A recent article about a Sarasota bar owner who supports gun rights and gives “lessons” on the Second Amendment in his bar got me to thinking. His version of the Second Amendment — a version espoused by others of his ilk — asserts that American freedom rests not so much with an armed militia, army, or law enforcement but with an armed civilian populace. Without guns we would soon have an oppressive autocracy denying freedoms to the populace. This reasoning simply doesn’t pass muster. Most people in this country do not possess firearms and yet they are able to exercise their rights. They speak freely, go to church, and vote. Their rights have not been taken away because they don’t have a gun.

In fact the pro-gun constituency comes up short in giving us examples of gun-toting masses preserving freedoms. Perhaps it can be claimed that private property has been made more secure by firearms, but what about all those other rights? When has carrying a gun preserved your right of free speech or your right to a jury trial? On the other hand, try to think of when one person carrying a firearm has deprived others of their rights. Our history is filled with examples of guns used to prevent others from speaking freely or peaceably assembling. Every time a gun has been used in a robbery it has been used to deny someone’s right to property. Every time a gun has been used in a murder or a wounding or even in an accidental shooting, the bearer of that gun has denied the individual rights of others.

 Furthermore, our history is replete with instances in which masses of armed civilians denied freedoms to others. For just a couple of the many examples, read David Zucchino’s Wilmington’s Lie: The Murderous Coup of 1898 and the Rise of White Supremacy or Charles Lane’s The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction.

          Some also proclaim that guns should be carried for self-defense, and that a well-armed citizenry makes us all safer. Good people with guns can stop the bad people. I thought of this while reading about Charles Boles who was in California during the Gold Rush. The author says that Boles “no doubt carried a Colt revolver and a bowie knife—almost all men did in California, for there was very little law enforcement in the early years of the gold rush. Man—and the fledgling state’s few women—knew that they were responsible for their own self-protection.” Thus, California in the early days was a paradise to some self-described libertarians: Little government but widespread gun-packing. This surely must have been a safe place to live. Of course, it was not. “Heavy drinking, coupled with an armed populace, led to astronomical homicide rates, among the highest in peacetime America. In the 1850s, California saw murder rates twenty to thirty times greater than the current national rate.” So says John Boessenecker in Gentleman Bandit: The True Story of Black Bart, the Old West’s Most Infamous Stagecoach Robber.

As Jose Maria Luis Mora said, “The word liberty has often served for the destruction of the substance of liberty.”

I, like others, feel that Hunter Biden is being singled out for his gun violation. I am confident that many good ol’ boys have bought guns without disclosing their substance abuse problems and did not get indicted. If his name weren’t Biden, Hunter would probably not be facing jail. On the other hand, I can’t have much sympathy for him. Without his last name, Hunter Biden would not have made all the money he did. If you are going to take credit for the rain, then you have to accept the blame for the drought.

“A weapon is an enemy even to its owner.” Turkish proverb.

You can check this out: More gun deaths are suicides than homicides, self-defense, accidents, or good people killing the bad.