On the right to bear arms
How we drifted away from our social contract (and why we need to return to it!)
I just spent a fabulous few days back in Europe, for the joyful occasion of my youngest sister’s wedding. It was a complete blast, and nice to go back to my roots. One of the topics that came up more than a few times, was that of guns and gun ownership in the US. Spurred on, of course, by the latest shooting spree and massacre in an American High School, this time in Uvalde, Texas!
How is it possible that a so-called advanced and civilized nation like the US keeps allowing their own children to be slaughtered like that? People in Europe don’t understand, at all. And many Americans have doubts, as well. Don’t touch our children! Just as the overreach of the transgender ideologues in the lower grades of our schools created a bipartisan backlash of concerned and downright outraged parents, against the ‘groomers’, these shootings create a rather similar response. We cannot downplay that, and simply point at the 2nd amendment as if that is the only answer that is necessary.
Even that amendment can be repealed, it is not an absolute! And we shouldn’t treat it as such, either, especially when the attacks on that amendment are not about its legal validity, but about the moral validity of owning weapons.
Before you get upset, think about the whole abortion debate: it is NOT enough for pro-choices to point at the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade to silence criticisms about the morality of abortion. Yes, it is legally allowed, but NO, it shouldn’t be! And thus we diligently work to overthrow it, not just in the Supreme Court, but also, and more importantly, in the State Legislatures! This example isn’t perfect, but it shows how a law can be on the books, and legally valid, but still not be morally valid, and ought to be repealed/changed. The Second Amendment is not immune to that, so one cannot simply point at the legal validity of gun ownership, and act as if that is enough in light of the many different challenges that are brought up against it. IT IS NOT ENOUGH!
But allow me to expand here on my answer that I gave in those different conversations in Belgium.
I won’t talk about the mental health angle, even though I believe that this is the right one if you want to uncover the actual root cause of the explosion of school shootings in the US. The rest of the world, even where guns are also available, doesn’t really see that same problem (definitely not to the same extent). And where mass shootings occur that are not politically related (terrorism), the shooter almost always has very troubled backgrounds, and issues, and is on very specific medication (THAT seems the thread to follow if you want to make it out of the maze of issues surrounding this topic, if you ask me!). And think about this: not even that long ago, our parents or grandparents took their rifles to school for shooting classes! What has changed, since then? This is for another article, however, or for others who are more well versed on this topic.
And instead of joining in the endless back and forth, in good American fashion rather black or white by either resisting EVERY attempt to add ANY controls to the sale, purchase and ownership of guns, or else the push to take away ALL guns, completely, or instead of joining the tit-for-tat between those who fight with statistics that show that less guns shows less violence, only to be countered by other statistics that refute that (statistics can be massaged to prove anything, after all), allow me to take this a completely different way.
(For the record, there are very interesting statistics, but they are mostly irrelevant for my take here.)
As an archaeologist/historian, I noticed something rather interesting.
Looking at just about any culture or people, and in just about any time period, what is the one recurring sign of the mark of a free man?
The right to carry weapons.
Slaves, the unfree, the conditional workers, the subjugated, name it, were not allowed to openly carry or even possess weapons. The reasons are obvious: you don’t want to arm people who are not fully aligned with you, the ruling class/society/community. Simple as that.
Quick historical example: When the Spanish were in the Philippines, they banned the native martial arts. But while knives and swords can be banned, sticks are all around us. So the native Filipinos simply focused on continuing their training with sticks: Kali. On top of that, they incorporated many Kali-moves into their Moro-Moro dances.
The same happened in my own Flanders, in the 1600s. Owning swords (mostly rapiers or similar by then) was forbidden, so we made up dances with broom sticks, that simulated certain moves that are important when fencing, while maintaining the necessary agility and balance.
Within those communities, that right to have and carry weapons was often also conferred in what is in essence a coming-of-age ritual. It signified the transition of the boy into a man. From a dependent member of the clan, to a contributing member.
It shows that the groups accepts that person as responsible and free, with their own voice, and that person pledges in turn to come help defend the group in times of need. It is a mutual pledge, based on mutual trust.
In Medieval Flanders, the citizens of the cities very early on formed a new class of people, breaking the traditional three-tiered feudal system of farmers/workers, warriors and clergy. In several cases, families in the cities even became richer and more powerful than many in the nobility!
The citizens funded and trained their own militia, which acted in between simple ad-hoc conscripts and a professional army: the militia members had their own jobs (each guild would have their own militia, consisting of their own guild members). After their normal trades and crafts, they would train together in martial arts/weapons, to improve their individual skills, but also to practice as a unit, to sharpen their cohesion and movements when fighting together. Those citizen militias played a very important role in the Battle of the Golden Spurs, for example, where for the first time an army of knights (back then the professional soldiers and fighters) was defeated at the hands of an army of commoners. And not just any knights, but the very top of the French knighthood!
Similarly, in the early days of the Revolutionary war, it was such citizen militias that held the line long enough for the different States to come together, forge a union, gather support, and field a proper professional army to counter the mighty British Redcoats! Or before that, they defended against French troops, pirates, Indians, the Spanish,…
There are many links between an armed citizenry and freedom. Not all successful, but of those groups who did not have weapons, just about none were successful. And the few that were, hinged up the success of those groups to quickly find or capture sufficient weapons to arm themselves for the rest of their struggle for freedom.
Without weapons to protect it, freedom is impossible. Not in this world.
If you do look at the statistics, you will be pointed, for example, to the British, who virtually banned handguns. Yes, shootings went down. But knife massacres and attacks went up, as counter-statistics would show. And lately, gun crimes are up again, as well, as their own agencies admit. But the anti-gun side is quick to point out that such is only because the rest of Europe doesn’t have gun laws as strict and protective and efficient as the UK! So people can buy handguns in Europe, and smuggle them back into the UK! Not fair! (Notice that such is very similar to certain counterarguments here in the US, when it is pointed out that the cities with the worst gun crime, are those with the strictest gun laws -and just about always under decades long Democrat rule!).
But this only kicks the can down the road. Let’s say that the rest of Europe adopts the same gun laws as the UK. Then the handguns would be smuggled in from the rest of the world, and the criminals would continue using them against unarmed people, with an unarmed police force that needs to wait precious time until actually armed SWAT teams arrives. So now the whole world needs to adapt those very strict rules, basically banning handguns. Which will not happen, and if it does, people will illegally make their own handguns in black market factories. Or steal them from military bases.
Which then forces the debate into the military. But the only time we will be successful at disarming all armies, over the whole world, is when we will be beating swords into plowshares, at the end of time… So the question is, what do we do until that moment, in this fallen world, where violence, sadly, IS part of our reality?
Example: the London Bridge attack, where 3 Islamist terrorists ran their minivan into people on the sidewalk, exited their vehicle when it crashed and the tires blew out, and then went on a knife stabbing spree. In the process, they encountered several police officers, but as these London cops were unarmed, they were not able to stop those 3 terrorists, but got stabbed themselves, and put out of action (luckily, all 4 survived!). Only after 8 precious minutes did armed police show up, and within 20 seconds, all 3 terrorists were shot dead.
This shows that even if attackers have no access to guns, guns are STILL needed to STOP such killing and violence!
Knife killings are up, as are attacks using vehicles. Would banning knives and cars end the killing? While I understand that guns aren’t knifes or cars, with very different primary uses for knives and cars that are 100% peaceful, it shows that the principle of banning guns is only a stopgap measure, a Band-Aid, that doesn’t stop the violence and killing. An ineffective one, as well. Is that really where we should focus our attention? Only if you want to score quick and cheap political points, but not if you really want to help.
So, if you argue all this, your anti-gun opponent might concede that guns are needed to stop bad guys, both those with guns, as well as those without guns. But, they will object, that doesn’t mean that everyone should be allowed to have guns! Only the police should be trusted with them! We all heard this argument made.
But it is wrong, as well, for several reasons. First of all, it assumes that individual people cannot be trusted, but that the police [or the government, by extension] can be trusted blindly. I have a problem with that. Not that ALL people can be trusted, let alone blindly, nor that no police or no government can ever be trusted. No, there are good and trustworthy individuals among the general public, as well as among the police/government, and we all know there are very bad apples in both groups as well.
Shutting out good people, a priori, isn’t just wrong on that basic assumption (I don’t want to live in a world where I, as a normal citizen, am not trusted at all, so where all power and leadership is given to the government/police to implement the necessary controls to monitor those untrustworthy citizens!), but the facts bear out that this is wrong.
How many times has a bad guy not been stopped by a single good guy or gal with a gun? We will never know the full number of lives saved that way, and since there was no eye-catching massacre, it doesn’t make the world news, and it won’t become part of our collective memory the same way those most horrific killings do, like the shooting in Uvalde.
Just very recently, a killer started shooting (with an AR-15, too!) into a crowd at a graduation party in Charlestown, West Virginia, firing multiple shots, hitting or killing not a single person. A woman who was nearby, heard and saw the shooting, circled back, and instead of running, moved towards the shooter and killed him with a few well-aimed shots, saving countless lives, including many children who were present. What if that man had left his car, and started to close in on his victims, for example? Too horrific to consider.
Or the churchgoer in Texas who shot an attacker who had entered his church, with 240 people present, and started shooting? 2 people got killed, sadly, but the local man calmly aimed, waited to get a clear shot as he didn’t want to hit a bystander, and with a single head-shot killed the attacker… Can you imagine if no one was armed, and that attacker had free reign to keep shooting? Many, many lives were saved, by a single good guy with a weapon (and obvious training to pull off such a shot!)
Or the small girl, 11 years old, who grabbed a gun, and shot a cougar that was stalking her 13 year old brother… It isn’t just about ‘bad guys’, either.
So, we CAN trust normal citizens. What about the police?
In Uvalde, they told parents and even federal officers to stand down, for almost an hour. Handcuffed people who tried to disobey them. Was that simply police following misguided orders and wrong training? Perhaps.
But what about bad cops who abuse their power and weapon, to kill and/or abuse people under their care? That happens, too. Ask Paul Manafort, who was arrested during an early morning no-knock raid at his own home, by armed FBI-agents, or Roger Stones who had the same happen to him, where his wife was kept standing in a corner, not allowed to answer the multiple phone calls from worried family members…
Or those who got murdered by crooked cops, who then frame innocent people for their own crimes?
No, that argument doesn’t hold water, either.
Even worse, police is not obligated to protect anyone. There is ample case law, on federal level and even in the Supreme Court, that attests to that, as this law firm explicitly states in an article on their website. From that article:
"In the 1989 landmark case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the Supreme Court ruled[…] that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person: “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors," stated Chief Justice Rehnquist for the majority, "even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual" without “due process of the law.”
The article continues:
“The DeShaney decision has been cited by many courts across the nation and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Namely—on June 27, 2005, in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the U.S. Supreme Court again ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.”
This goes against our instinctive understanding of the rule of law, and the role of the police.
That brings me to my main argument.
I don’t need to refer to complicated statistics, or messy situations, or emotional appeals.
The right to own and carry arms is the ultimate mark of a free man. It prevents governments from coming down heavy-handed, as they need to take into consideration the ability of the people to defend themselves from unjust decisions and actions, and to band together, even, to that effect.
It is as simple as that.
It shows a mutual trust and commitment between the citizen and the society he or she is in, which is the only healthy environment in which to build a respectful and efficient and good government.
The last thing to talk about, is this:
At some point in time, in the West (read, Europe), we, the citizens, gave up our right to bear arms and gave the state the monopoly on the use of violence, internationally with armies, and domestically through the police. But this was not done without thought, but was part of a social contract. We, the people, give up our arms and use of violence, and give that monopoly to the state. And the state, in turn, will use that to protect us in a more efficient and equitable and just and fair way.
That was the idea.
In the US, however, the reality of life in the ‘Wild West’, or even as a colonist in those early years, necessitated the possession and use of guns, even in open, public life in the small villages in the woods or the wilderness. But gradually, guns were banned from public life, as well, following the same Western/European thinking. People shouldn’t take the law in their own hands, but leave that to the police. That is what civilized societies do. (Which isn’t wrong!) But with that correct consideration came the increasing attempt not only to counter vigilantism, but to restrict and limit and even ban guns. Every gun.
(And speaking of US history, the counter that the 2nd amendment was written at a time of muskets, and that thus new, much more deadly guns are not covered, is simply laughable. The 1st amendment was written in a time of feather pens, parchment and horseback courier, and modern laptops and the internet make the written word much more powerful and immediate! Still, the right to free speech remains unaltered by that technological leap forward, as does the right to bear arms.)
But now we see that this social contract is no longer the case. The state is not able to protect us, and not even willing. It doesn’t consider itself bound to do so!
Which brings up this very simple question: if the state breaks this social contract, how do we, the people, take back that monopoly, so we can defend ourselves properly? Even against that state?
The answer is simple, too: we don’t ask the government, as they are derelict in their duty, and given that they broke the contract with us, law-abiding people.
Notice, very importantly, that I am NOT calling to break the law, and to defy the government/the police, nor to turn your weapons against them! Far from it!
We TELL them, in the first place. We need to remind the government, AND our fellow citizens, of this idea of the social contract, and how it has been broken. Also, don’t forget that the Supreme Court is to rule on a very important matter regarding the 2nd amendment! If the analysis of several people is right (the article by SLAG on his substack is a MUST READ!), they WILL restore our rights.
So while the Supreme Court doesn’t hold the government/police bound to protect us, they DO seem to recognize our right to defend ourselves. The social contract I spoke about is, after all, not an actual law, and thus not enforceable in a court. What the courts CAN enforce, is the laws already on the books, in this case, the 2nd amendment. If the state refuses to protect us, but allows us the means to defend ourselves, the social contract is simply voided, and our rights given back to what it was before.
It is clear: taking away guns is NOT about protecting people, it is about taking away freedom. Moreover, as many people miss: it is about a deep distrust of people.
The real problem of those school shootings and killings is something else, but those shootings, tragic as they are, are used to force rules taking away the means to protect our freedoms.
In this world, perfection is unattainable. But perfection isn’t the goal, either. We need to find the right balance between the rights and responsibilities of all involved.
As a disclaimer, I am NOT supporting the NRA: they are a lobby that needs to justify their own existence. Their efforts to stop any and all update on gun laws is counter-productive (or the perception that this is what they do), as is the knee-jerk leftist demand to ban all guns, even when they try to hide that intent.
Let’s begin with enforcing the laws on the books. The shooter at Uvalde was legally not allowed to have access to guns, and several other very important red flags were ignored. (Plus serious problems with police action/procedures, as well, not to speak of strange coincidences such as the brand new car, access to a weapon and ammo of the shooter, a normally locked door that was open at the exact wrong time, etc. Might be nothing, but the impending SCOTUS ruling makes me suspicious: the cabal has shown such a complete disregard for life and our well-being, that I hold them capable of such murderous tactics in an attempt to sway the public opinion. That is what cognitive war is all about, and an emotional event such as killed children is a very powerful persuader! But without proof, this remains a suspicion only. The fact that the likes of Trudeau are jumping on the Uvalde shooting to ban handguns in Canada, only strengthens my suspicion.)
And where the government openly admits that it is not THEIR responsibility to defend the people, we need to realize, and the government needs to allow, that such responsibility rests in OUR hands.
That is a very serious responsibility, and cannot be given without proper protections and guidelines: this we need to understand. Rules limiting people with mental issues, or depression, or any other red flag, are only common sense (however uncommon such common sense appears to be), as are rules regarding training and safety knowledge.
And we need to keep in mind that personal freedom isn’t absolute, either. It ends where the freedom of others begin. That balance is not always easy to find, but it is imperative we at least try.
I hope this article can help many to frame their thinking and discussions in a good way, steering away from the distracting pitfalls of emotion and statistics. Let’s get down to the core of this issue.
Weapons serve to defend our lives and our freedom. Indeed, they are also used to take away exactly that: our lives, our property (our means) and our freedom. But since the beginning of time, the most successful response to such attempts to take any of that away from people, has been to arm themselves. Never to disarm themselves.
That is a risk, as history shows: weapons are dangerous, after all, and never purely ‘defensive’. They can be used for offense in the blink of an eye, as the wielder decides.
But the core remains: without them, we are at the mercy of those who don’t care about us. And that risk of abuse? As with so many other things in life, worth to take, if you see the countless lives that are being saved, as well.
The founding fathers understood it right, to amend their declaration of independence, first with the right of free speech which guarantees the downtrodden a voice, and next with the right that would defend that first right. Not just against tyrants abroad, but also on small scale against those who’d silence you, by taking, or by threatening to take, your life, your means, or your freedoms.
All is well.