact that perhaps 40% are related to drunk driving and are therefore preventable.
By the same calculation, I accept that the freedoms entrusted to the people of the United States are worth the 11,000 lives we lose to gun violence each year.
I wish I could make both those numbers go away. I will support any reasonable campaign to make them as low as possible.
But understand this: 11,000 handgun deaths a year, over four years is very roughly 50,000 killed. In Nazi Germany, an unarmed population was unable to resist the abduction and murder of 6,000,000 people in a similar period: a number 120 times higher. Throw in the midnight murders of the Soviets, the Chinese, the various and sundry African and South American genocides and purges and political assassinations and that number grows to many hundreds, if not several thousand times more killings in unarmed populations.
Visualize this to fully appreciate the point. Imagine the Superbowl. Every player on the field is a handgun victim. All the people in the stands are the victims who were unable to resist with handguns. Those are historical facts.
I, myself, am willing to pay that price as a society -– knowing full well that I or a loved one may be part of that terrible invoice. I wish it was lower. Obviously, I wish it didn’t exist at all. But any rational look into the world shows us places where the numbers of innocents murdered by their own governments in unarmed nations are far, far higher.
Of course, many societies have far lower numbers. Japan is a fine example. I'm sure if the United States had 2000 years of a culture whose prize assets were conformity and submission, then our numbers would be a lot lower. Alas, we are not that society. Thank God, we are not that society.
It is abundantly clear that the rate of handgun murders in the United States is not uniform. Very large murder rates can be observed in small, exceedingly violent populations of every race in this country, and these rates seem to be more related to issues of income, education and living conditions. Certainly guns are freely available in areas where our murder rates are appallingly high. They are also found in very large numbers in communities where handgun crime is virtually nonexistent.
Doesn’t that tell us that there is something deeper at work here? Could it be, perhaps, that the problem is not with the number of guns in this country but rather in the hearts of those who we allow to wield them, repeatedly? Could it really be as simple as apprehending, and punishing, those that would do harm to innocents and to civilization? Rather than banning guns, should we not attack the moral rot that infests these small, violent populations of every color who put such horrible numbers at our feet?
Assume for a moment you could vaporize every gun on the planet. Would crime go away? Or would ruthless, physically strong gangs of young men be essentially able to roam free and predate at will?
The history of civilization shows time and time again how decent, sophisticated city dwellers amass wealth through cooperation and the division of labor -- only to be victimized by ruthless gangs of raping, looting cutthroats who couldn't make a fruit basket, sweeping down on them, murdering them and carting away the loot, to return a few years later, forever, ad infinitum. Vikings, Mongols, desperadoes of every stripe -- they are a cancer on humanity, but there they are and there they have always been.
If civilization is worth having -- and it is -- then it has to be defended, because the restraining virtues of justice, compassion and respect for laws are products of that civilizing force and completely unknown to those who would do it harm.
Therefore, since I believe in this civilization, in its laws, science, art and medicine, I believe we must be prepared to defend it against what I feel no embarrassment for calling the Forces of Darkness. Those forces could be raiders on horseback, jackbooted Nazi murderers, ecstatic human bombs, or some kid blowing away a shopkeeper.
For the gun-ban argument to be convincing, you'd have to show me a time before shopkeepers were blown away, hacked away, pelted away or whatever the case may be. You would have to show me a time in history before the invention of the firearm, when crime and raiding and looting did not exist, when murders and rapes did not exist. We may lose 11,000 people to handguns a year. How many would we lose without any handguns, if murderers and rapists roamed free of fear, ignoring reprisal from citizens or police? I don't know. You don't know either. Maybe it's a lot fewer people, and maybe, in a world where strength and ruthlessness trump all, it would be a far higher one.
You may argue that only the police should be allowed to carry guns. Consider this carefully. Do we really want to create an unelected subculture that views itself as so elite and virtuous as to be the only ones worthy of such power, trust and authority? Have we not clearly seen the type of people drawn to such exclusive positions of authority, and the attitudes and arrogance it promotes?
Furthermore, I can't see any moral distinction between a policeman and a law-abiding citizen. Policemen are drawn from the ranks of law-abiding citizens. They are not bred in hydroponics tanks. They are expected to show restraint and use their weapon as a last resort. Millions upon millions of citizens, a crowd more vast than entire armies of police, do exactly this every day.
If all of these horrors had sprung up as a result of the invention of the handgun I'd be right there beside those calling for their destruction.
But clearly, this is not the case. In our cowboy past we used to say that "God created Man, but Sam Colt made them equal." This is simple enough to understand. It means that a villager, let's say a schoolteacher, can defeat a human predator who may have spent his entire life practicing the art of war. Firearms are what tipped the balance toward civilization by eliminating a lifetime spent studying swordplay or spear play or pointed-stick play. The bad guys have always used weapons and they always will. The simple truth about guns is that they are damn effective and even easier to operate. They level the playing field to the point where a woman has a chance against a gang of thugs or a police officer can control a brawl.
I don't see how vaporizing all the guns in the world would remove crime or violence -- history shows these have always been with us and show no signs of responding favorably to well-reasoned arguments or harsh language. I wish it were not true. I wish the IRS did not exist either, but there it is.
Criminals, and criminal regimes ranging from The Brow-Ridged Hairy People That Live Among the Distant Mountains all the way through history to the Nazis and the Soviets, have and will conspire to take by force what they cannot produce on their own. These people must be stopped. The genius of the 2nd Amendment is that it realizes that these people could be anybody -- including the U.S. Army. That is why this power, like the other powers, is vested in the people. Nowhere else in the world is this the case. You can make a solid argument that the United States is, by almost any measure, the most prosperous, successful nation in history. I'm not claiming this is because every American sleeps with a gun under the pillow -- the vast majority do not. I do claim it is the result of a document that puts faith and trust in the people -- trusts them with government, with freedom, and with the means of self-defense. You cannot remove that lynchpin of trust without collapsing the entire structure. Many observers of America never fully understand what we believe in our bones, namely, that the government doesn't tell us what we can do -- WE tell THOSE bastards just how far they can go.
Of course, all of this is completely whimsical, because, like nuclear weapons, guns are HERE and they are not going to go away. You cannot just vaporize them. Honest people might be compelled to turn in their weapons; criminals clearly will not. So what do you propose? Forget the moral high ground of gun ownership. Again a simple truth, often maligned but demonstrably dead-on accurate: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
The American Revolution surely is unique in the sense that its ringleaders -- Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, etc -- were men of property, wealth and prestige; in other words, men with something to lose. Compare this to any other revolution in history, where the ringleaders were outsiders; plotters staring in through the windows of prosperity, powerless. The Russian Revolution, French Revolution, etc -- these were joined by desperate people fighting mind-numbing poverty and severe political repression.
And yet the Founding Fathers were men who were as well-off as any men on earth at the time, and furthermore, any of them could have been (and were) political leaders under His Majesty's government. The average colonial farmer likewise led a life far more comfortable than those of his cousins in Europe, to say nothing of Asia or Africa.
For all practical intents and purposes, these people had absolutely nothing to gain, and everything in the world to lose, by taking on the greatest military force the world had ever known. Why would they do this? What possible motivation could well-off, comfortable people have? Militarily, they seemed certain to lose, and they knew before they started -- and Patrick Henry made that abundantly clear -- that they would be hanged as common criminals if they failed.
Of course, the answer is, they did it to be free. And they did it to make the rest of their nation -- the poor, the disenfranchised -- free as well. And it is clear as crystal from their collective writings that they took that risk to make Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore and the rest of us in their unseen posterity free, too. They could look down the dim, moonlit riverbanks of the future and see a society worthy of their sacrifice and determination. They knew that God, (or for me, chance perhaps) had put them together in a time and place where bold, courageous action, followed by much suffering, doubt, blood and fear could, perhaps, unleash in mankind an energy source the likes of which they could not imagine.
So for me, a child of that bet -- that guess, that commitment, that roll of the dice -- for me, I owe them the defense of that freedom, and I will do my poor mite to pass it on as best I can. These men pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor. They pledged that to me. I owe them. I do not have the right to take away someone else's freedom and property -- it is offensive to me to even contemplate it. Of course, if someone breaks the freedom/responsibility covenant by committing a crime, then all bets are off. To that extent, I view handgun murderers not just as criminals, but as traitors as well.
I hate seeing our kids get shot on the street, I hate it, I hate it. But that is the cost of freedom. People get horribly killed on Spring Break road trips to Florida at age 18. They're driving drunk. We could prevent them from going. We would save lives. Enron and MCI steal like the worst characters from Dickens, taking people's Christmas dinners so they can have gold plated faucets. We could regulate more, make things harder for the millions of honest businesses that build and trade honorably each day. The day may come when someone flies a Cessna into a stadium. We can ban the airplanes. Ditto for pleasure boats. We can ban and confiscate and regulate to our hearts content, and we will undoubtedly save many, many innocent lives by doing so. All for the price of a little freedom.
I believe we should punish the perpetrators. I will not agree to restrict the freedoms of the vast numbers of people who abide by the concomitant responsibility and live lives of honesty and decency.
And there is more than the physical restriction of freedoms: There is the slow erosion of self-reliance, self-confidence and self-determination among a nation. The more your government restricts your options, the more you psychologically look to government to keep you safe, fed, clothed, housed and sustained.
There is a word for people who are fed, clothed, housed and sustained fully by others, and that word is SLAVES.
If Congress were occupied by angels and Michael sat in a throne of glory in the Oval Office, I would listen to what they said for my own greater good. But I have noticed that no government is made of angels, and that many seem to be exclusively staffed by members of the opposite persuasion. So who determines how much freedom we trade for how much security? People do. People are not unknown to place their own interests above those of others. There is even a vanishing remote chance that Jean Cretien has at some point perhaps put personal interest above those of his constituents.
The real genius of the Founding Fathers was that these great and good men had the foresight and the courage to look into their own darker motives, and construct a system that prevents the accumulation of power.
The Constitution they created could only be torn up by force of arms. And that is why the Founders left that power in the hands of the people, who together can never be cowed by relatively small numbers of thugs holding the only guns.
As PJ O'Rourke points out, the U.S. Constitution is less than a quarter the length of the owner's manual for a 1998 Toyota Camry, and yet it has managed to keep 300 million of the world's most unruly, passionate and energetic people safe, prosperous and free. Smarter people than me may disagree with that document -- I'm for not touching a comma.
So as a proud son of those brave men, I'll take freedom -- all of it -- and because I accept the benefits of those freedoms, I'll solemnly take the responsibilities as well. I may someday lose a child on a trip to Spring Break, but I'll never lock them in the basement to keep them safe. And I'll accept the fact that living in Los Angeles puts me at risk for being shot to death because I feel the freedom is worth it. I breathe that freedom every day, and hey, we all gotta go sometime. I'll continue to fly experimental airplanes because I am careful, meticulous, precise and responsible, and yet the day may come when I am out of altitude, out of airspeed, and out of ideas all at the same time. Oh well. I have seen and done things up there that you cannot imagine and I cannot describe. Freedom.
Our failures and disgraces cruelly remind us that we, like every other government, are composed of fallible men and women with no divine ability to read the future or foresee all outcomes. But these failures are failures of action, action borne of confidence and a belief in our way of life, and come all the more painful for their contrast to the everyday standards to which we hold ourselves as a people and a nation. For it is an undeniable fact that no great nation in history has held a shadow of our measure of power, and yet exercised it with such restraint, nor does any time in the bloody history of warfare reflect a people so magnanimous in victory against enemies sworn to their murder and destruction. From our first hour, we have been, and remain, the beacon of hope and freedom for a world desperate and longing for such an example, and we can measure our success in building such a place by the numbers of those who are literally dying in an attempt to come and be part of it.
Our ancestors made their choice and here we are. I respect anyone’s right to choose differently. I only speak up to defend the choice we Americans made as a deeply spiritual one, borne of reflection and danger and a spectacular triumph against all odds. I cannot stand idly by to hear people denounce our freedoms as the dimwitted macho posturing of a mob of illiterate uncultured idiots who are so vulgar and uncouth as to still believe in Hollywood myths manufactured for our simple, complacent, unsophisticated nature.
From the Revolution until today, the choice for full freedom with all its accompanying excesses and failures is a profoundly well-reasoned, moral and ethical choice, and the result has been national and personal success unparalleled in the history of this world.
I am deeply proud to be a member of such a magnificent group of people. I hope to God I can give back as much as I owe.
Posted by Proteus at December 22, 2002 9:47 PM
Welcome to the Eject! Eject! Eject! commenter community. Please read and understand the following:
1. This is not a public square. This is a dinner party on personal property. Good conversation is not only tolerated but celebrated here. But the host understands the difference between dissent and disrespect, even if you do not. Louts will be ignored until the bouncers can show them the door.
2. This is a voluntary online community. Your posting of any material, whether in comments or otherwise, grants to William A. Whittle, Aurora Aerospace, Inc. and their affiliates, a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use, sublicense, reproduce or incorporate into other material all or any portion of the material posted, for commercial or other use.
3. If a comment does find its way into a main page essay, print, or other media, every effort will be made to credit the individual making the comment. So chose your screen name accordingly, SLNTFRT33@yahoo.com!
Now let's see some distributed intelligence and basic human decency! Don't make me come down there every five minutes!
Comments
An excellent piece. And, another bookmark for my browser.
Posted by: Dennis Lieburn | December 23, 2002 6:39 AM
Very nicely written. And I really liked the "Honor" post when Steven Den Beste put it on his site for you a while back as well. I'll be adding you to my links as well.
Posted by: BarCodeKing | December 23, 2002 7:16 AM
Brilliant, simply brilliant. And I don't just mean intellectually. Brilliant in terms of the light it sheds on freedom.
Thank you! You go right into my "Essential Reading" bookmarks. Can't wait to digest the rest of your site.
Posted by: jb9152 | December 23, 2002 8:26 AM
Excellent post. I'm going to mention one quibble, though.
You contrast stupid, ignorant NAZIs with their cultured, learned victims, and while there's some (large) truth to that, it's also true that university students and graduates were among the typical followers of NAZI ideology (while others were Communists) - many NAZIs were well read people, just as cultured as their victims.
IMO it's important to remember that, lest people come under the misimpression that the threat to civilization and freedom comes mainly from the boorish and ignorant "barbarians", when in fact if one looks at the range of crimes against freedom and civilization throughout the 20th century, the people leading the way have more often been highly educated than not.
(This is also not a slam at being a well-educated person and a paen to the simple wisdom of the uneducated, being knowledgable oneself - even if a bad speller - is the best early defense mechanism against the schemes and vision of the intelligencia).
Posted by: Porphyrogenitus | December 23, 2002 9:00 AM
I wish every high school age person would read this post. They might then understand what freedom truly is, and how to keep it for their kids, and not get totally caught up in the leftist mind meld of the typical college envirnoment.
Posted by: brad | December 23, 2002 10:26 AM
Excellent piece Mr. Whittle. I'll be linking to it and adding you to my blogroll, AND I'll have my 14 year old son read it. He is one kid who is not going to grow up ignorant of what America is all about and why we fight to save our freedoms.
My 3 year old and 1 year old are probably not so interested yet! ;^)
Thanks again.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw | December 23, 2002 10:32 AM
I'm going to echo what the others have said. These two posts are going to be exceptionally hard for you to better. I look forward to your further writings. Well done and bookmarked!
Posted by: Quentin | December 23, 2002 12:20 PM
Thank you all for the many kind words.
I did want to specifically address porphyrogenitus' comments to say that I agree with him so completely that I now wish I had included more of this in the essay.
He is exactly correct. Traditionally, these bloodbaths start when dispossed intellectual elites lather up the street muscle and begin their dark mischief. Without the intellectual ringleaders the Nazis would have been a mob of beer hall brawlers. It took a thoroughly evil and well-organized group of intellectuals to hammer them into a movement, then an army, then a state and finally a cautionary tale.
Excellent point, porphyrogenitus (and thank god for cut and paste)
Posted by: Bill Whittle | December 23, 2002 12:23 PM
Exceptional article.
I have you tabbed in my browser, right next to Steven Den Beste and Rachel Lucas.
Good luck on the future.
Posted by: Scott | December 23, 2002 12:35 PM
Bill:
Your post really captures the appeal of American-style freedom well.
What explains the appeal of the socialist model? Or the dictatorship? Goodness knows, it's not envy: we're not enforcing a copyright on our founding documents. Why aren't other countries noticing how well our principles work, and adopting them as their own?
I guarantee the first country to photocopy our Constitution and pencil in their own name would be the recipient of more affection and aid from us than the Europeans got through the Marshall Plan.
We'd be so flattered, we couldn't help but um... help. Frankly I'm surprized it hasn't happened already. Why not?
P.S., Outstanding web log, Bill. Are you related to Sir Frank?
Posted by: Anna | December 23, 2002 12:47 PM
Bill, I first ran across your thoughts at Rachel's place and the piece quite impressed me. Congratulations on putting it up on your own! With your kind permission, I'd like to link to it for my buddies on various gun and shooting boards.
'Berg
Posted by: Iceberg | December 23, 2002 2:49 PM
It is reading thoughts and words such as these that I despair of ever being in the same league as Bill Whittle and the other plain, no-nonsense people who are making their voices heard in these trying and fearful times. I cannot help but marvel that reason and facts, as mustered by the likes of Bill Whittle, always outshine the rants, posturings, lies and obfuscations of the so-called liberal elites who have nothing but contempt for the USA, her history, her society her values. There are not enough words to describe my shame that I once believed the distortions and false premises of the so-called liberal mindset. I cannot begin to tell you how much I wish I could today wear the uniform of one of our branches of armed forces and rise to the call of duty for my country and for my fellow Americans. I once agreed with Samuel Johnson's remark that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. But I no longer see the evil in loving one's homeland and the honor of fighting and perhaps dying for one's freedom. This should be required reading for every school-age child and for every school teacher. As long as we have voices like this, we will prevail over the forces of darkness and evil. I sincerely hope and I pray that the continued popularity of these voices chokes the enemy within our borders and that there will be much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands by those who would sell America's soul for a wee bit of world opinion.
Posted by: Mr. Natural | December 23, 2002 5:47 PM
Dear Mr. Whittle: Thank you for what you wrote on Rachel's blog, and thank you for what you are writing on this, your own, blog now. Thank you for defending my freedom and the honor of my country. You embody what is great about America, which is now the heart of our Western civilization. Thank you.
Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson | December 23, 2002 7:45 PM
Wow. I saw this at Rachael's site and reread it here when it was condensed into a single essay. I wish I had the ability to write so coherently in posts. Even in school, it took many many hours and rewrites to get something even 10% as convincing as this. Thank you.
Also as a side note, you quote the figure of 11,000 annual gun deaths in the US. Someone at another blog did some research (I believe it was Glen Reynolds, but I read so many I am probably wrong) and noted that 4,000 of those are suicides. Without guns, they probably would have found another way to do themselves in, and IMO, should not be counted in the statistic of what some would call "deaths that would be avoided if guns were outlawed".
Posted by: TJ | December 23, 2002 7:52 PM
Simply amazing. This should be required reading for the WHOLE WORLD. I sent the link to friends and family with the subject line, "Starts good, just gets better." So true. My thanks to you.
Speaking of aerospace...I grew up in Bakersfield in the mid- to late Sixties. You know what I miss? Sonic booms.
Posted by: Curtis G. | December 23, 2002 9:55 PM
Mr. Whittle:
I'm afraid you may be "preaching to the choir," here...but, lord, what sweet music it is! I sincerely hope this gets spread far and wide, AND that you continue to write such powerful essays. I've never read better.
Posted by: Jim Cline | December 23, 2002 10:44 PM
TJ, it's amazing but the government has Done Something Right!
Visit the website http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html This is the US Centers for Disease Control Injury Mortality Reports. Simple to use. (Their numbers are good; how they interpret them is sometimes less good.)
Firearm suicides numbered about 16,500 per year in 1999 and 2000, homicides between 10,000 and 11,000. Absolute numbers are too coarse a measure - they don't adjust for population. 1,000 deaths in Great Britain are much more serious than 1,000 in the US, which is much more serious than 1,000 in China.
The US rate of firearm homicides for 1999 and 2000 was about 3.9/100,000 people in each year, down from 7.08 in 1993.
Also look at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm, which documents crimes reported to the police; some reporting agencies don't do a very good job, and other research indicates the percentage of crimes reported to police varies by crime.
Posted by: John Simutis | December 24, 2002 1:46 AM
Copies of this should be sent to all the students who had to listen to Patty Murray's speech about that philanthropist, Usama Bin Laden, the other day.
Posted by: Emjay | December 24, 2002 6:28 AM
"Amendment II
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."
IMHO, the portion of the 2nd Amendment that deals with "A well regulated militia" muddies the waters. I would amend it to read:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. No law regarding rate of fire, magazine capacity or caliber of the weapon shall be passed, except that the weapon must be hand-held, fireable from a standing position, and the user must be able to carry it, without assistance."
Posted by: Dennis Lieburn | December 24, 2002 6:59 AM
You need to be able to diagram sentences, and understand context to understand the 2nd amendment. It states that "the right... shall not be infringed." This is directly consistent with the idea stated that we have inalienable rights, not ones granted by the government by by the Creator. Governments can restrict/infirnge upon rights, they cannot grant them.
Also it implies the idea that some rights may be restricted for the Greater Good, but since a free state needs a militia, this is not one of them. The need for a militia is subordinate to the rights of free men to protect themselves, not vice versa.
Posted by: billhedrick | December 24, 2002 7:19 AM
I may be able to shed some light on "why aren't we copied?" I work with two Indians, ans we discuss politics, economics, etc., fairly often. Part of it is pride. "We had a magnificent cilivization while your ancestors were painting themselves blue and drinking the blood of the dead." True. The caste system makes our philosophy of equality before the law repugnant or even immoral. Fear. India has followed a socialist path so long that there is a large body of people who are now dependent on those subsisies. To compete economicly, India knows it will have to adapt to Capitalisms create detruction, there is great resistance. Lastly, thee is the fear, compounded of all the above and much more, that they do not want to "become America".
Posted by: Lauren Coats | December 24, 2002 9:19 AM
Superb essay. A couple of suggestions:
If you want to do more than "preaching to the choir" as your wicked "mission statement" front page implies, you should return to this essay in a month or so and condense it, bring it down to perhaps one third the current size. You might also find worthwhile to restructure into several parts, since there are several inseparable themes that *may* not need to be so intertwined in your prose (I’m not sure).
It may not be worth the effort: a tighter essay might convince a handful more people, and may focus the attention of the many who share our sentiments but haven’t through it through yet, but it's pretty obvious to me that the sheep of this country will be no more convinced than the disarmed victims you discuss until they and theirs are being herded into concentration camps, if then. In their minds, they’re already disarmed….
The other point, previously touched upon, is that if you aren't going to have new content every day or two, you MUST set up an announcement system of some sort (another blogger or three, a mailing list or whatever), because otherwise we'll just forget to check every few weeks in the crush of modern life.
Anyway, thanks for the essay; there's little particularly new in it, but very few have put it all together and said it so well.
Posted by: Harold Ancell | December 25, 2002 7:25 AM
"Trust the people. Trust them with freedom. Trust them to spend their own money. Trust them to do the right thing. Trust them to defend themselves."
This has been the difference between our version of government and all others. Monarchies, dictatorships (modern usage, not Roman), socialism, Communism, theocracies —— all proclaim that a self-selected elite, preferably with succession-by-blood-tie, must be trusted to do best for "the people" with whose lives they only interact in the form of servant-slave and paper production quotas.
I quite simply cannot follow the arguments that say the 2nd Amendment limits "arms" to the government. Whyever would our founders, who came to power by using arms not controlled by government and who explicitly stated that the government they were establishing should itself be subject to overthrow, fearfully propose control/confiscation of weapons? And the idea that the National Guard is a "state militia" is just silly, it is a Federal asset loaned to the states. Also, the courts have been quite consistent in pointing out that police forces cannot be held responsible for protecting citizens before-the-fact: in this, at least, they show sense, and it may be hoped that they will recognize that the means of self-defense must then remain available and upheld.
As it happens, I have never owned a firearm and do not expect to. But I most certainly do not want that right abrogated (at least on a universal basis, I do think someone who has committed pre-meditated murder should at least be potentially barred from ownership) and am grateful for those of my neighbors who have them and are willing to at least call 911 if they hear me screaming.
Also I believe the "slippery slope" argument against registering guns. Pre-WWI Britain did not register guns, and London bobbies who found themselves in need usually could borrow one from the citizen-on-the-street. After the war, some politicians feared veterans might become violent and started a registry and restrictions on carry rights. After WWII, the restrictions were expanded as was the registration requirement. Always sounded at least somewhat reasonable, and always accompanied with the disclaimer that the registry would never be used for confiscation. Then a school incident similar to our Columbine prompted mass anti-gun hysteria - and registered guns were confiscated. Canada's current problems are also instructive, eg should the unregistered gun left to you by grandpa be registered? If so, some groups are faced with defying the law or starving to death... Not to mention the administrative costs, which were so outrageous when merely glanced at that the government forbade the further investigation of related costs.
I've gotten a bit long-winded, haven't I? Ah, well. Let me close with my favorite quote, which shows that the problem of a populace fearful of private weaponry is hardly new:
Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger", ca. 4 BC - 65 AD:
"Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est."
("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool in the killer's hands.")
Posted by: John Anderson | December 25, 2002 3:22 PM
Well done. Please allow me to suggest that the greatest significance of the RKBA is spiritual. You are entirely correct in holding that it is militarily significant, as we have heard that it was considered by the Japanese as a deterrent to invasion, but its moral impact surpasses the material, as Napoleon said, by ten to one. Point-fire capability can make a difference in battle as at Saratoga, New Orleans, Sharpsburg, Belleau Wood, and beyond, but the real importance is one of attitude. This difference in attitude extends to civilians as well. As was demonstrated on 9-11 to anyone who did not already know it, we are not safe in our homes and workplaces. How we respond to the threat is a function of our attitude concerning force and self-defense. A nation of people who know the gun will respond very differently from one in which the people are wholly dependent on the state for their safety.
Posted by: Lou Gots | December 25, 2002 5:57 PM
If guns are responsible for shooting deaths, then why aren't any guns ever arrested, put on trial and thrown in jail? - maybe for the same reason that a car is not arrested and jailed when a drunk driver kills someone.
Posted by: Louise | December 26, 2002 6:05 AM
I'm pretty much an anti-gun person, but I really enjoyed your thoughts. They were very well written.
The scenario that comes to my mind from reading your work is not one of citizens fighting off invading armies with handguns, but one of them fighting off their own police forces and armies, the "unelected sub-culture" that you speak of.
Hopefully, a scenario never to be seen, but I'm onside with the feeling that we have seen the enemy...and it is us.
Posted by: JC | December 26, 2002 7:25 AM
Excellent article.
Thank you Mr. Whittle.
One reason so many have trouble understanding the American government is because they have been taught an incomplete "Constitutional model". Articles I, II and III establish the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. What isn't being taught is the importance of Amendments IX and X.
The American government is actually composed of four branches; the fourth is "The People", and they wield more power than individual states, or either of the three service branches.
Posted by: Dave Janecek | December 26, 2002 9:20 AM
Bill,
I'm sure you've seen that I already called this an amazing article on Rachel's site, so I won't repeat the praise I gave for this incredible document.
However, I do only have one small criticism. "Canada is free of many of the foreign policy disasters and failures of vision that the United States has been correctly charged with, but they are free too of the satisfaction and pride of being history’s singular bulwark of freedom and prosperity, and the eternal, unintimidated scourge of tyrants and murderers from the Barbary pirates, through the armed might of the 20th Century’s parade of totalitarians and right up to Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and the criminal lunatics that run North Korea."
Canada made huge sacifices in WWII and the Korean War. Our factories were as strong as any American facility, and our troops were equally powerful. Now, even in the darkest days of the Canadian military, other nations, including and especially the USA, respect the might and the valour of our troops. Another war game where Canada defeats American units, another American soldier registering extra pride at evading Canadian anti- submarine screens, another successful campaign in slaying Al- Qaeda forces- it adds up. You can make many criticisms of Canada, but the armed might of our country cannot be denied.
Personally, I feel that if America ever DID lose the will to fight (God Forbid) as the British did, Canada would probably have to pick up the slack. We've never lost a conflict, and have never stopped fighting, even for staggering per capita casualty figures that would have given America pause. If it was up purely to us, Brian Mulroney (one of the most undeservedly maligned PM's in Canada's history) would have defeated Saddam Hussein as soundly as Bush 41. So in future criticisms of those who do not fight as hard as America, please do not include Canada. :) Our future as guardian of the world may be better than America's, it may be worse, but you'll never see the Canadian military fall in battle.
Posted by: trevalyan | December 26, 2002 11:12 AM
Great article. The only thing i see to nitpick is the number of people rounded up and killed by the Nazis, that you mentioned. 6,000,000 were only the Jews, there were about 7,000,000 others also.
Posted by: pbird | December 26, 2002 11:21 AM
Dear Trevalyan,
Certainly anyone who has the most rudimentary knowledge of military history also has enormous respect for the quality of Canadian troops. The Black Watch, Vimy Ridge, endless engagements in WW2 right up to your exemplary Special Forces work in Afghanistan -- no one, least of all me, can cast doubt on the morale, spirit and quality of Canadian troops. Furthermore, your patriotic rallying to the defense of you nation is something I can well attest to.
What I and many other Americans would like to know is, what happend to Canadians like you? What happened to those stalwart allies who we knew would watch our back -- or our front, for that matter?
I read that shortly after WW2, Canada had the 4th largest Navy in the world. I'm not sure that your great country has a single operational warship left afloat. Similar horrific cuts in weapons, readiness and manpower seem to have been made across the board.
While this has been happening, the shrillness of Canadian government and news media criticisms of the US has only grown.
I deeply respect and admre your country, especially men such as yourself. Try to understand what it means to us, however, to look across the world and see our best friends cutting their defenses to almost zero, expecting us to pay the cost in blood and treasure for their defense. When you add in the number of vehemous, really mind-boggling charges of US imperialism, militarism and outright stupidity, you may perhaps forgive us for looking around and wondering where the hell our friends went.
It is my fervent hope that patriotic Canadians such as yourself will try to turn around these recent policies. At the very least I would hope you could start a blog and put your passionate, rational voice out there. We need more people like you.
Posted by: Bill Whittle | December 26, 2002 11:30 AM
Just a fasincating article, thank you
Dave Janeck...you raise a great point
Posted by: Josh Miller | December 26, 2002 11:50 AM
Obviously sincere, heart-felt, and thoughtful. Moreover, it's generally intelligently expressed. But 1) Why such scorn for other cultures and denigration of their decisions? (which shouldn't/can't necessarily mirror ours, and which sounds a lot like the jingoism Hitler preached to his brown shirts) 2) Going to the moon is preferable to universal health care? C'mon! Anyway, thanks for a good exposition.
Posted by: Donald Cooper, Cols,OH | December 26, 2002 12:44 PM
Oh, we're still here. I'm sorry to say that indoctrination on the parts of the media, especially the government controlled media, has caused way too many people to believe in the Liberal- cult that will seemingly rule this country in perpetuity. Our opposition, the Alliance (coolest party name EVER! ^__^ ) is actually making inroads, though, and I have a strong suspicion that if they fail after the endless scandal that has dogged the Chretien government, including and especially the constant reports from our Senate on the dessication of the Canadian military, that you'll see a number of new exiles fleeing across the border. We'll do our best to keep the queue orderly. :)
As for the warships: while we don't have a LOT of operational warships, and not even one carrier, that doesn't mean we don't have them. Already, a number of modernized ships are patrolling Afghanistan, and the Pashtun- speakers (former refugees, as I recall ;) ) in the Canadian military are interrogating terrorist escapers with striking proficiency. To say nothing of the fact that our ships, save for the Sea King helicopters so embarassingly decrepit their very existence is the ultimate testament to the skill of Canadian repair teams, are perfectly interchangeable with ships assigned to American nuclear carrier groups. :) If that can occur under the CHRETIEN government, it should be painfully evident that nothing can stop us.
You also forgot the Princess Patricia's (the last person who called them "Pat's" got a beating) Canadian Light Infantry. Their Coyote recon vehicles are so good the American goverment has put in orders for them, our snipers got Bronze Stars from the United States for performing even better than the snipers of the 101st, and Stogran's forces have contributed more than any other regular infantry, save America's, to the decimation of the Taliban. Again, this is the state of power when we're at our darkest days!
I'm not saying that our problems aren't at hellish levels. And it depresses the hell out of me that no one seems to do anything about it. But trust us: no slackers or negative hackers are going to "conscientiously object" BEFORE the war. I'm sorry we put our troops through all the crap they put up with, but be assured that these are the single most DEDICATED regular forces the West will see outside the United States Marine Corps. The only reason anyone sane would join the Canadian military is for their country, PERIOD. And our best- of- both- worlds training style combines American and British traditions. The flesh is weak, but the bones are strong. Mulroney revitalized the military almost twenty years ago, and they still have formidable combat achievements. Give us a few billion dollars, the technology that America has always graciously provided for us (a major factor in our success), the backup of the American friends who help us slay enemies with the grace and fury of their predecessors... we could rule this world as father and son, if we ever tipped that way. ^__^
And I already have a blog. Just click on the name. :)
Posted by: trevalyan | December 26, 2002 12:51 PM
Donald, Bill doesn't necessarily denigrate cultures: I'm sure none of us has a problem with the decline of German militarism. ;) It IS a question of them not understanding our culture, so blinded by their own vaunted elitism and unable to see the lessons of history, that causes us to have a problem. America's "cultural imperialism" should not be able to destroy hundreds of years of culture. Can it? Europe seems to believe we live by Mcdonald's and Baywatch, and that those who think like Americans are ignorant cowboys. Yet I think our realism and power will defend Europe. That's how it IS: if America behaved like the Soviets, and the Iron Curtain were two juggernauts "grinning at each other across a dead land filled with rotteness" (a pint for the man who gets the reference first. ;) ), who HONESTLY believes any of the European powers, even Churchill himself, could have stopped America, as opposed to slavish appeasement, or even dying nobly on America's bayonets? Europe is "cultured": but this does not translate into gratitude for those who take up the burden they refuse, and does not equal actual understanding of American and Arab cultures, as opposed to soppy sentimentalist FEELINGS. So does their choice of culture make them a better nation, without mortal flaws that MUST be criticised? Just ask the Iranians. :)
Posted by: trevalyan | December 26, 2002 1:01 PM
"Kick down 100 doors of self-proclaimed French pacifists, grab the women and kids, and haul them away. Then try again in Texas, with 100 NRA members. Collate, or rather, have a surviving relative collate the results. Extrapolate the abductors' rates of casualties to determine the total number of murdering swine needed. See what percentage of jackbooted thugs have a suicide wish and then determine the number of men you will need to disarm, kidnap and murder 50 million armed people."
Hm.
I'd suggest that instead of picking 100 French pacifists, you pick (say) 100 members of the French Resistance circa WWII. Or, perhaps, you could ask that question of the Finns of the same era. (Who fought on the wrong side; but it's not as if we came to defend them when the Soviet Union invaded their country.)
America is a great country. We have no monopoly on greatness.
Posted by: Bryant | December 26, 2002 2:11 PM
John,
Thanks for the detailed links. Always good to update my facts.
-TJ
Posted by: TJ | December 26, 2002 6:49 PM
"It would take an army --- not an army of celebrities or trial lawyers, an actual SHOOTING ARMY --- to forcibly disarm this nation. Who will do the dirty work? Volunteer citizen soldiers, that's who - and the first guns they'd have to turn in would be their own.
"See, we don't have shock troops here, boyo. No Republican Guards, Special or otherwise; no Hussars, no Cossacks, no SS; we lack Praetorian elites, Napoleonic bodyguard units - any of that ideologically inculcated poison. Just kids serving their country, making some money for college. You think those people would fire on a crowd of American citizens fighting to preserve the Constitution, when they themselves have taken the same oath? Think again."
Well... we do have shock troops. We have special forces. They are a force with a deliberately inculcated sense of their own elitism. It's not clear that this is de facto a bad thing -- but let's not pretend they don't exist.
What really matters is the first paragraph above: the attitudes of the forces we have. It doesn't matter if we have Praetorian elites if they'd refuse to fire on US citizens.
History says they will.
Our Japanese citizens were not encouraged to bring weapons to the interment camps during World War II. The National Guard did fire on unarmed students at Kent State. We are not safe from our own military, if that military is under the command of those who wish to take away our liberties.
This is one reason why I am so very uncomfortable with those who would marginalize and demonize those who disagree with them politically. History shows that the best way to convince US troops to take hostile action against US citizens is to convince them that said citizens are somehow different. "They're Japanese. They're hippies. They don't think right."
We can't afford that kind of exclusionary mentality. It is a precondition for dangerous behavior. We also can't make it illegal: we are not a country dedicated to thought control. That's a good thing. But we can damned well educate as to why it's a bad idea, and we can work to avoid it in ourselves.
Posted by: Bryant | December 28, 2002 6:11 AM
Very well said. A must read for all. I have added this page to my favorites, and will send this link to everyone in my address book.
God Bless America, and Americans willing to stand up for what they believe in.
In JESUS' Name
Posted by: Pastor Chuck | December 28, 2002 5:18 PM
As a Brit this was the best case for the right to carry arms I have seen. It would only work for the US though because it's been a right from inception. I can understand the opposition to any administration that would deny that right.
Pity about the homicides though. Inevitable I suppose. Here in the UK we have never had that right and we don't need it - as long as we have democracy. If the police don't carry arms they can call on a special armed team within minutes of an incident. That works quite well.
Now, of course we have armed criminal gangs from The Balkans who don't have the same values. They will kill another human without thought. We need armed police to eliminate those scumbags.
Posted by: Roy McCoy | December 30, 2002 2:01 AM
Roy!
Just want to stand up for the Balkans for a moment. Plenty of people with guns in London are neither from that region, nor have their violent values come from anywhere else but the UK.
The Balkans have a bad name for violence that comes largely from the way the West depicted the Balkan Wars of the 19th Century and the ones of the 1990s. 'Long standing ethnic hatreds' and the like are by and large fictions, fictions that were manipulated and adopted in the regions themselves for people's own pragmatic, often greed-motivated, political reasons.
Sorry. Just wanted to stand up for Yugoslavia for one moment.
Posted by: Smedley | December 30, 2002 7:18 AM
If guns are responsible for shooting deaths, then why aren't any guns ever arrested, put on trial and thrown in jail? - maybe for the same reason that a car is not arrested and jailed when a drunk driver kills someone.
They are. Forfiture laws.
Posted by: JoshMedia | January 5, 2003 7:22 PM
lol.
If guns *aren't* responsible for *shooting* deaths, then why is it if you lock two gunless people in a room and they each want to kill the other, whatever happens there won't be a *shooting* death????
Posted by: Wannabe Dadaist | January 6, 2003 8:48 AM
The Assyrians, scourge of ancient Mesopotamia -- how many guns did they have? Do rapists need guns? A man was _stabbed_ to death in a subway in New York City -- and Mayor "Dumb---" Dinkins called for more _gun_ control. Brilliant. (That was sarcastic.) The Federal Building in Oklahoma City was blown up with a _bomb_ -- and the media blamed, continue to blame, the atrocity on all _gun_ owners.
Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson | January 6, 2003 1:54 PM
If guns *aren't* responsible for *shooting* deaths, then why is it if you lock two gunless people in a room and they each want to kill the other, whatever happens there won't be a *shooting* death????
And if you put any number of people together in a room filled with loaded guns and those people do not want to kill one another, there will be no killing.
It's no laughing matter, but killing depends primarily on the desire to kill, not on the available means.
Posted by: John Simutis | January 6, 2003 5:35 PM
I think we, as Americans, at least the non-"go along to get along" portion of the populace, can face the FACT that the National Guard did not exist when the 2nd Amendment and The Constitution were written and passed as The Law of The Land. And, second only to the Holy Bible, it is an excellent example of how to live a worthwhile existance in this quagmire we call Earth. Many other nations could, if they would, follow the example. Just how far advanced, technologically or morally, would the world be at present if not for The Holy Bible and America?
Posted by: Thee Humble Waffle™ | January 21, 2003 7:49 PM
Face a fact Wannabe... guns don't kill people, people kill people... even if a gun is used, it still boils down to the fact::: people kill people... more often than not, caused by the advances made by the left in our society... a society where the individual matters less and less, a society where the mob/masses are all important... a damn mindless society...
Posted by: Thee Humble Waffle™ | January 21, 2003 8:15 PM
Bill, I've read and re-read this essay a couple dozen times or so since the "first draft" appeared on Rachel's blog. Each time I find new inspiration in it. I've pasted the link everywhere from emails and comments on other blogs to old computer BBS message boards. I've printed out copies (leaving all indicia of the website and your name attached, of course) and passed them around. My parents made copies of their copy and passed them around. Your words have struck a chord - you've written down what so many people know and believe and feel in their hearts but didn't have the skills to express as fluently as you. This essay is truth and it cannot be denied.
Keep up the great work.
Posted by: Heath | January 23, 2003 7:26 AM
while i disagree with certain bits here and there, as well as some of your conclusions, you make a strong argument for your position.
i am anti guns, but would never dream of suggesting that the american public should be disarmed, because that is guaranteeing a civil war. and i also accept the logic that the constitution's Bill of Rights should be treated as sacrosanct, or we risk losing them all.
i however emphatically *do not* accept that 11,000 gun murders a year are a price worth paying to maintain gun ownership. if you factor in accidental shootings & suicides, that number nearly doubles. the number may be less important than the principle, but that cannot be an absolute. what if it were 110,000?
Posted by: paul | January 24, 2003 6:42 AM
Well, Paul... What if it were 1,100,000 gun deaths a year? YES, you guessed it, that would still be less than what the socialists and communists have shown they can kill and have killed in a year when the citizens are deprived of their natural right to defend themselves(the police cannot and WILL NOT protect me or YOU, they will take notes after you are dead)... and we would still be free... what price freedom? freedom has cost a lot of lives over the years... BUT, not nearly as many as subjugation... our political machines are proof that America cannot remain free if dis-armed...
then there are the cockaroaches(abortionists) that murder more than a million babies a year... do you support their right to "choice", ie: murder babies? "fetus"--- Latin for "baby"
Something, for all Americans who value their freedoms and their rights, to read... US Supreme Court decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment
The price of freedom is high, if you are not willing to pay that price, you will be a slave...
Posted by: Thee Humble Waffle™ | January 25, 2003 4:08 AM
You are one heck of a writer. Keep on keepin' on. Even us Democrats can appreciate you!
Posted by: Steve | January 27, 2003 4:08 PM
Great essay. :O) It should be required reading for schoolkids. (fat chance, I know, given the state of teaching right now).
Some of the nit-picking comments are interesting, too.....some folks just don't seem to get it--that freedom is worth paying ANY price. Period.
Those that don't believe it should maybe try living for a year in the Velvet Gulag--New Zealand. Nanny will look after 'em.And in the process will turn them into uncomplaining sheep.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 29, 2003 8:22 PM
Wannabe Dadaist said:
If guns *aren't* responsible for *shooting* deaths, then why is it if you lock two gunless people in a room and they each want to kill the other, whatever happens there won't be a *shooting* death????
No, but if two gunless people in a closed room have a serious disagreement, one or both may die a really slow cruel death.
The worst death I can imagine is that of married lesbian couple nagging at each other in a closed gunless room.
Posted by: Peter | February 2, 2003 9:05 PM
> then there are the cockaroaches(abortionists) that murder more than a million babies a year... do you support their right to "choice", ie: murder babies? "fetus"--- Latin for "baby"
Thank you for injecting one of your pet political peeves into an unrelated discussion. One of the marks of the fanatic (any fanatic) is that they cannot distinguish between an appropriate time and place to discuss something and an inappropriate one... to them, every time is the right time.
Indeed, this essay is exactly the wrong place for any argument saying the government needs to ban more things. This essay is not about the excercise of government power of any form whatsoever. Got it?
Trust the people. Trust them with freedom. Trust them to spend their own money. Trust them to do the right thing. Trust them to defend themselves.
Weather or not a fetus is a human with rights (yet) is a ethical question. You would trust women with the capability to instantly kill the already-born, but you don't trust them to make proper (in your view) ethical choices? What hipocracy is this?
How can you possibly agree with Bill's "Trust the people" and simultaneously claim that a vast chunk of them would choose to kill or abet killing for simple convienence?
Madness.
Posted by: Ryan Waxx | February 5, 2003 7:09 AM
Well Mr Waxx
That was just for comparison: aborted(ie:murdered) babies vs. gun deaths(yep, some of them are indeed murders). Ethical? NO, ethics mean little when a human is killed. You may as well say it is an economical question... or a question of whether or not they want to be bothered with raising their get... and gun ownership is still a basic human right.
Posted by: Thee Humble Waffle™ | February 6, 2003 6:02 AM
Many problems in human experience result from a false and
and inaccurate definition of humankind - premised in man-made
religions and humanistic philosophies. Definitions, for better
or worse, rule in the minds, behaviors, and institutions of
mankind. It is therefore essential to perceive and specify that
distinction which naturally and most uniquely defines the human
being. We can be confident that delineating and communicating
that quality which will assist the process of resolution and the
courageous ascension to which we humans are called. As Americans
of the 21st century we are obliged and privileged to join our
forebears and participate in its continuing proclamation.
MAN DEFINED: EARTH'S CHOICEMAKER
By James Fletcher Baxter
(c) 2003 All Rights Reserved
Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe. The
balance is a vast void of our human ignorance. Human reason
cannot fully function in such a void, thus the intellect can
rise no higher than the criteria by which it perceives and
measures values.
Humanism makes man his own standard of measure, however, as
with all measuring systems, a standard must be greater than the
value measured. Based on preponderant ignorance and an ego-
centric carnal nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton
task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appetites,
desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.
Because man cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the
humanist lacks a predictive capability. Without transcendent
criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with foresight for
progression and survival. Lacking foresight, man is blind to
potential consequence and is unwittingly committed to the
redundant wreckage of expensive hindsight: averages, mediocrity,
and regression - and worse. Humanistic opinion is therefore an
inadequate and unworthy resource.
In the realm of the physical universe, only statistical
conglomerates pay tribute to deterministic forces.
Singularities do not and are therefore random and unpredict-
able, and in this sense, uncaused. Thus, the finest contribu-
tion inanimate reality is capable of making toward choice,
without its own selective agencies, is this continuing opportu-
nity as the pre-condition to choice it defers to living forms.
Biological science affirms that each level of life, single-cell
to man himself, possesses attributes of sensitivity, discrim-
ination, and selectivity, and in the unique nature of each
diverse life form.
The survival and progression of life forms has all too often
been dependent upon an ever-present potential and undetermin-
ative appearance of one unique individual organism within the
whole spectrum of a given species. Only the uniquely equipped
individual organism is, like the Golden Wedge of Ophir, capable
of traversing the causal-gap to survival and progression.
Mere reproductive determinacy would have rendered life forms
incapable of such potential. Only a moving universe of
opportunity plus choice enables the present reality.
The human being possesses a unique, highly developed and
sensitive perception of diversity. Thus aware, man is endowed
with a natural capability for enacting an internal mental and
external physical selectivity. Quantitative and qualitative
choice-making thus lends itself as the superior basis of an
active intelligence.
Man is earth's Choicemaker. His title describes his definitive
and typifying characteristic. Recall that his other features
are but vehicles of experience intent on the development of
perceptive awareness and the following acts of decision. Note
that the products of mankind cannot define them for they are
the fruit of the discerning choicemaking process and include
the cognition of self, the utility of experience, the develop-
ment of value-measuring systems and language, and the accul-
turation of civilization.
The arts and the sciences of man, as with his habits, customs,
and traditions, are the creative harvest of his perceptive and
selective powers. His articles, constructs, and commodities,
however marvelous to behold, deserve neither awe nor idolatry,
for man, not his contrivance, is earth's own highest expression
of the creative process.
Man is earth's Choicemaker. The sublime and significant act
of choosing is, itself, the Archimedean fulcrum upon which
humans lever and direct the forces of cause and effect to an
elected level of quality and variety. Further, it orients him
toward environmental opportunity, freedom, and bestows earth's
title, The Choicemaker, on his singular and plural brow.
"Who is the man that fears the Lord? Him shall He teach in the
way he chooses." Psalm 25:12 Man is earth's Choicemaker. He is
by nature and nature's God a creature of choice and of criteria.
Psalm 119:30,173. His unique and definitive characteristic is,
and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of his environ-
ments, institutions, and respectful relations to his fellow-man.
Thus, he is oriented to a freedom whose roots are in the Order
of the universe.
The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with a
functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the foot-
dragging growth of human knowledge and behavior. Faith, initia-
ted by the Creator and revealed and validated in His Word, the
Bible, brings a transcendent standard to earth's choice-maker.
Other philosophies and religions are man-made, and thereby lack
what only the Bible has: transcendent criteria and fulfilled
prophetic validation. The vision of faith in God and His Word
is survival equipment for today and the future.
Deterministic systems, ideological symbols of oppression and
abdication by humans from their natural role as earth's
Choicemaker, degenerate into collectivism: the negation of
individual value, they become a conglomerate plural-based system
of measuring human value. Blunting an awareness of diversity,
blurring alternatives, and delimiting the selective creative
process, they are self-relegated to a circular and passive
regression.
Tampering with man's selective nature endangers his survival,
for such attempts render him impotent and obsolete by denying
the tools of diversity, individuality, perception, criteria,
selectivity, and progress. Oppressive and coercive attempts
produce revulsion, for such acts are contrary to an indetermin-
ate nature and nature's indeterminate off-spring, man the
choicemaker.
Until the oppressors discover that wisdom only just begins with
a respectful acknowledgement of the Creator, the Creation, and
the Choicemaker, they will be ever learning but never coming to
a knowledge of the truth. The rejection of Creator-initiated
standards relegates the mind of man to its own empirical,
primitive, and delimited devices. It is thus that the human
intellect cannot ascend and function at any level higher than
its criteria.
The carnal-ego rejects criteria and self-discipline for such
instruments are tools of the mind and attitude. The appetites
of the flesh have no respect for standards, for at the point
of contention, standards are perceived as alien, restrictive,
and inhibiting. Yet, the very survival of our physical nature
itself depends upon a maintained sovereignty of the mind - and
of the spirit.
As long as some choose to abdicate their personal reality and
submit to the delusions of man-made collectivism, just so long
will they be subject and reacting only, to be tossed by every
impulse emanating from others. Those who choose such a path of
abdication may, in perfect justice, find themselves weighed in
the balances of their own choosing.
It is worthy to recall that the principles of Biblical
scripture are still today the foundation under Western Civil-
ization and the American way of life. That human institution
which is structured on the principle, "...all men are endowed
by their Creator with...Liberty..," is a system with its roots
in the natural Order of the universe. The opponents of such a
system are necessarily engaged in a losing contest with "nature
and nature's God." To the advent of a new Season we commend the
present generation and its "...multitudes in the valley of
decision." The Season of Generation-Choicemaker Joel 3:14 KJV
"Above all, I see an ability to choose the better from the
worse that has made possible life's progress."
Charles Lindbergh
"WHAT IS MAN...?" Earth's Choicemaker
http://www.geocities.com/James-Baxter/
Posted by: Jim Baxter | February 7, 2003 2:08 PM
CONTEMPORARY COMMENTS
"I should think that if there is one thing that man has
learned about himself it is that he is a creature of
choice." Richard M. Weaver
"Man is a being capable of subduing his emotions and
impulses; he can rationalize his behavior. He arranges
his wishes into a scale, he chooses; in short, he acts.
What distinguishes man from beasts is precisely that he
adjusts his behavior deliberately." Ludwig von Mises
"To make any sense of the idea of morality, it must be
presumed that the human being is responsible for his
actions and responsibility cannot be understood apart
from the presumption of freedom of choice."
John Chamberlain
"The advocate of liberty believes that it is complemen-
tary of the orderly laws of cause and effect, of
probability and of chance, of which man is not completely
informed. It is complementary of them because it rests in
part upon the faith that each individual is endowed by
his Creator with the power of individual choice."
Wendell J. Brown
"Our Founding Fathers believed that we live in an ordered
universe. They believed themselves to be a part of the
universal order of things. Stated another way, they
believed in God. They believed that every man must find
his own place in a world where a place has been made for
him. They sought independence for their nation but, more
importantly, they sought freedom for individuals to think
and act for themselves. They established a republic
dedicated to one purpose above all others - the preserva-
tion of individual liberty..." Ralph W. Husted
"We have the gift of an inner liberty so far-reaching
that we can choose either to accept or reject the God
who gave it to us, and it would seem to follow that the
Author of a liberty so radical wills that we should be
equally free in our relationships with other men.
Spiritual liberty logically demands conditions of outer
and social freedom for its completion." Edmund A. Opitz
"Above all I see an ability to choose the better from the
worse that has made possible life's progress."
Charles Lindbergh
"Freedom is the Right to Choose, the Right to create for
oneself the alternatives of Choice. Without the possibil-
ity of Choice, and the exercise of Choice, a man is not
a man but a member, an instrument, a thing."
Thomas Jefferson
THE QUESTION AND THE ANSWER
Q: "What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son
of man that You visit him." Psalm 8:4
A: "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against
you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing
and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and
your descendants may live." Deuteronomy 30:19
Q: "Lord, what is man, that You take knowledge of him?
Or the son of man, that you are mindful of him?" Psalm
144:3
A: "And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose
for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the
gods which your fathers served that were on the other
side of the river, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose
land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will
serve the Lord." Joshua 24:15
Q: "What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is
born of a woman, that he could be righteous?" Job 15:14
A: "Who is the man that fears the Lord? Him shall He
teach in the way he chooses." Psalm 25:12
Q: "What is man, that You should magnify him, that You
should set Your heart on him?" Job 7:17
A: "Do not envy the oppressor and choose none of his
ways." Proverbs 3:31
Q: "What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son
of man that You take care of him?" Hebrews 2:6
A: "I have chosen the way of truth; your judgments I have
laid before me." Psalm 119:30 Let Your hand become my
help, for I have chosen Your precepts." Psalm 119:173
References:
Genesis 3:3,6 Deuteronomy 11:26-28; 30:19 Job 5:23
Isaiah 7:14-15; 13:12; 61:1 Amos 7:8 Joel 3:14
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
Sir Isaac Newton
The greatest scientist in human history
a Bible-Believing Christian
an authority on the Bible's Book of Daniel
committed to individual value
and individual liberty
Daniel 9:25-26 Habakkuk 2:2-3 KJV selah
"What is man...?" Earth's Choicemaker JOEL 3:14 KJV
http://www.geocities.com/James-Baxter/
Posted by: Jim Baxter | February 7, 2003 2:18 PM
"Me, personally, I'll take the spirit, ingenuity and passion that can plant the American flag on the moon over pre-paid health care. I can buy health care."
Believe me, if you were a laid-off worker without health care, you would trade your gun and your moonflag for some decent, affordable medical care.
Posted by: BW | March 3, 2003 5:12 PM
>"Me, personally, I'll take the spirit, ingenuity and passion that can plant the American flag on the moon over pre-paid health care. I can buy health care."
>Believe me, if you were a laid-off worker without health care, you would trade your gun and your moonflag for some decent, affordable medical care.
You might even accept slavery in trade for health care. Or the disruption of your family. Or a host of things. People have throughout history traded their rights for security.
No one says differently. We're just saying that while anyone can buy health care (it's a problem of income and prices), only the confident can put a man on the moon.
Shame we walked away from that because we're focused on aspirin.
Posted by: steve miller | March 4, 2003 6:16 AM
No, I would not trade my gun and my pride in the moonflag for decent, affordable healthcare. I have been a laid-off worker more than once. I found other ways to survive in this great nation. I am free! I will NOT give it up, not for health care, not for a guaranteed job, not for the sake of conformity. I am FREE! And it is that very freedom for everyone that has created the greatest economic engine and unheard of prosperity that ever graced this earth. You really believe I would give this up for health care?
Posted by: Jack Frost | March 7, 2003 4:43 AM
Mr. Whittle, I stand awed and humbled before a great writer. With your permission, I would like to print out your essays and let my children read them. My 19 year old is joining the Marines next week, and I'd like him to know what he will be fighting for.
I just found your site yesterday through Cold Fury, and between you and Mr. Den Beste, I could spend my entire day reading and educating myself. If I could write with a fraction of your talent and passion, I would give up my day job in a second and write for a living. God bless you, sir, and keep up the good work!!
Posted by: Steve Sledge | March 7, 2003 8:45 AM
Personnaly if I wanted to destroy Texas I would bomb it first...
Posted by: Frenchie | March 19, 2003 3:43 AM
Brillant. I will keep returning for more essays. Thank You Bill for writing what many of us have always wanted to say.
Posted by: crazyflannelhorselady | March 31, 2003 7:41 AM
You wrote: "The great failure and staggering tragedy of European Jews is that they could not accept that some of their neighbors were not as decent, humane and educated as they were...... A people of astonishing internal beauty simply could not look into the face of such ugliness without turning away. And now they are dead."
And I have to point out that you are not correct. It doesn't really negate your major point, but a respect for human freedom also demands that you do not stereotype large groups. European Jews are not all dead -- I'm pretty damned sure of it, seeing as some of them were my grandparents and I'm not typing this from the astral plane. Some of them, including my ancestors, realized what was happening in time to get out, anywhere from two generations to a year ahead of Kristallnacht. Some of them faced up to horror in the camps but also saw or remembered that little bit of beauty that inspired them to hang on. Some of them were rescued because in fact there were other decent people, all over Europe. (Read the wartime history of Denmark; I defy you to keep dry eyes.) And some of them, as you said yourself, rose up in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising -- those did die, but they died free.
Tragically, I also have to quibble, three months after you wrote this, with your claim that the US government trusts the people. America as a nation does, yes. I keep seeing more and more evidence in the news (i.e. the so-called Patriot Act) that the current regime does not. Though thankfully, things like the NW legislature's resolve not to follow that act restores my own faith in the freedom in our hearts.
Posted by: dichroic | April 2, 2003 8:19 AM
"And now they are dead."
. . . . Funny, I didn't see the words 'ALL dead.' You miss the salient point of just how much good WAS lost.
"Tragically, I also have to quibble, three months after you wrote this, with your claim that the US government trusts the people."
. . . . Trust is a two way street. Perhaps a more recent examination may be helpful:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/72986.htm
(and this from an ex-inner-circle Clintonite)
Posted by: freelance1 | April 13, 2003 7:13 PM
(Posted by: Bryant on December 26, 2002 02:11 PM)
DON'T THINK FOR A MINUTE WE INSULT ANY ARMED FORCES.
This experiment, as described by Bill is set in the HERE AND NOW, among CIVILIANS. I'm sorry to throw a bucket of water