As usual, the Republican Party has fielded many more Presidential candidates than the Democratic party. Also as usual, they have the greatest variety of crackpots up for office, with Ted Cruz leading the way. Now, some would say that Ted Cruz can't be president because he was born in Canada and is not a"natural born citizen," but that's an argument for another day. Today the question is: Was Ted Cruz wrong when he said, "Americans need guns to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny?"
Many liberals may answer, "No!" "Guns are a dangerous threat to our safety." They are not wrong. Guns are dangerous - indeed deadly - that being their only real purpose: to kill. But, I feel that Cruz is right on this one issue. If you want to see, and possibly correct my thinking, read on.
Historically, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution wasn't put in place to make our domestic lives safer. It was put there to enable the population of the then-new United States to protect our new-found liberty from an out of control government. It's not a commonly expressed argument, because what politician would admit publicly that our 2nd amendment exists so we, The People, can start shooting government officials?
Just as Ted Cruz has said, the 2nd amendment and the "right to keep and bear arms" has nothing to do with gun safety or even personal safety, although those arguments are frequently made, - and it never did. The right to bear arms hearkens back to the English Bill of Rights back in 1689, which was established in reaction to the autocratic actions of King James II, who, among other things, disarmed the Protestants so they would be at the mercy of the Catholics. The English Bill of Rights specifically re-enabled the English peoples' right to bear arms for the purpose of, "...retaining the ability to re-overthrow the government or prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship ruling over a disempowered populace."
Before you dismiss this concern out-of-hand as being ridiculous in this day and age, remember that Hitler disarmed the People of Germany, and especially the Jews, to ensure that the rise of the Nazi Party would be unstoppable. If you know your history, you already know that Germany went from being a democracy to a dictatorship in less than nine years: Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, and became the Führer in 1934.
Many people like to deny that Germany suddenly became a dictatorship. It is true that Germany was in the midst of the Great Depression, just as the United States was. The German people were suffering from high unemployment and few social services (does that sound familiar?) But it was still a republic and still had a president when Hitler marched in.
Theodore Haas, a survivor of the Nazi prison camps said,
Before Adolph Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own [sic.] such guns. What fools we were. It truly frightens me to see how the government, media, and some police groups in America are pushing for the same mindset. In my opinion, the people of America had better start asking and demanding answers to some hard questions about firearms ownership, especially if the government does not trust me to own firearms, why or how can the people be expected to trust the government?
There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well armed. Hitler’s thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis. [Emphasis mine.] Attribution: http://jpfo.org/...
I own no guns and am not a member of the NRA, but despite my overall liberal leanings, I feel that gun ownership is a final check on a government gone bad, something that despite all checks and balances may happen at any time. This is particularly true in times of financial turmoil and lack of social services, such as we are experiencing now. I look forward to your
reasoned comments.