Is it wise to surrender your rights in exchange for empty promises of security?

Is it wise to surrender your rights in exchange for empty promises of security?

Admittedly, we are begging the question in our essay’s title.

After each episode or outbreak of mass murder in the USA (Aurora, Colorado (2012), Virginia Tech (2007), and Columbine (1999) are but a few very painful examples, and there are many more), the proposition is voiced in some quarters that we would all be safer if we implemented very strong gun controls.

The proposition is fallacious.

Let’s not allow strong emotions to win the day.  Let’s not permit the enemies of freedom to exploit this latest terrible episode of mass murder to further their agenda.

The control freaks (of the Left) in Washington will give voice to their fond, even ardent, desire to disarm us (in the name of our “safety”, of course), but more than 100 million gun owners are not going to surrender their guns.  It is not going to happen, nor should it!

The government at all levels (central aka federal, state, and local) cannot (or will not) shut down the currently existing black market in illegal drugs.  There is also a currently existing black market in guns throughout this country.  Disarming the law-abiding citizenry will not make us safer.  Violent criminals will still have access to guns sold illegally.  When law-abiding citizens are disarmed, they are actually less safe as there is neither a credible, physical deterrent to violent crime nor an effective means of self-defense.  (For example, there are martial arts weapons in my house that I use to train with.  If an intruder or intruders attempt or gain forcible entry to my home, I will reach for my .357 magnum and/or my 12 gauge shotgun with its high base 3 inch shells already in chamber and magazine (perhaps I ought to remove the federally mandated plug to expand the magazine’s capacity!).  The martial arts weapons during a home invasion against armed intruders would not be effective.)

But, if the law-abiding citizenry were to be disarmed, it would face another very serious and very real threat to its security.  That is the threat of a rapacious government.  There is a term for a state wherein only the police and the criminals have guns – a police state.

We must never surrender our rights in exchange for false promises of security from any government.  If we do, history instructs us, we will be neither free nor secure.  We  will be victimized by a rapacious government.  Do not take my word for it.  Consider what happened in the Soviet Union after the civil war ended and the Bolsheviks consolidated their hold on power.  The people were disarmed, and were then at the mercy of a merciless state.  The same thing happened in Communist China.  Make no mistake, we have power hungry despot wannabes in our midst in the USA.  That is the reality, sorry to say.

The founders and framers of the Constitution clearly recognized this danger.  The first amendment allows the citizens to speak out and criticise the government.  The second amendment, an attorney once told me, allows us to overthrow the government if the need arises.  What he meant was that the second amendment is ultimately the only effective deterrent to an abusive government.  The framers did not want the central government to have a monopoly on the means of force.  They had direct personal experience of tyranny and recognized the danger of it.  It was no abstraction for them!

Given some historical perspective, it is clear that the government that you surrender your rights to will not be the kind of government that recognizes and respects your rights.  Or, perhaps we should phrase it thus: once you surrender your rights to a government, to get your rights back there will, by necessity, have to be a change of government.  The regime that takes your rights from you will not return those rights to you.

We must not forget the words of our first president; his words are still timely and very much relevant today.

“Government is not reason;  it is not eloquence;  it is force!  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”  –  George Washington, first president of the United States.


  1. Quite a powerful post. In Australia, we have anti-gun laws. Now, before you read on, I am not criticizing the American amendment that allows the owning of fire arms. I will say this though – if there were anti-gun laws, there might be less gun violence. In Australia, although guns are supposedly not available, there are an awful lot of people who have them. Drive bys are occurring more and more frequently in Sydney, with at least four, if not five people killed by guns in one week last month? Quite something for a country that restricts firearms. In Melbourne, knives are the most utilised weapon by the people it would seem. This year and last, the police cracked down on the carrying of such instruments, saying it was a bad idea to own theses violent weapons. Apparently a few hundred weapons, from knives to samurai swords and machetes, pistols, Uzis, sub-machines and shotguns were turned over, along with a couple grenade launchers! Knives are also the primary weapons in Melbourne used to kill people with. This year in February, police searched people on trains, and on one train alone found around eight people I do believe carrying knives. My point, and there is one – our laws in Australia against owning weapons fails to work. People will go out of their way to get weapons if they want them by any means necessary. The same will happen in America, so I say why not just let the Americans keep their guns. They will not give them up, you are right about that one, and even if they did, the Americans will simply find ways to obtain weapons just like Australians seem to so easily do. And it’s ironic that you mention the martial arts weapon that you own – for martial arts weapons, samurai swords and cross bows I learnt back when being educated on the Australian legal system are weapons that one can legally use apparently in Australia to disarm those who are threatening their existence. Funny, since samurai swords are taken from people who own them by the police…like I said, nice post, and many great points are raised.

    1. Hey there naughty,

      Thanks mate for your comments. The US authorities cannot or will not shut down the illegal black market in guns, so violent criminals will always have access to them. We have a very serious problem stateside with drug running gangs in our inner cities. And, in neighboring Mexico, even the armed police are not safe from the incredibly violent (heavily armed) narco gangs terrorizing that nation.

      My father passed on to me his samurai sword he got, as many Allied service men did, at the end of the war in the Pacific in 1945. But, that was not what I was referring to. The two section rod, also more commonly known as “nun-chaku”, can be a lethal weapon at very close range. But, if an assailant is aiming to shoot one down from 20 feet away, it would not be the correct choice for self-defense.

      By the way, the genocide that occured in Rwanda in the mid 90s was largely committed by machetes and similar type “weapons”. And, as you point out, many murders and assaults are committed with knives.

      But, let’s not lose sight of the larger point. We must beware of the attempts by some in government to exploit these mass murders so as to advance their agenda – which is one of increasing governmental control over all aspects of our lives. We must counter these power grabs if we desire to remain a free people. The threat to our freedom is real.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s