The second chapter in our Conservative Debate Handbook, linked below, offers a complex of arguments specific to the case for a well-armed American citizenry. The Chapter, as originally posted on the internet in March, 1999, remains both completely relevant & more than adequate to refute every current opposing argument. Yet political, social & demographic changes in America over the past 14 years provide a new urgency that the weapon access issue be seen in the fuller context of the ethnic history, function & purpose of the American experience; that we more closely relate the role of an armed American citizenry, to the more general "missing link," discussed in our January feature.
In the Handbook Chapter, The Right & Duty To Keep & Bear Arms, we focus directly on ongoing issues involving the right & duty of citizens to possess firearms. While the reader should be familiar with the basic argument, it is well that the controversy be seen in the fuller context of the specific cultural heritage, reflected in the Declaration of Independence & Federal Constitution, and in the historic pursuits & purpose of those involved in securing American independence, and in formulating the social & political institutions, which followed that achievement. In this, both that direct focus, as well as a clear understanding of the broader perspective of a particular people (the often overlooked--or missing--link to clear vision of a future consistent with a multi-generational purpose) are essential to presenting the most compelling argument.
That the link to historic function & purpose, may be largely "missing" today, reflects the effort of those promoting internationalist & collectivist egalitarian projects to instill the fantasy that peoples are interchangeable; that, culture determines personality & ideology. But the reality is that people create cultures, not cultures people; that any nation's culture reflects the interactive personality of its members. The social mores, or belief system of any people, reflects the aggregate effect of social interaction among such folk, and in the process provides a vehicle for the continuity of all that is unique to their culture. (To understand the shallow, but destructive arguments, which have undermined the multi-generational purpose, unique to each nation, review Myths & Myth Makers In American "Higher" Education.)
In the linked Chapter on Arms, we discuss specific views of specific Founding Fathers on firearms issues. Here, we urge a closer look at the full context of those views: The highly intelligent heirs of a settler people, the rugged individualists who had the mettle to cross the ocean by choice, under often harsh conditions, to build completely new communities from the ground up; communities reflecting the Anglo-Saxon & Celtic cultures in which their forebears had grown; the spokesmen, on this, the most adaptable among them. But note the superior understanding of social interaction, which came naturally to such men:
While the Leftist response to angry & sociopathic young men is to propose disarming all of us, including the law abiding & socially responsible--thus demeaning & humiliating all of us--effectively "throwing out the baby with the bath water"; a denial of self-reliance, self-defense & individual responsibility; a course not only inimical to personal freedom & security, but hardly calculated to produce anything socially constructive; George Washington proposed the Swiss system, which has given that people the moral climate most conducive to both freedom & security, in Europe. And in doing so, he discussed some of the obvious benefits. This is part of our heritage; yet we have scarcely heard any reference to Washington's comments, either on the benefits of an armed citizenry to the preservation of his achievements in the War for Independence; or on the benefits to the teenaged male, arising from a sense of duty, personal & moral responsibility & accountability, inherent in being a trusted, functional & essential part of the security of a free community.
It should be further noted that throughout American history, personal involvement has been an accepted attribute of citizenry; that the personally involved private citizen can play a significant role in law enforcement. This includes both the duty to aid those professionally so engaged, when called upon--as in the formation of Posses, for example;--yet it also includes the time honored "citizen's arrest," for the prevention of felonies & the control of felons. Obviously, such behavior can only be severely limited by disarming the conscientious citizen!
While the present Administration ignores both Washington's wise counsel & his clear understanding of male psychology, President Obama's Secretary of Defense, denies both the role of Congress, the Chivalric Code & all human experience in a bizarre January order for all branches of the Armed Forces to place women in combat units by 2016. Will further eroding a sense of male responsibility serve any constructive purpose, in dealing with any contemporary problem? Will trashing what have always been constructive male roles--the responsibility of young men to defend their society--contribute anything positive toward dealing with the rash of atrocities committed by mentally deranged, but obviously enraged, young males--whether by firearms or explosives? Are not these tragic instances, in virtually every case, the work of youth with no sense of constructive purpose in their lives? Is there any conceivable deterrence from such acts, in dampening the sense of moral responsibility among those who go to school with them; or live in their neighborhood? In short, is there anything to be gained, either in protecting the innocent from mental cases, or protecting liberty & public order, in the society at large, from obliterating the primeval sense that it is the moral responsibility of young men to protect women & children? Anything?!
Or consider the "flip-side" of the confusion of sex-roles in the military? Is there any benefit, from the standpoint of either military strength, preventing rage driven mass killings, or preserving our heritage, in pretending that the sexes are interchangeable in combat? Throughout the ages, traditional sex-roles have been as important to a sense of personal & moral responsibility among young women, as among young men. (For a critical look at Feminism, Contrived Delusion.) This is not in anyway to imply that women lack courage. Feminism is not directed at celebrating femininity in any form. It is actually the ultimate denigration of femininity. The strongest reason for rejecting the concept of women in combat, is precisely the reason that the idea is being promoted. It is intended as an attack on normal sexuality, on the fundamental importance of sex & sex-roles.
What is really in play here? The rejection of common sense, as well as the wisdom of Washington & the realities of nature, are all attributes of an Egalitarian attack upon cultural continuity in an American future. Those Conservatives who believe that this will go away, if they continue to ignore it, must open their eyes. We are on the cusp of losing everything of true moral value. Only social chaos will follow.