Home»Commentary»2nd Amendment to Obama: Preventing State Violence is the First Priority

2nd Amendment to Obama: Preventing State Violence is the First Priority

Pinterest WhatsApp

In their order of importance, here are the reasons why the people must be armed en masse:

  1. To make a police state impossible.
  2. To make a tyrannical government impossible or temporary.
  3. To equal if not outstrip the level of violence which a criminal can bring to bear.
  4. To make any attempt by a foreign nation to occupy the United States unthinkable.

An armed citizenry is, above all else, the only thing standing between unfettered state violence, and the peace and freedom of the people.

The state engages in moral and spiritual violence every time it attacks our ordinary language, common sense, and religious tradition.  It engages in physical violence every time it redistributes our property, monopolizes any means of cultural production (the schools), regulates any means of cultural production (the internet), prosecutes us through an unelected bureaucracy, turns criminals loose on us, or uses its police and military to intimidate us (as Lincoln did with expert efficiency) into giving up protest. 

Lincoln’s total war against the South is an example of what happens when not enough people are well enough armed.  The South was disastrously lacking in small and heavy arms when it seceded.  Up until the moment the North stepped over the line into Virginia, the Southern people naively imagined that the North would never invade, let alone engage in total war.  They were totally unprepared.  If they had been prepared, from the outset, the history of the war of northern aggression would probably be quite different.  The war may not have started in the first place.

The violence that the modern state can enact upon the people dwarfs all other sources and forms of violence.  People who refuse to believe this historically and globally illustrated truth are cowards, shrinking from both life and death.   The statist sheeple long for a government which can relieve them of life, and save them from death.  These people are the inspiration of the zombie metaphor.  They cannot imagine resisting state violence.  They are happy to live in the perpetual state of violence and war we call tyranny, as long as they do not have to lay their own bodies on the line. 

But the state always feeds on them in the long run.

Even if we had mass shootings every day in America, and even if gun control could end them, the disarming of the American people could not be morally justified.

In the first place, these mass shootings are an indirect and ironic form of modern state violence.   Our 21st century city is more violent, by government policy, than the American west of the 19th century.  In their relatively “lawless” frontier, the people were relatively armed.  The exceptions were slaughtered.  Most of the farming families murdered during the 1862 Sioux uprising in nice, liberal Minnesota were unarmed by their own, now patent, naiveté.  They thought the state had everything under control.  Presently we live in a world which inspires longing for the relative peace and security of that past world.  The modern state has failed as a personal body guard.  It has suggested that it can protect us and that therefore we should give up our western American tradition of always traveling armed.  The modern, secular state pays for scientific ideology and teachers who promote state violence by attacking religion and personal accountability.  It has made insanity and evil more likely.  It has made mass violence more likely.  

The reason why the state is losing ground to more and more aggressive assertions of the right to keep and carry arms is that the modern state has failed massively, irrefutably, as a police force and a justice system.  Ironically, the state’s argument for disarming the people is not promoted by mass shootings, but undermined by them.  The theory that the state can protect us from violence is falsified by the very events which the state appeals to as examples of what it can prevent.  The government is bigger, more comprehensive than ever, and it has not prevented mass violence.  It slyly tells us that it must have unassailable power in order to do so.  It tells us that the modern state has not yet been consummated, and when it is, this totalization will work.  This has been tried before.  It cost the lives of millions at the hand of the state.  Governments are the greatest mass murderers in history.  Everyone knows this.    

It remains all too obvious that the disarmament of each and every peace loving person in any region, will unleash crime on a mass scale.  Anyone with a club, a knife, a bigger body, a harder fist, can abuse anyone bereft of an equalizer.  This has happened in England.  An exponential rise in criminal opportunity and audacity is a function of the degree to which the people are disarmed. 

Nine people are shot in one place by one criminal.  In the meantime, nine hundred are shot, or stabbed, or beaten, or intimidated and robbed in nine hundred places by nine hundred criminals.  The state’s focus on the mass shooting is an attempt to distract our attention from what the state more obviously cannot prevent — the abuse of the nine hundred.  Only the nine hundred victims themselves could prevent their violation — by being armed, and arming their neighbors, in which case everyone is much less likely to have to kill anyone.

The modern state cannot prevent the abuse of the nine hundred.   It cannot even prevent the abuse, the slaughter, of the nine.  This has become obvious.  We laugh at the modern state as it proposes to disarm us in the face of its own humiliating incompetence.  I hold the modern, liberal state responsible for the mass violence.  It has damaged everything which brings order.  It has failed as a security guard.  It cannot save us.  It has not saved us.  It is killing us.  We must ridicule the modern state as it asks for our guns.  It is so incompetent, only a fool would be frightened enough to hand them over. 

Only the criminally dim believe that, given the mandate to do so, the state could completely disarm every person — citizen and criminal.  If it could do so, it would not be justified because it would turn loose the full capacity for violence of both the state and the criminal.  Once we are disarmed, the state becomes an overt criminal.  It has no reason of its own not to.  If we did not need our guns to prevent the ordinary violence, we would need them to prevent the official state violence.

*Article by Tom Dahlberg


Don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.


Previous post

Obama’s Latest Gun Control Scam Goes After Constitutionally Protected Gun Sales

Next post

While Gun Permits Increase, Murder Rate Drops