An Axiom---The Right of Self Defense is Above All Precepts..
"..When are people morally justified in violating or resisting, by any and all appropriate means, the duly enacted laws of their country? When has the very government--and not just this or that particular law--become tyrannical and illegitimate? When are the people morally justified to take up arms against their government?...
"..The questions many of us are now asking regarding the limits of allegiance to the state are among the most difficult moral and philosophical questions man has asked, and admit to no easy or precise answer.
"Our own history and heritage, however, do provide forceful answers to our questions. And though we will see that it does not draw the bright line we seek to help us distinguish between tyranny and legitimate government, let alone set the trigger point for armed insurrection, perhaps we will yet find it offers us some instruction...
"Few political philosophers were as influential in shaping the American system of government as John Locke. In The Second Treatise on Government (1690), Locke defined tyranny as "..the exercise of power beyond right." Asking when the law might justly be opposed by force, he answered that ".. force is to be opposed to nothing, but to unjust and unlawful force; whoever makes any opposition in any other case, draws on himself a just condemnation both from God and man." [emphasis in original]. He further qualified this with the condition that force may justly be used to oppose the unlawful exercise of power only when there is no occasion for seeking a remedy through lawful means, for example, through the courts, or through petition of the legislature for redress of grievances... If, however, the same unlawful exercise of power also precludes or obstructs a remedy through lawful means, then the person subjected to such "manifest acts of tyranny" has the right to resist.
Yet, Locke points out, though persons in such circumstances have the right to resist, their exercise of that right will not "disturb the government" if the government's exercise of unlawful power be perceived by the people at large as merely affecting only "some men's private cases." Moreover, many who are subject to tyranny in such circumstances will not avail themselves of this right to resist, because it would be pointless or suicidal:
"For if [tyranny] reach no farther than some private men's cases, though they have a right to defend themselves, and to recover by force what by unlawful force is taken from them; yet the right to do so will not easily engage them in a contest, wherein they are sure to perish; it being as impossible for one, or a few oppressed men to disturb the government, where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it, as for a raving mad-man, or heady malcontent to overturn a well-settled state; the people being as little apt to follow one, as the other.[emphasis in original.]
Armed resistance becomes probable and the government becomes susceptible to overthrow and revolution only when "a long train of abuses" make the government's tyrannical design visible to the people at large.
"But if either these illegal acts have extended to the majority of the people; or if the mischief and oppression has lighted only on some few, but in such cases, as the precedent, and consequences seem to threaten all; and they are persuaded in their consciences that their laws, and with them their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too; if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected.."
From Locke, we might draw two important lessons regarding resistance to our government's exercise of power beyond the right of the people to keep and bear arms. First, though people be justified in resisting tyranny, they are justified in using force only in self-defense. Force may not be used aggressively, to coerce a change in the government or the law. Though Locke does not directly elaborate on the reason for this, we may.
Governments derive their just powers only form the consent of the governed. Consent ends where force begins. A change in the government or in the law effected by force---rather than the free consent of the governed--is forever illegitimate.
There are, of course, many non-violent means of resistance to unjust or immoral laws, from simple non-compliance to active violation. Our own history furnishes examples of these. Long before the Civil War brought an end to slavery, for example, a small but dedicated group of people ran an "underground railway" to free slaves, in manifest violation of the Fugitive Slave Act and various state laws. Rosa Parks did not wait for the government's permission to sit in the front of the bus. It behooves all who believe there is a higher authority than the state to contemplate their example.
Secondly, Locke teaches this: though we be morally justified in resistance to tyrannical laws in violation of the Second Amendment by non-compliance (i.e., refusal to register our firearms), active violation (i.e., underground manufacture and sale of prohibited magazines) or, ultimately, under circumstance in which lethal force would be justified solely in defense of our lives, by force of arms, yet as long as our resistance is perceived merely as the efforts of a group of hobbyists and sportsmen angered over the disruption of their fetish with guns--as our opponents consistently portray it--our government's exercise of power beyond its right--tyranny--will be seen to "reach no farther than some men's private cases," and will not "disturb the government." Though we may be morally justified in using force to defend ourselves against, for example, the government use of force of arms to confiscate our firearms, if the body of the people do not see themselves concerned in it, our resistance will be seen as no better than the actions of madmen or malcontents. Moreover, in such circumstances, few would be willing to have recourse to the right to resist, as they would merely be engaging in "a contest wherein [they were] sure to perish.".. If resistance to gun-control laws is based on guns, or the enjoyment of guns, rather than our inalienable right to life and the sovereignty of the people, if we are consistently perceived as concerned only that we be left undisturbed to enjoy target shooting, hunting or collecting fine firearms, if, in fact, that is all that we do care about, then resistance by an angry few will likely prove futile, and we will lose--not secure---the right to keep and bear arms.
".. The Declaration of Independence teaches us that resistance by the people to their government is not just, nor will it be justly waged, unless born of the commitment to govern themselves. We did not set out to punish or avenge, with force of arms, the misdeeds against us; we simply declared that we would now govern ourselves. To be sure, war would follow, for it was not to be expected that England would give up the colonies without a fight. Yet war was not our intent; our intent was to govern ourselves... [A]ny use of force of arms by England against us under pretense of lawful authority became a naked act of aggression, and our resistance to it became moral and just self defense... This is an important point, for there is much evidence that our predicament is in great measure due precisely to the American people's rejection of self government..."
Source: Excerpted from "The Line in the Sand" by Jeffrey R. Snyder, American Handgunner, March\April 1995.
------------------
John/az
"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
"..When are people morally justified in violating or resisting, by any and all appropriate means, the duly enacted laws of their country? When has the very government--and not just this or that particular law--become tyrannical and illegitimate? When are the people morally justified to take up arms against their government?...
"..The questions many of us are now asking regarding the limits of allegiance to the state are among the most difficult moral and philosophical questions man has asked, and admit to no easy or precise answer.
"Our own history and heritage, however, do provide forceful answers to our questions. And though we will see that it does not draw the bright line we seek to help us distinguish between tyranny and legitimate government, let alone set the trigger point for armed insurrection, perhaps we will yet find it offers us some instruction...
"Few political philosophers were as influential in shaping the American system of government as John Locke. In The Second Treatise on Government (1690), Locke defined tyranny as "..the exercise of power beyond right." Asking when the law might justly be opposed by force, he answered that ".. force is to be opposed to nothing, but to unjust and unlawful force; whoever makes any opposition in any other case, draws on himself a just condemnation both from God and man." [emphasis in original]. He further qualified this with the condition that force may justly be used to oppose the unlawful exercise of power only when there is no occasion for seeking a remedy through lawful means, for example, through the courts, or through petition of the legislature for redress of grievances... If, however, the same unlawful exercise of power also precludes or obstructs a remedy through lawful means, then the person subjected to such "manifest acts of tyranny" has the right to resist.
Yet, Locke points out, though persons in such circumstances have the right to resist, their exercise of that right will not "disturb the government" if the government's exercise of unlawful power be perceived by the people at large as merely affecting only "some men's private cases." Moreover, many who are subject to tyranny in such circumstances will not avail themselves of this right to resist, because it would be pointless or suicidal:
"For if [tyranny] reach no farther than some private men's cases, though they have a right to defend themselves, and to recover by force what by unlawful force is taken from them; yet the right to do so will not easily engage them in a contest, wherein they are sure to perish; it being as impossible for one, or a few oppressed men to disturb the government, where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it, as for a raving mad-man, or heady malcontent to overturn a well-settled state; the people being as little apt to follow one, as the other.[emphasis in original.]
Armed resistance becomes probable and the government becomes susceptible to overthrow and revolution only when "a long train of abuses" make the government's tyrannical design visible to the people at large.
"But if either these illegal acts have extended to the majority of the people; or if the mischief and oppression has lighted only on some few, but in such cases, as the precedent, and consequences seem to threaten all; and they are persuaded in their consciences that their laws, and with them their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too; if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected.."
From Locke, we might draw two important lessons regarding resistance to our government's exercise of power beyond the right of the people to keep and bear arms. First, though people be justified in resisting tyranny, they are justified in using force only in self-defense. Force may not be used aggressively, to coerce a change in the government or the law. Though Locke does not directly elaborate on the reason for this, we may.
Governments derive their just powers only form the consent of the governed. Consent ends where force begins. A change in the government or in the law effected by force---rather than the free consent of the governed--is forever illegitimate.
There are, of course, many non-violent means of resistance to unjust or immoral laws, from simple non-compliance to active violation. Our own history furnishes examples of these. Long before the Civil War brought an end to slavery, for example, a small but dedicated group of people ran an "underground railway" to free slaves, in manifest violation of the Fugitive Slave Act and various state laws. Rosa Parks did not wait for the government's permission to sit in the front of the bus. It behooves all who believe there is a higher authority than the state to contemplate their example.
Secondly, Locke teaches this: though we be morally justified in resistance to tyrannical laws in violation of the Second Amendment by non-compliance (i.e., refusal to register our firearms), active violation (i.e., underground manufacture and sale of prohibited magazines) or, ultimately, under circumstance in which lethal force would be justified solely in defense of our lives, by force of arms, yet as long as our resistance is perceived merely as the efforts of a group of hobbyists and sportsmen angered over the disruption of their fetish with guns--as our opponents consistently portray it--our government's exercise of power beyond its right--tyranny--will be seen to "reach no farther than some men's private cases," and will not "disturb the government." Though we may be morally justified in using force to defend ourselves against, for example, the government use of force of arms to confiscate our firearms, if the body of the people do not see themselves concerned in it, our resistance will be seen as no better than the actions of madmen or malcontents. Moreover, in such circumstances, few would be willing to have recourse to the right to resist, as they would merely be engaging in "a contest wherein [they were] sure to perish.".. If resistance to gun-control laws is based on guns, or the enjoyment of guns, rather than our inalienable right to life and the sovereignty of the people, if we are consistently perceived as concerned only that we be left undisturbed to enjoy target shooting, hunting or collecting fine firearms, if, in fact, that is all that we do care about, then resistance by an angry few will likely prove futile, and we will lose--not secure---the right to keep and bear arms.
".. The Declaration of Independence teaches us that resistance by the people to their government is not just, nor will it be justly waged, unless born of the commitment to govern themselves. We did not set out to punish or avenge, with force of arms, the misdeeds against us; we simply declared that we would now govern ourselves. To be sure, war would follow, for it was not to be expected that England would give up the colonies without a fight. Yet war was not our intent; our intent was to govern ourselves... [A]ny use of force of arms by England against us under pretense of lawful authority became a naked act of aggression, and our resistance to it became moral and just self defense... This is an important point, for there is much evidence that our predicament is in great measure due precisely to the American people's rejection of self government..."
Source: Excerpted from "The Line in the Sand" by Jeffrey R. Snyder, American Handgunner, March\April 1995.
------------------
John/az
"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."