Can You Defend Your Rights?

Max Nelsen
Whitworth

Now that the 2010 congressional elections are over, commentators are buzzing about what the results will mean for the future. However, I think it is important to pause and take a look at some of the key issues that surfaced during the last campaign cycle. In particular, several candidates supported by the conservative Tea Party movement brought up issues that are rarely discussed in modern politics. Unfortunately, many were successfully branded by their opponents and the media as too extreme, though I would argue that some of their views were perfectly valid.
One of these individuals was Republican Sharron Angle of Nevada. Angle had the backing of the Tea Party movement but lost her bid to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. Angle made many highly controversial statements during the course of the campaign, but I would like to take a closer look at her views on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which delineates "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Angle was quoted by Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent as stating that the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment "for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government." Angle quoted Thomas Jefferson for support and went on to say that people were starting to consider "Second Amendment remedies" as a way to respond to an out-of-touch government.
Angle was immediately and passionately condemned for her statements. Without offering any rebuttal, Democrat David Philips, writing for Examiner.com, called Angle an "extremist" and relegated her views to the "fringe." Somewhat lacking in originality, The Huffington Post also called Angle "extreme" and her comments "outlandish." It is quite likely that Angle's statements and the media response contributed in some way to her loss to Harry Reid.
Without defending Angle as a candidate, I believe that her views on the Second Amendment are not as unreasonable as they may sound. While some today perceive the Second Amendment as protecting only minimal gun rights, such as recreational shooting and hunting, it is undeniable that the Founding Fathers had far broader intentions.
I will not dwell on the fact that the Founders meant for the Second Amendment to apply to individuals; I believe there is credible evidence enough to support that. Beyond that, however, I would argue that one of the fundamental purposes of the Second Amendment was to provide the citizens with a defense against tyrannical government. All of the following references come from the James Madison Research Library and Information Center.
For instance, Samuel Adams said, "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Does Adams envision patriots experienced with pitchforks defending their freedom? Not likely.
Thomas Jefferson takes it a step further: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thus, individual citizens should not only defend their freedom, but they should do so with firearms.
But it doesn't stop here. In Alexander Hamilton's opinion: "…if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights."
Along similar lines, Noah Webster said, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
Both Hamilton and Webster are essentially stating that, in order to defend their freedom, the citizens not only need to be armed, but need to be "little if at all inferior" to the military. By no means am I arguing that every home in America needs to have a tank in the driveway. However, this is a clear indication that at least some of the Founders believed that citizens should be able to possess military-grade small arms. True, these are beyond what is needed for hunting and recreational use, but that was not the point. The point was to allow the citizens to provide a last-resort check on government power if needed, and the prospect of a citizenry armed with now-vilified "assault weapons" provided such a check.
In this light, candidate Sharron Angle's views shouldn't seem quite so extreme. At any rate, her views are not incompatible with those of the Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, instead of initiating a debate about the proper role of an armed citizenry and the nature of the Second Amendment, Angle's comments were dismissed out of hand. This should cause us great concern. Indeed, I think the question needs to be asked: do Americans any longer "stand ready to defend their rights?"

Contact Max Nelsen at max.nelsen@whitworthian.com.