Contact theSOPAbout theSOPSupport theSOPWritersEditorsManaging Editors
theSOP logo
Published:October 17th, 2009 19:05 EST
Guns. What would we do without them?

Guns. What would we do without them?

By Richard Taylor

Amendment Two
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 
    Guns. What would we do without them? I`ll tell you what we would do without them. We wouldn`t have banks, convenience stores, liquor stores, and every other imaginable place that has money being robbed and the owners shot because we say it`s in the constitution that we have the right to bear them. Futhermore, think of all the schools that have had tragic shotings commited on school grounds as well as all the teenage gang bangers running around shooting each other because, once again, the constitution says we have the right to bear arms. And then there`s the airports we have to try and keep them out of so some terrorist doesn`t kill a whole lot of of people by flying it into some building.

    Citizens of America, yes, that would be you, we are living in a dysfunctional world, because the powers that be have construed what the constitution meant when it said that we the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Our forefathers had quite a task when they wrote the constitution because it entailed them to see as far into the future as they could. But they couldn`t see as far as where we are today. Today it`s a money thing. We are all consumers in a consumer frenzy world. The people that manufacture weapons not only make them for the military, but for us consumers so we can go around shooting each other.

    Now we have to stop and think what were our forefathers thinking when they put it in the constitution that we have the right to bear arms? Let us focus on what is really said and what it means. I have it posted above so you can see as we go through it. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. Having evolved from then to now, that would be our police force and state troopers, right? And what they meant when they said the right of the people to keep and bear arms was because back then the militia they had wasn`t that well organized and they had to call on "we the people" to help them at times of unrest, and there was quite a lot of that back then, only the unrest then came from another country invading us, it wasn`t the criminal. So why do we have it now? Could it be because we have all of these guns and high tech weapons running around now that our own police force can`t even keep up with it? What our forefathers meant when they wrote it was that we the people were responsible to help the militia whenever they needed it in order to maintain the security of the state. But now we don`t need to. How many police officers expect a citizen to come running up brandishing a weapon to help them subdue a criminal? I`ll tell you what, if they saw you running up with a gun in your hand they`d probably shoot YOU! Here is a little more information to help you see how crazy it is now for society to keep and bear arms.

Disarm the Police

by Gary North
by Gary North  

I begin with an insight offered by Professor Carroll Quigley (1910 "1977), who taught history to Bill Clinton at Georgetown University. He had such a profound impact on Clinton that Clinton referred to him in his 1992 nomination acceptance speech. Quigley is famous among conservatives for his book, Tragedy and Hope (1966), in which he devoted 20 pages to the connections between Wall Street banking firms and American foreign policy, which has been dominated by the liberal left (pp. 950ff). But Quigley was also an expert in the history of weaponry. One of his books, Weapons Systems and Political Stability: A History, was printed directly from a typewritten manuscript and is known only to a handful of specialists, was a 1,000-page history of weaponry that ended with the Middle Ages. In Tragedy and Hope, he wrote about the relationship between amateur weapons and liberty. By amateur, he meant low cost. He meant, in the pejorative phrase of political statists, Saturday-night specials.


In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, a majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise. . . . But after 1800, guns became cheaper to obtain and easier to use. By 1840 a Colt revolver sold for $27 and a Springfield musket for not much more, and these were about as good weapons as anyone could get at that time. Thus, mass armies of citizens, equipped with these cheap and easily used weapons, began to replace armies of professional soldiers, beginning about 1800 in Europe and even earlier in America. At the same time, democratic government began to replace authoritarian governments (but chiefly in those areas where the cheap new weapons were available and local standards of living were high enough to allow people to obtain them).

According to Quigley, the eighteenth-century`s commitment to popular government was reinforced " indeed, made possible " by price-competitive guns that made the average colonial farmer a threat to a British regular. Paul Revere`s midnight warning, "The regulars are out!" would have had no purpose or effect had it not been that the "minute men" were armed and dangerous. With this in mind, let me present my thesis. THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FAR TOO WEAK The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution asserts the right the legal immunity from interference by the State of American citizens to keep and bear arms. This means a rifle strapped to my back and a pistol or two strapped to my hip, day or night.


It doesn`t go far enough. It leaves guns in the hands of a subculture that has proven itself too irresponsible to carry them: the police.

If I were called upon to write the constitution for a free country, meaning a country no larger than Iowa, I would require every citizen to be armed, except members of the police. A policeman would have to apply for an on-duty gun permit. He would not be allowed to carry a gun on duty, just like England`s bobbies are not allowed to carry them.

Every child, male and female, beginning no later than age six, would be trained by parents regarding the moral responsibility of every armed citizen to come to the aid of any policeman in trouble. Unarmed people deserve protection.

Children would be also taught that the first person to pull a gun to defend an unarmed policeman or any other unarmed person deserves the lion`s share of the credit. Late-comers would be regarded as barely more than onlookers. This is necessary to offset the "Kitty Genovese phenomenon." In 1964, this young woman was attacked and murdered in full view of 38 onlookers, in their Queens, New York, neighborhood. Despite her screams for help, no one even bothered to call the police. This is the "who goes first?" problem.

Anyone so foolish as to attack a policeman would be looking down the barrels of, say, a dozen handguns. "Go ahead, punk. Make our day!"

A policeman would gain obedience, like James Stewart in Destry Rides Again, through judicial empowerment. He would not threaten anyone with immediate violence. He would simply say, "Folks, I`ve got a problem here. This person is resisting arrest. Would three of you accompany me to the local station with this individual?"

He would blow his whistle, and a dozen sawed-off shotguns accompanied by people would be there within 60 seconds.

Every member of society would be trained from an early age to honor the law as an adult by being willing to carry a handgun. Everyone would see himself as a defender of the law and a peace-keeper. Guns would be universal. Every criminal would know that the man or woman next to him is armed and dangerous. He would be surrounded at all times by people who see their task as defending themselves and others against the likes of him.

The only person he could trust not to shoot him dead in his tracks for becoming an aggressor would be the policeman on the beat. The aggressor`s place of safety would be custody.

There would be another effect on social life. When every adult is armed, civility increases. In a world of armed David`s, Goliaths would learn to be civil. The words of Owen Wister`s Virginian, "Smile when you say that," would regain their original meaning.

The doctrine of citizen`s arrest would be inculcated in every child from age six. Then, at the coming of age, every new citizen would take a public vow to uphold the constitution. He or she would then be handed a certificate of citizenship, which would automatically entitle the bearer to carry an automatic. Note: I did not say semi-automatic.


In England, where the police have not carried guns for well over a century, violent crime remained low until the mid-twentieth century. This changed when the government began banning the private ownership of guns. This development is presented in full academic paraphernalia by Prof. Joyce Lee Malcolm in her book, Guns and Violence: The English Experience (Oxford University Press, 2002). Dr. David Gordon summarized her findings in a recent book review in The Mises Review.

She proceeds by a learned study of violent crime in England, from the Middle Ages to the present. In her survey, a constant theme emerges. As guns became more prevalent, violent crime decreased. This trend culminated in the nineteenth century, when death by murder was rare but guns were widespread. The seizure of guns during the twentieth century has been accompanied by a marked increase in violent crime. At present some types of violent crime are more common in England than in America. As usual, the statists have their facts exactly backward.

Professor Quigley would have understood the following bit of historical information.

Developments in the eighteenth century should by now come as no surprise. "[A]t the very time that the individual right to be armed was becoming well established and guns were replacing earlier weapons, the homicide rate continued its precipitous decline" (pp. 88 "89).

But Professor Quigley`s most famous student and his wife would not understand this:

Readers will not earn a reward for correctly guessing Malcolm`s conclusions about the nineteenth century. Once again, the number of guns increased while violent crime declined. "The nineteenth century ended with firearms plentifully available while rates of armed crime had been declining and were to reach a record low" (p. 130).


So far, we have a vast example of an inductive argument. Increases in the prevalence of guns have always accompanied decreases in violent crime. Does this not strongly suggest that guns in private hands deter crime? The twentieth century, especially its latter half, gives us a chance to test our induction, since ownership of guns during that period came under strict control. If it turns out that violent crime increased, then as Hume once remarked, "I need not complete the syllogism; you can draw the conclusion yourself."

And of course violent crime did increase. "Scholars of criminology have traced a long decline in interpersonal violence since the late Middle Ages until an abrupt and puzzling reversal occurred in the middle of the twentieth century . . . a statistical comparison of crime in England and Wales with crime in America, based on 1995 figures, discovered that for three categories of violent crimes " assaults, burglary, and robbery " the English are now at far greater risk than Americans" (pp. 164 "65).

Gun control advocates, faced with these facts, will at once begin to yammer uncontrollably, "a correlation is not a cause." Indeed it is not; but in this instance, a strong correlation holds in two ways: when guns increase in number, violent crimes decrease, and when guns decrease, violent crimes increase. Further, a plausible causal story explains the correlation: the prospect of armed resistance deters criminals. This is about as good as an inductive argument gets. But I do not anticipate that those who wish to take away the right to self-defense will alter their position. They aim to make everyone totally dependent on the all-powerful state.


Unarmed police, now fully deserving of protection by gun-bearing citizens, would gain immense respect. They would rule by the force of law, meaning respect for the law, meaning widespread voluntary submission by the citizenry. This is properly called self-government under lawful authority. The policeman`s word would be law. He just wouldn`t be armed. A criminal would not escape from the scene of the crime by shooting the cop on the beat. He would not get 20 yards from the cop`s body. Citizens would regard a law enforcement officer as they regard their mothers. They would do what they were told with little more than rolling their eyes. If anyone physically challenged a police officer, he would risk facing a dozen Clint Eastwoods who have been waiting for two decades to get an opportunity to make their day. To make this system work, the courts would have to enforce strict liability. Injure the wrong person, and (assuming you survive the shoot-out) you must pay double restitution. Kill the wrong person, and you must pay the ultimate restitution: eye for eye, life for life. But no faceless bureaucrat hired by the State would do the act. A group of armed citizens will execute you under the authority of the court. Remember, the police are unarmed.


The fact that citizens in no society think this way is evidence of how well the defenders of State monopoly power have done their work. They want their agents armed and the rest of us unarmed. A free society would reverse this arrangement.


There are those who will reply that my proposal is utopian, that civilians do not have sufficient courage to come to the aid of an unarmed policeman. Furthermore, they will complain, the common man is not sufficiently self-disciplined to live under the rule of law as I have described it. Both objections have validity. I can only respond by pointing out that a society in which its citizens possess neither courage nor self-discipline is not a free society. I am not here proposing a technical reform that will produce a free society. Rather, I am describing why freedom has departed from this nation ever since, for lack of a better date, 1788. August 18, 2003    
    Okay, so what I get out of this is that when the constitution was written it was meant that "we the people" were the militia. That everyone in our society was to be of such moral standards that we would come to the aid of anybody and give them assistance. But that was then, when moral standards were good. Today it`s everybody for themselves. As long as it`s not happening to them, who cares? But people, we have to learn again how to come and act together. That`s how we became America. 9/11 was a reminder. But I think we have evolved to a place where we don`t need weapons that will kill you. Weapons are for war, which is basically what the constitution was saying about the right to bear arms, because at that time we had just staved off attacks from England, and we wanted to keep our freedom. Everybody needed weapons then. But do we need them now?

    Is every citizen in the United States expected to have weapons just in case England decides to attack us again. Or Japan, China, Russia, or any other country for that matter, decides to attack us? Don`t we have our military? Isn`t that what we spend billions of dollars on and have the best war machine in the world for? To protect us so we don`t need to bear arms. People, I`m just as patriotic as you are, but don`t you think we need to re-think this? America is great. Let`s make her greater.

    How about this? Our forefathers weren`t thinking about protecting ourselves from the criminal element when they wrote it. Crime wasn`t even really an issue back then. They were thinking about protecting our freedom from an invading country at the time. America was an experiment, and still is. We`re evolving, and what comes with evolution? Change. So actually, being a conservative isn`t such a great thing, is it? You`ll always get what you`ve always got if you always do what you`ve always done. That equates to more killing on the streets and schools of America. Isn`t it time to evolve the experiment that we are? Or should we just stay the same, as long as it doesn`t happen to the conservatives.

    What do you think would happen if there weren`t any more guns? It says above that a society in which its citizens possess neither courage nor self-discipline is not a free society. Is this true? Have we descended from real freedom and just believe that we have it because our politicians would have us think that? Are our leaders` true leaders, or are they only fooling us? I can`t say because truth is only relative to what you believe. In the studies above, violent crimes decrease when weapons increase and the opposite happens when they decrease. But that is not happening in today`s America. The more weapons there are the more violent crime there are. And we have passed laws that make it hard for the true good citizen to have one, while the criminal goes out to the streets and can obtain one with no problem. So what would happen if there weren`t any at all. Shouldn`t we leave them to the military? They have done studies that show that gun violence can be likened to a disease. People that witness gun violence become infected and stand a very probable chance of committing the same act themselves. Let`s get rid of them.

    Technology has given us great non-lethal weapons. Why don`t we go that route? Stun guns and pepper spray could evolve as the weapons of choice. How many children could be killed at school with some maniac running around with a stun gun? None? And you could always stop being robbed with these alternate methods. Tazer International has created various non-lethal weapons that the average citizen can own for personal protection. Think of it. Killing can become a thing of the past. Now all we have to do is get rid of all the guns out there. So how do we do that? Maybe the government could offer a trade. Give us your guns and we`ll give you a tazer.

    So why do we have guns? I know there are going to be those hardcore`s that can`t think far enough to evolve and they will say "It`s in the constitution", but isn`t it time for us to grow up? The constitution was written a couple of hundred years ago and it`s been great. But let`s really take a look at it and amend the things that were written for those times. Let`s be wise in our choices like they were when they wrote it, and look ahead and make choices that fit. It`s the only way we`re going to survive.

    Let me remind you, there were other great civilizations in our past, but what happened to them? They probably didn`t take evolution into their thinking and somehow or other wiped themselves out. They became extinct. Is that what we want? It can certainly happen. We almost did it during the cold war. Look at how many other counties have nuclear capabilities now. Let us start now to re-think our future for our young. Maybe it`ll stop us from going extinct too. And it will probably take a couple of decades to get rid of them all. Do you think we could get everybody to turn them over to the military? They`re the ones who need them. I know there are going to be those that are going to call me a left-wing liberal, but I have evolved past that. I do not categorize myself, and we shouldn`t do it to each other. We are all people. Human beings. We all bleed the same, and we all die. But shouldn`t our deaths be from natural causes instead of dying because we were shot? Think about it. I`m in favor of evolution. Let us take that next step. Amen.