By David Iwinski
America, with all her faults, flaws and weaknesses, is still a beacon to all the people of the world who desire freedom and liberty. It has also been, for much of the last 125 years, not only an outstanding example of political stability but also the one indispensable nation that others turn to in time of strife.
So, in what way is violent resistance against oppression a crucial part of the political system?
In America it is woven into our founding and our DNA. Violent and passionate resistance against oppression has been key to significant change throughout our history. From the early American revolutionaries to advocates for the abolishment of slavery to the women suffragists who chained themselves to federal buildings for the right to vote to civil rights advocates -- all, from time to time, have had to resort to violence against the system that was oppressive and would not recognize their legitimate rights.
From the conservative perspective, I would argue that not only is it a crucial part of the system but that, indeed, it is the very threat of the potential of such violence that prevents the surging and expansive power of government from going too far.
This is why the most crucial element of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment because it alone allows the individual to have that ability to resist tyranny should it arrive on our shores… or should it percolate from within. Thomas Jefferson brilliantly wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
He lay down a clear foundational principle that the people do possess the right to throw off the shackles of tyranny in whatever form they may occur. Those rights fail to have any value unless the people possess the means by which to defend against or abolish abusive governmental systems. Thus, the Second Amendment guaranteeing the people the right to keep and bear arms needs to be understood not as a simplistic trivial matter of hunting or protection from criminals, but as the ultimate guarantee of the option for violence in order to protect life and liberty against that most dangerous foe, an oppressive government.
When one thinks of the power of centralized government (unbalanced by the rights of the individual) we consider the millions slaughtered by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and a whole range of despots through history who have emerged to subjugate people and deny them their very life because the people had no ability to defend themselves. Armed citizens are extraordinarily difficult, maybe impossible, to fully subjugate.
The same lesson applied when the United States fought the Cold War to a victory by essentially having a modern and fully armed, trained military that would make any incursion by the then USSR at best mutually assured destruction and, most likely, the destruction and ultimate capitulation of the Soviets. So, whether it is King George in the 1700s or the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 20th century, it is an observable reality that those who seek liberty must often do so with either the reality or the threat of violence.
Of course, there are many in America who chant the refrain “it can’t happen here”. But when we combine the vision of a long hot summer of burning cities, violence against innocent civilians and police officers targeted, can we honestly say that violence has not already been brought into the political system? Further, the specter of open southern borders may not only disrupt the electoral system, but we currently have a president who has twice very publicly refused to disavow packing the Supreme Court and who has further organized a commission to study the idea.
Does this scare you? It scares the hell out of me, even more so because it is a fact that the last 20 years we have seen (from both political parties) an on-going expansion in government power, control and surveillance. For example, the Patriot Act has been continually expanded to redefine what activities can be considered possible domestic terrorism. If the electoral system is unreliable and turned upside down and the last vestige of protection from the Supreme Court has been stripped away by packing, we may have arrived at a place where, even in America, violence will become part of the equation.
Violence, in all forms, is regrettable and to be avoided whenever possible and should be used only when all other avenues of reform fail or are subjugated. At the same time, our constitutional right to bear arms is a key element and check to preventing those in power – including our government – from going too far in oppressing those they rule. As the history of our own country shows, the threat of violent resistance sometimes can serve as the catalyst by which peaceful and positive change can occur.
It is true that violent resistance against oppression is a crucial part of the political system but that maintaining the means to carry out such violent resistance may be our best hope of never having to resort to those terrible means.
Will Rogers opined that “Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.” I might suggest a corollary that “Peace - domestic and global - might best be secured by reminding those in power that they should continue to be a nice doggie lest they feel the rock.”