This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Freedom and Firearms A Speech by California
Senator Tom McClintock There is the 18th Century American view
propounded by our nation’s founders. They believed, and formed a government
based upon that belief, that each of us is endowed by our creator with certain
rights that cannot be alienated, and that governments are instituted to protect
those rights. This view is proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and
reflected in the American Bill of Rights.
The second view is 19th Century German in
origin and expressed in the philosophies of Marx and Hegel and Nietzsche. It is
a restatement of philosophies of absolutism that have plagued mankind for
millennia. In this view, rights come not from God, but from the state. What
rights you have are there because government has given them to you, all for the
greater good – defined, of course, by government.
In the 20 years I have been actively engaged in
public policy, I have seen the growing influence of this 19th Century German
view. It disdains the view of the American Founders. It rejects the notion of
inalienable rights endowed equally to every human being by the “laws of nature
and of nature’s God.” In this view, it is the state, and not the individual,
where rights are vested.
I mention this, because of a debate that
occurred last week on the floor of the State Senate. It was a debate that
occurred under the portrait of George Washington and the gold-emblazoned motto,
“Senatoris Est Civitatis Libertatum Tueri” – “The Senators protect the
Liberty of the Citizens.”
At issue was a measure, SB 52, which will
require a state-issued license to own a firearm for self-defense. To receive a
license, you would have to meet a series of tests, costs and standards set by
the state.
We have seen many bills considered and adopted
that would infringe upon the right of a free people to bear arms. But this was
the most brazen attempt in this legislature to claim that the very right of
self-defense is not an inalienable natural right at all, but is rather a right
that is licensed from government; a right that no longer belongs to you, but to
your betters, who will license you to exercise that right at their discretion.
During the debate on this measure, which passed
the Senate 25 to 15, I raised these issues. And I would like to quote to you the
response of Senator Sheila
Kuehl, to the approving nods of the Senators whose duty is to protect the
liberty of the citizens.
She said,
“There is only one constitutional right in
the United States which is absolute and that is your right to believe anything
you want.” I want to focus on that statement. “The only
constitutional right which is absolute is your right to believe anything you
want.” Now, compare that to the Declaration of
Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with
certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” What rights have a slave? There is only one: a
slave can think anything he wants: as long as he doesn’t utter it or act on it
– he may think what he wants. He has no right to the fruit of his labor; no
right to self-defense, no right to raise his children, no right to contract with
others for his betterment, no right to worship – except as his master allows.
He has only the right to his own thoughts. All other rights are at the
sufferance of his master – whether that master is a state or an owner.
Now, let us continue to look at this new
constitutional principle propounded by Senator Kuehl, under the portrait of
George Washington to the delight of her colleagues whose duty, according to the
proud words above them, is to “Protect the Liberty of the Citizens.”
She continued,
“Other than that, (the right to your own
thoughts) government has the ability to say on behalf of all the people – I
will put it in the colloquial way as my grandmother used to – your right to
swing your fist ends where my nose begins. It’s a balance of your rights and
my rights because we all have constitutional rights. And the question for
government is how do we balance those rights?” Indeed, the right to swing your fist does end
where my nose begins. An excellent analogy. Shall we therefore amputate your
fist so that you can never strike my nose? And would you deny me the use of my
own fist to protect my nose?
Senator Kuehl and her colleagues believe
government has the legitimate authority to do so. It is simply the question of
balancing.
It is very important that we understand
precisely what Senator Kuehl and the Left are saying.
A thief balances your right to your wallet
against his right to eat. A murderer balances your right to life against his
right to freedom. A master balances your right to “work and toil and make
bread,” against his right to eat it. These are matters of balance.
The American view is quite different. In the
view of the American Founders, the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God endow
each of us with rights that are inalienable, and we are each equal in those
rights. It is not a balancing act. These rights are absolute. They cannot be
alienated.
But in a state of nature, there are predators
who would deny us those rights. And thus we come together to preserve our
freedom. In the American view, the only legitimate exercise of force by one
person over another, or by one government over its people, is “to secure these
rights.”
Senator Kuehl continues,
“My right to defend myself in the home does
not extend to my owning a tank, though that would make sense to me, perhaps,
that no one would attack my home if I had a tank sitting in the living
room.” Let us put aside, for a moment, the obvious
fact that a tank is only an instrument of self-defense against a power that
employs a tank. But let us turn to the more reasonable side of her argument:
that rights can be constrained by government; that there is, after all, “no
right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. How can a right be absolute and
yet constrained by government?
To Senator Kuehl and the Left, the answer is
simply, “it’s easy -- whenever we say so.” Or, in her words, “government
has the ability to say (so) on behalf of all the people.”
The American Founders had a different view,
also, not surprisingly, diametrically opposed to Senator Kuehl’s way of
thinking.
The right is absolute. In a free nation,
government has no authority to forbid me from speaking because I might shout
“fire” in a crowded theater. Government has no authority to forbid me from
using my fist to defend myself because I might also use it to strike your nose.
And government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm because I
might shoot an innocent victim.
Government is there to assure that the full
force of the law can be brought against me if I discharge that right in a manner
that threatens the rights of others. It does not have the authority to deny me
those very rights for fear I might misuse them.
Senator Kuehl continues,
“In my opinion, this bill is one of those
balances. It does not say you cannot have a gun. It does not say you cannot
defend yourself. It says if you are going to be owning and handling and using
a dangerous item you need to know how to use it, and you need to prove that
you know how to use it by becoming licensed.” How reasonable. How reassuring. How despotic.
We must understand what they are arguing,
because it is chilling. They are arguing that any of our most precious rights
enshrined in the Bill of Rights – any at least they decide are conceivably
dangerous -- may only be extended through the license of the government.
If that is the case, they are not rights. With
that one despotic principle, you have just dissolved the foundation of the
entire Bill of Rights. You have created a society where your only right is to
your own thoughts.
Inalienable rights are now alienated to
government, and government may extend or refuse them upon its whim – or more
precisely, upon a balancing act to be decided by government. Let us follow –
in our minds at least – a little farther down this path.
Hate groups publish newsletters to disseminate
their hatred and racism. Sick individuals in our society act upon this hatred.
The Oklahoma City bombing killed a score of innocent children. Shouldn’t we
license printing presses and Internet sites to prevent the pathology of hate
from spreading? Such an act doesn’t say you cannot have a press. It does not
say you cannot express yourself. It says if you are going to be owning and
handling a printing press, you should know what not to say and prove that you
can restrain yourself by becoming licensed.
And what are we to do about rogue religions
like those that produced Heaven’s Gate and Jonestown. How many people around
the world are killed by acts of religious fanaticism every year? Should we not
license the legitimate churches? Such an act doesn’t say you cannot have a
church. It does not say you cannot worship. It says if you are going to be
running and conducting a church, that you must know how to worship and prove
that you know how by becoming licensed.
The only right you have is the right to believe
anything you want. The only right of a slave. The rest is negotiable – or to
use the new word, “balanceable.”
In 1838, a 29 year old Abraham Lincoln posed
the question for which he would ultimately give his life. Years later, he would
debate Stephen Douglas, who argued that freedom and slavery were a matter of
political balance. But in this speech, he spoke to the larger question that we
must now confront:
"Shall we expect some transatlantic
military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All
the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the
earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a
commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on
the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the
approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must
spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot,
we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must
live through all time, or die by suicide."
The American Founders worried about the same
thing. Late in life, Jefferson wrote to Adams,
"Yes we did create a near perfect union;
but will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the
memory of freedom. Material abundance is the surest path to destruction." And as I listened to Senator Kuehl proclaim
that “the only constitutional right in the United States which is absolute …
is your right to believe anything you want,” and as I gazed at the portrait of
George Washington, and as I thought about the solemn words, “the Senators
Protect the Liberty of the Citizens,” I couldn’t help but think of an aide
to George Washington by the name of James McHenry, who accompanied the General
as they departed Independence Hall the day the Constitution was born. He
recorded this encounter between Benjamin Franklin and a Mrs. Powell. She asked,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Answered
Dr. Franklin, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."
For this generation, that is no longer a
hypothetical question. History warns us that to one generation in five falls the
duty – the highest duty and the most difficult duty of this Republic – to
preserve the liberty of the citizens. It is the most difficult, because as
Lincoln warned, it is a threat that springs up not on a foreign shore where we
can see it – it springs up amongst us. It cannot be defeated by force of arms.
It must be defeated by reason.
Have you noticed yet, that ours is that
generation? And how ironic it would be that the freedoms won with the blood of
Washington’s troops, and defended by so many who followed, should be
voluntarily thrown away piece by piece by a generation that had become so dull
and careless and pampered and uncaring that it lost the memory of freedom.
The Athenian Democracy had a word for
“citizen” that survives in our language today. “Politikos.” Politician.
The Athenians believed that a free people who declare themselves citizens assume
a duty to declare themselves politicians at the same time. It is time we took
that responsibility very seriously.
In 1780, the tide had turned in the American
Revolution, and the Founders began to sense the freedom that was within sight.
John Adams wrote these words to his wife that spring. He said,
"The science of government it is my duty
to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and
administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in
a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may
have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study
mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture,
navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right
to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and
porcelain." Ladies and gentlemen, the debate is not about
guns. It is about freedom. And the wheel has come full circle. Our generation
must study politics that we may restore the liberty that our parents and
grandparents expect us to pass on to our children and grandchildren.
If we fail, what history will demand of our
children and grandchildren, in a society where their only right is to their own
thoughts, is simply unthinkable. And be assured, history will find it
unforgivable. A generation that is handed the most precious gift in all the
universe – freedom – and throws it away -- deserves to be reviled by every
generation that follows – and will be, even though the only right left to them
is their own thoughts.
But if we succeed in this struggle, we will
know the greatest joy of all – the joy of watching our grandchildren secure
with the blessings of liberty, studying arts and literature in a free nation and
under God’s grace, once again.
Ladies and Gentlemen, isn’t that worth
devoting the rest of our lives to achieve? |
||||||||
There
are two modern views of government that begin from entirely different premises.