Semantics and the American Lifestyle - By Burt Liebert
Americans have an interesting take on their language. For example, they define “a well-organized militia” as anyone who owns a Saturday night special. They quote a “Second Amendment” that was put into the Constitution because a few years ago a group of ordinary citizens, armed only with ball-and-powder single-shot muskets, faced down a contingent of British regulars and eventually chased them off the North American continent.
This was possible for a variety of reasons, but certainly one of those reasons is that the British weapons were little better than those of the Colonists. Today, when the enemy comes, with their atom bombs, jet planes, and intercontinental ballistic missiles, you and I, as part of that well-organized militia, will sit on our front porches, with those same Saturday night specials, and hold them off.
Or are we still afraid of Indian massacres? Let me assure all you frontiersmen out there that today’s Indians have no interest in raiding our settlements. They’re having too much fun taking our money in the casinos.
But don’t we have a right to defend home and hearth from lawless elements within our midst? So how many times have you read about, heard about, or otherwise learned about law-abiding citizens actually defending their home and hearth with a gun? Give an example. Compare this with 1,417,745 violent crimes, including 17,034 murders reported in this country in 2006, the last year for which numbers are available.
Most important, how does one use a gun to defend against the BIG TIME criminals in our society? How about lenders who entice their victims to put down money in the belief they are buying a home, then taking that home away from them by
raising interest rates? How does a gun defend against oil companies that are using war as an excuse to earn record profits by gouging us at the pump? And how do we use a gun to defend our children and our grandchildren against the devastating effects of global warming?
Perhaps we need a new take, not only on our language, but on who are the real enemies and where are the real sources of danger.
Burt Liebert
February 2009
Filed under: Discussion
Response from Francis Mortyn:
Burt Liebert’s article on “Semantics” shows a misunderstanding of the purpose that lies behind the affirmed right of arms possession by individual Americans. He states that Americans “define ‘a well-organized militia’ as anyone who
owns a Saturday night special” and refers to the Second Amendment.
In fact, the Militia is defined by USC Title 10 (1994), Chapter 13: The Militia. In summary, the militia consists of every able bodied male from 17 to 45, with certain exemptions. It includes all persons either citizens or having declared intention of becoming one, and also females who are in the National Guard. “Organized Militia” is defined as persons who are formally in the National Guard. All others are nevertheless in the Militia.
Exemptions are the vice president, judicial and executive officers of the United States, members of the Armed Forces, and Customs and Postal employees. All other eligible persons are automatically members of the Militia, and their responsibility for the defense of the United States is comparable with other common law duties such as jury service and taking action when a crime is witnessed.
The intention here is to shift power to whatever degree is possible, away from the monarch to the people. This reflects the dramatic reversal by the US of the assumption of prior societies - that authority derives from Godand flows downward through the Church, the monarchy and the aristocracy to impose finally upon the people whose duty is obedience to those above them. The Americans made government the servant, We the People the master.
The previous doctrine was promulgated by Jean Bodin in his “Six Livres” (1576) and was accepted enthusiastically by advocates of papal authority, divine right of kings, and the belief that rights are granted from above. In 1776 the Declaration denied this and affirmed rather that rights are inherent in your being.
The real American revolution was not the War of Independence, but the assertion for the first time that rights derive from We the People. God’s authorization is not called upon nor his name even mentioned in our Constitution. Our government has not rights but merely powers, assigned to it revocably and with limits, subject to the People’s restraints. Severe prohibitions are imposed on it by the so-called “Bill of Rights,” which is actually more a bill of restraints on government, telling the state what rights of the People may not be infringed. These include the right to be armed without permission of God or state.
In this context, it is not surprising that the founders expressed horror at the thought of denying the common people the right to be armed. Among them are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Richard Henry Lee, Samuel
Adams and George Mason. In 1775, Thomas Paine wrote in Thoughts on Defensive War that arms “discourage … the invader and plunderer … and preserve order in the world …. . Horrid mischief would ensue were the people deprived of the use of them.”
Felix Adler, John Dewey, and then in 1933 the Humanists, recognized a comparable shift in authority, this time in the realm of ethics. Instead of relying on a downward flow of moral commands from above, the people are the source. The second Manifesto states “We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. … needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life.”
American constitutionalism, and Humanism, are products of Enlightenment thought, affirming confidence in humanity rather than faith in divine authority. Both are steps towards human freedom, and the price paid for freedom is that sometimes it is abused.
In the matter of gun control, that Saturday night special in the hands of an old lady in the ghetto is targeted by some who are silent about the rich who shelter behind guarded gates in estates of privilege. Many signs posted
outside homes in our cities proclaim that they are patrolled by armed guards. Business executives and political leaders are not making haste to get rid of their bodyguards.
An early advocate of gun control was General Gage, who shouted “Lay down your arms, ye rebels” at Concord Bridge. Our republic was born in defiance of a lawful gun control order in the name of King George III, perceived under the Jean Bodin doctrine as carrying authority from God, as is stated by Paul in the New Testament, Romans 13:1. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
To this day, few constitutions recognize that the People, not God, ratify civil authority. Among them are India, thanks to the Humanist Nehru, and the new South Africa. But the ancient recognition of God as the bestower of
legitimacy is maintained by Canada, Australia, Israel, and - worst of all - Ireland. The American example of 1789 has not been widely emulated.
It is not surprising, then, that the US stands uniquely prominent as an advocate of the possession of arms among the civilian population. Those arms, dispersed and unrecorded in official archives, represent a shift in power from God and state towards the common people. However small that shift and how feeble that power is, let is be preserved and defended by Humanists. Whenever political freedom is reduced, religious freedom is less likely to remain secure. Enhancement of state control over the people’s arms is contrary to Humanism.
Nicely put I agree for the most part, Federal Firearms License.
armineh:
I assume it’s a momentary lapse of conciousness and not ignorance.
Please note Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland is still the Queen of Canada.
You are probably not aware, but Canada became a Dominion within the British Empire and later a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Thank you.
Andrew,
Thank you for this correction. I will pass it along to the author, Burt Liebert.
Armineh
In Response to Burt Liebert,
Sir, your letter troubles me somewhat. As Humanists, are we not to use reason along with compassion? Reason, sir, demands that we look at the actual data, or in this case the simplicity of nature, and draw conclusions therefrom.
I do know that people use guns to commit many and heinous crimes. I also know, and if you like I shall research and provide evidence, that people also use guns to protect themselves and their families against criminals.
Finally, from observing nature I know that all species have techniques or technologies to survive. Indeed, animals must often fight for their lives.
Without even touching the Bill of Rights, therefore, I can state that we have a natural right to defend ourselves. I hope you agree.
Following from this, it remains only to find the most effective defence weapon, and to recommend it. Unfortunately - and I mean that sincerely, for I wish we had some sort of stun gun or “phaser” as in Star Trek, rather than these bloody archaic hand cannons- unfortunately we find that firearms, guns, are still the state of the art in self defense.
Therefore guns must be available to the law-abiding citizenry, because they are very available to the non-law-abiding. To put it simply, we need guns because they have them.
The only situation I can imagine, which would allow a rational and ethical ban on guns, would be the complete absence of violent crime in society. At that point, there could be no need for self defence.
Unless and until such a crime-free society exists, we law-abiding citizens have a natural right to own and properly use firearms.
Hoping that this letter finds you in good health,
John