“There is no need to despair of our present condition, no matter how hopeless it may seem. For that which is worst in the days that are past and gone is just what affords the best assurance for the future.” — Demosthenes (Philippics, First Philippic, 40)
“When the unhappy and deluded multitude, against whom this force will be directed, shall become sensible of their error, I shall be ready to receive the misled with tenderness and mercy.”
This week marks the 247th anniversary of the delivery of those remarks to Parliament by George III of England. Following up on his earlier call to action against the “rebellious” Colonists, the monarch doubled down, announcing that he had “increased [his] naval establishment, and greatly augmented [his] land forces” in order to “put a speedy end to these disorders.”
In what to many seems a repeat of history, we are currently being warned by an increasingly autocratic executive — Joe Biden — that drastic measures must be taken to prevent increased violence. It was also Biden who pronounced just five months ago that the right of Americans to keep and bear arms “is not absolute” and “not unlimited.”
Biden continued along his anti-constitutional road, declaring, “We should limit how many rounds a weapon can hold. Why in God’s name should an ordinary citizen be able to purchase an assault weapon that holds 30-round magazines that let mass shooters fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of minutes?”
Why, Mr. Biden? Because the people and the states are the masters and you and your colleagues in D.C. are our political servants and it makes no sense that a servant should dictate to the master what means he may employ to protect his home, his family, and his freedom.
Finally, in his ongoing quest to fill the shoes of a tyrant from heel to toe, Joe Biden trotted out the familiar “save the children” trope to justify his call for the disarmament of civilian Americans.
“This isn’t about taking away anyone’s rights. It’s about protecting children,” Biden brayed.
Our Founding Fathers very well intended that every American be armed, believing that such was the only way to avoid being enslaved by tyrants. They knew from their study of history that a tyrant’s first move was always to disarm the people, generally claiming it was for their safety, and to establish a standing army so as to convince the people that they didn’t need arms to protect themselves, as the tyrant and his professional soldiers would do it for them.
Sound familiar?
Consider this gem from William Blackstone, a man of immense and undeniable influence on the Founders and their understanding of rights, civil and natural.
In Volume I of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone declares “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”
Would anyone in America — or the world, for that matter — argue that the “sanctions of society and laws” are sufficient to “restrain violence” or oppression?
Thus, the people must be armed.
Commenting on Blackstone’s Commentaries, eminent founding-era jurist and constitutional scholar St. George Tucker put a finer point on the purpose of protecting the natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. He wrote:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
Enough said.
The historical record of the intent of the Second Amendment is an important consideration in any effort to understand why gun ownership must be protected, even though some may use those guns to commit unspeakable crimes against children.
George III was a king and he made monarchical calls for the denial of the rights of Americans, including the right to keep and bear arms, in order, the king claimed, “to prevent … the effusion of the blood of [his] subjects.”
Sound familiar?
Now, go to the top of this article and re-read the words of Demosthenes. Why did I tie the tyrant George III to the tyrant Joe I? For a reason explained by French historian Charles Pinot Duclos:
We see on the theater of the world a certain number of scenes which succeed each other in endless repetition: where we see the same faults followed regularly by the same misfortunes, we may reasonably think that if we could have known the first we might have avoided the others. The past should enlighten us on the future: knowledge of history is no more than an anticipated experience.
The result of the proclamation of George III issued this week in 1775 was the strengthening of the resolve of the “rebellious” Colonists. May we remember the resolve of our fathers and be likewise strengthened in our own opposition to the denial of our most basic liberties.
