I read the Texan's view of the future and the two rebuttals^{1, 2}. I respect the options the two others suggested, but I believe they have missed the point. Certainly, we should work within the system to elect responsive legislators, work to educate other Americans on the practical reasons for our cause, and to remind them of the philosophical foundations that support them. Like our ancestors, we should make every effort to resolve the issues before us without recourse to violence, without starting us down the road to a revolution, or a restoration, in this case. I am not ready to take to the hills yet, but I must tell you that I think the first article is more likely than the latter two. Here is why.

For 50 or 60 years, the Congress, the Courts, the Media, and the intelligentsia of this country have systematically worked to weaken and destroy the Second Amendment. It has not always been by direct assault. Instead, by questionable law, by executive decision, by thousands of local actions by cities and states, the right recognized by the Constitution has been eroded. It has all been done in the name of safety and reasonable action. It has been promoted as the next step of a civilized society, as the ultimate cure for all our ills, for the safety of the children or a hundred other reasons, but the end result is a successful effort to place gun owners on the constant defensive. It is working.

We shooters are not quite able to fathom this approach. Most of us I have met are straightforward, honest and law abiding individuals. We do not play the political games well. To us, the constant misuse of the language, the constant assault on our rights and our beliefs must be the result of some misunderstanding on the part of our opponents. "If only they could see....." Well, see what? See that guns insure safety of the individual and the state? See that without the guns, citizenship exists at the whim of the state? See that we are not the problem, but that criminal misuse is? I have news for all of you: they already know that. They are playing a different game, and it is one that we have let them define the rules to their total advantage.

How have they accomplished this slight of hand? It goes like this. They propose a law limiting our right to own a gun, or use it, or carry it, and they justify it by trying to frame the discussion in terms of what is good. We fight it, but we are branded as extremists, unwilling to give a little for the greater good, and for holding on to long gone concepts no longer needed in the modern world. We, not wanting to stand in the way of progress or safety, finally agree to give just a little. The other side, seeing we have no backbone, immediately use the new law to define a higher baseline of what is acceptable, and they immediately begin the same campaign using new lies, new attacks and new reasons why we just have to give a little more. The shooters, who can not understand why they are being vilified, give in again, assuming that really, this time will be the last. It isn't, and it won't be. The reason why is the other side has never, ever, once believed that we will ever use the Second Amendment as it was intended.

The cruel fact is we do not present a credible threat to them. They know how to play their game, and they are so certain of it that they cannot even conceive we are serious. And why should they? Have we ever once forced the issue? Have we ever drawn that line and then resisted with massive civil disobedience or force? Have we ever once been able to marshal the kind of demonstration that the Million Man March or the great Civil Rights marches did? No, not once, not ever. If we cannot get more than a few of the 83,000,000 gun owners to stand up for the Right, why should we expect the other side to fear us? To them, we are nothing but paper patriots, all talk, and no courage of our convictions.

Now, a reasonable man would ask if this is the time to draw the line? Is this the time to go to the hills? Exactly when do we admit the political situation is so far gone that we are left with the admonitions of Jefferson and Lee and Henry to do what is required of free men who wish to retain their liberty? Do we fight now or wait until we are on the trains going to the camps? I bear no illusions about the cost of this action. It will lead to a bloody civil war. However, for all of you who think these calls are radical and should be dismissed out of hand, I suggest you go to a history book and read the last 5 minutes of Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" speech. It seems to me we are at the same place now.

We, by refusing to stand tall and strong in the beginning, by refusing to make the philosophical case for our position, by constantly compromising rights to gain a temporary political advantage, by thinking it is just fine for the NRA to give in on fundamentals in the hope that the other side will leave us a few crumbs, have given the other side all the ammo they need to keep on taking our liberty. Now, we have put ourselves in the position of having to draw that line with damned little room for maneuvering.

Here is my suggestion to you all. Work within the system with all your might as the others suggested. Once violence starts, it will be a terrible thing, and difficult, if not impossible to control. We had better be sure we have the right on our side and the will to prevail.

On the other hand, I suggest now is the time for all of us to start telling our gun control friends that this is an issue we will not compromise on any more. Here is what I have started to do. I do not argue with my liberal friends about gun control. I do not try to change their minds, I do not lecture them about the historical perspectives on the Second or the dangers of the power of the state. I do not mention Lott or a thousand other sources that speak so eloquently of the practical reasons to be armed. I do not try to explain the feeling of freedom that comes from the acceptance of my position as a citizen with the right and obligation to defend myself or our liberty. Instead, I ask them politely and calmly the following question: "Is gun control an issue you are willing to die for? Does this mean so much to you that you would give your life to make it so?"

I then explain that to the us, the Second Amendment is the keystone of the Constitution. It is the most important right to us. It guarantees all of the others. It is to us what the First of the Fifth is to them. I tell them in a cold, sober tone, that we have been backed into a corner by their side, and that is always dangerous to do. I tell them that by never once considering, much less acknowledging, the validity of our views, they have waged a war on our liberty that has forced us to consider an option that none of us would have thought possible just 5 years ago.

I tell them that just as no Black man would ever go back to segregation, just as no American would give up freedom of speech, that just as none of us would stand by and let the government herd the Jews to another holocaust, so will we never, ever give in on the Second. I tell them that we are at fault for never making this clear to them. I explain that while you may think this is something of little importance, it is the one issue that can, and will, lead to a revolution in this country. Not one other issue on the political scene has the power to do this.

I conclude by telling them, as calmly and rationally as I can, that I do not want war, I do not want to kill anyone; I simply want to be left alone to live my life as a free American. However, I know my duty to my ancestors, who fought at Bunker Hill, to my children, who are counting on me to preserve their liberty until it is their turn, and to every American who values our liberty today, and if they persist in attacking a basic human right, they can, and should, expect us to fight back.

They inevitably respond that "You can't really expect to stand up to the army or the police." I then give them this example: Last year, about 20,000,000 Americans bought some type of hunting license. Toss out half of them as duplicates, kids, guys who enjoy the field but don't care if they shoot or not, and the like. That leaves 10,000,000. Assume just 10% are deadly serious about this. That leaves one million, well armed, skilled Americans who are not going to sit back while the anti's take their freedom. Imagine a guerrilla war with one million Americans doing nothing more than resisting an assault on their basic rights? It would be unwinnable without the imposition of a total police sate, and that is something even the anti's should fear.

Even one hundred thousand Americans, willing to pay the price and to fight back, would be enough to make this a reality. Selectively fighting back against those who take your liberty makes a lot more sense that blowing up innocent Americans. Targeting those who would enslave you makes them personally liable for their actions against us. Remember, they will paint us as terrorists, but in this case, we are doing nothing more than resisting the kind of tyranny that would have long ago prompted our ancestors to act. The issue here is whether we really have that resolve. I believe we do, but we have never made that clear to the other side.

I have no problem with anyone exercising their First Amendment right to speak against gun ownership, to lobby for passive acquiescence to crime or tyranny just so long as they never, ever attempt to make their personal views into laws that affect the rest of us. So, as the first Texan said, until the other side begins to fear that their actions will bear serious personal consequences to them, they are unlikely to change. Until the other side really believes that we are serious, and capable of action to defend our liberties, don't count on any work we do within the system to have any real hope of changing the situation.

So, write those congressmen, give to the NRA, JPFO, GOA and the lot [including KABA], spread the word on the net, take a non shooter to the range, educate yourself, and spread the word, but make damned sure you never leave a single iota of doubt in the mind of the anti's that when push comes to shove, you will fight. Don't be radical, don't scream and shout, don't insult them, don't play into the stereotypical gun nut they think you are, just make the cold, sober, determined statement that the Second means what it says, and that you are willing to die to keep it. Ask them if they feel the same way. Ask them every time, and don't let them avoid the answer.

Oh, and one more thing..... have you all noticed the change in the attitudes expressed in pages like these? Two or three years ago, an article like mine, or the Texan's, would never have been written, much less discussed, except in the fringe elements. Now, we see them everywhere. We see serious, mainstream Americans considering, for the first time in 150 years, whether the contract that binds the government to us is still valid. We read once again Jefferson's words in the Declaration and ask whether they are still valid and meaningful. If they are, then we are nearing a time when we will either act or become subjects, not citizens.

I travel in my job, and I hear things like this all the time. There is a deep unrest building in this country, and when the anti's either refuse to consider it as serious thinking by concerned citizens, or when they disregard the concern we have about the ever increasing attacks on our liberties, then we are in real danger of stumbling into war. Now is the time for each of us to make the determined effort to tell the other side in no uncertain terms that a continuation of this course can, and will most certainly, lead to a future where violence in defense of liberty is not only unavoidable, but required.

Scott Harmon