An Offense to Keep Arms

Do you all know who Joseph Story was? I didn't before this morning, so I'm grateful to the Tea Party for providing the impetus for me to learn about him.  He was a Massachusetts lawyer who served in the state legislature and the Congress.  In 1810, at the age of 32, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Madison, where he remained  a member until his death in 1845.

The words in this meme are directly and easily attributable to Joseph Story, but his sentence is intentionally truncated to allow it to stand alone out of context.

The context for the quotation was included in Story's 1840 work, Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. 

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia."

Reading only a few paragraphs, it is clear to see that Story's primary concern about the Second Amendment was question of whether the militia should be replaced with a standing army:

"The next amendment is: "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."  One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.  The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.}

              The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject.  The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.  It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.  The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.  And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.  How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.  There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."

I think Joseph Story's words on the subject of gun rights in the United States provide an interesting additional dimension to the currently raging debate.

I also think it's safe to say that the Tea Party is not interested in disbanding the standing armies of the United States.  So one would think they surely wouldn't want anyone reading too much Joseph Story, right?

This meme was shared four days ago and has received 27,700 'likes', 17,591 'shares' and 1539 comments.  Clearly, this is a hot topic.

The comments are spirited, indeed.  Many are writing to support the right to bear arms, many are writing to support gun control measures.  Many are against President Obama and many are for him.

None of the comments I read asks who Joseph Story was or questions the context of his words or expresses any intellectual curiosity whatsoever.

All of the comments I read were written by people who firmly entrenched in their positions.  No one on either side wants  to participate in open and honest dialog.  Everyone seems to enjoy pounding fists and pointing fingers.

The person who created this Internet meme is betting on the fact that we are too intellectually lazy to do any thinking for ourselves.  Of course we will believe whatever we are told.  Of course we will not question. Of course we will be manipulated.

Based on the response this meme has drawn over the last few days, I'd say that's a good bet.

Trading Liberty for Security?

This meme has been floating around for a while now. Most recently I saw it "liked"  by someone who "shared" it from someone . . .  who shared it from The Tea Party's facebook page.

The man pictured is indeed Benjamin Franklin, but he is misquoted.

Franklin's actual words were something more like this: 

"They who can give up essential Liberty, to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.", though there are several variations recorded.


By using the words of Franklin,in the context of the current gun control debate, The Tea Party seems to be suggesting  that those who are calling for gun control measures are willing to make a bad trade that will later be regretted, that being afraid of more gun deaths, they are willing to surrender liberty in exchange for security. Moreover, this sense of security they seek would be false because in the long run allowing government regulation of guns and ammunition will result in tyranny and then as a society we will have neither liberty nor security.

But I remember this same quote being used back when the Bush administration was implementing lots of security measures -- at a break neck speed, with some expressing concern that he was overstepping the bounds of executive power -- - designed, allegedly, to protect our society from further attacks by terrorists. Some at that time were worried about the wisdom of trading personal liberty for the promise of greater security.

Take a look at what one conservative publication had to say back in 2006: 

"The point is that situations to preserve public safety are seen as worthy of curtailing certain individual rights, contrary to what our loyal dissenters tell us. The founders recognized this, which is nothing more than observing the common sense principle that the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/meyer/060911

Quoting the words of our Founding Fathers is like quoting the Bible. Taken out of context and manipulated, the words of both can be made to mean almost anything, whatever suits the purpose at hand. 

Our society is searching now for a solution to a problem that everyone agrees is important. No one on either side of the gun control debate believes that it is good and right for unarmed civilians to be murdered. And no one on either side of the debate believes it would be good if the government had lots of guns and no civilians had any. All agree that we need to do a better job of securing public safety.

We need to treat the discussion with due respect and stop all the posturing and propaganda. One thing both sides have in common is fear -- the fear of losing something dear and precious. 

Because we are afraid and the problem is complex and there is no obvious automatic fix, we run the risk of turning our fear upon one another and mistaking each other for the enemy.

We can work toward a solution only when we become good faith listeners and good faith speakers.