My book is about a practical assessment of civilian threats, an assessment of CCF as a civilian self-defense method, and a practical guide to other civilian self-defense methods. However, I suspect there may be people who use aspects of my book to attack gun rights. For example, someone may say:
- Most injurious, violent crime doesn’t involve weapons
- Most DGUs don’t involve the discharge of a firearm
- Conclusion: firearms are not needed for self-defense and should be regulated
This type of argument confuses practical assessments of risk with rights. A similar confusion occurs when people say that Americans only need weapons for hunting. We need to go back to the Founders and the beginning of our Republic to understand where this confusion begins.
The General Government
It is essential to understand the colonies that formed the first States were considered to be independent countries. When the British surrendered, they listed each colony as separate and distinct. This separation continued into the thought process of our Republic. The States and the people of the states held power. The Federal government also referred to as the general or central government, did not hold power. The best way to think of our Republic is to think of each U.S. State as an independent country that allows a glorified arbitrator, the general government, to perform three basic things: Inter-State trade, Inter-State defense, and foreign policy for the Republic.
The Founding Fathers
The founding fathers believed a standing army would result in tyranny. All the pride many Americans have in their military would be met with disgust by most of the Founders. So the States had militias composed of every able-bodied man in the State, and there was to be no Republic standing army. The general government was the enabler of arming and helping if there was ever an invasion, but the militias from the States did the work.
For example, let’s assume North Carolina was invaded from the sea by an army of ravenous mermaids. The general government could coordinate volunteers from other States and arms to North Carolina. The general government might even hire mercenaries to attack the ravenous mermaid’s flank. However, most of the battle would be fought by the North Carolina militia. Every able-bodied male in North Carolina was expected to be proficient with weapons of war should the militia be called up to defend the State.
During the constitutional conventions, a couple of objections were raised. First, if the general government could arm a militia, could it disarm them? Second, could the general government force the people of a State to board troops? This boarding of soldiers was a sore spot due to the experience with the British. These objections resulted in the 2nd Amendment and the 3rd Amendment, respectively.
The Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence states quite explicitly that the people institute the government. When the government no longer functions for the people, the people get rid of it and institute a new government.
Unarmed people don’t get rid of governments. On the contrary, history shows that governments tyrannize the unarmed. The Founding Fathers understood this, and you can research quote after quote showing their support for an armed citizenry.
The State Constitutions
Many people believe the Bill of Rights was about the Federal government granting universal rights to the citizenry of the Republic. Therefore, these people scratch their heads in wonder why State Constitutions are even necessary.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions imposed on the Federal government in dealing with the States and the people of the States. Each State was assumed to represent a given set of people who shared a value system. This value system is encoded in their State Constitutions.
For example, suppose a State had a populace that was 100% Catholic, and the people of that State believed State functions should reflect their beliefs. In that case, there is nothing against a State Constitution from specifying that all State functions begin with a Catholic prayer or requiring State Representatives or State Senators to be a Catholic in good standing. Many people would scream separation of Church and State at this point, but that is a restriction against the Federal government, in all honesty. There can be no “Church of the United States” like there was a Church of England. In short, the people of a State can have the State Constitution reflect their values. If their values conflict with your values, don’t move to that State.
Similarly, a State Constitution can certainly restrict firearms based on the values of the people of the State. However, the Federal government assumes the State has a militia because the Federal government isn’t supposed to have a standing army. Therefore, the State would have to show that it could defend itself via its militia if the Federal government armed the militia. Furthermore, based on the Founding Father’s comments, they would think it absurd that a populace would choose to disarm itself as they would be opening themselves up to tyranny.
Moving Forward
To better understand the founding of our Republic, our citizenry should think that each U.S. State’s border is about 0.5 miles wide. The Federal government controls the land comprising the border. Federal law only applies to that section of land, and Federal courts rulings apply only to that section of land. Anything inside the U.S. State should be almost unknown to the Federal government. The Federal government can impose restrictions or taxes on goods that go back and forth across that border. Militia volunteers and arms that go back and forth across that border are under the Federal government’s direction.
There are two fundamental problems with America and its government at this point: First, the Federal government is too big and shows no signs of getting smaller. Second, the representation to citizen ratio is over 750,000 per representative. Essentially, we’ve lost representative government, and the Federal government has become an oligarchy of sorts, as they’ve been left to their own devices.
One possible solution is to turn the 50 U.S. States into Republics. The United States of America would be renamed The United Republics of America. For instance, The State of Arizona would become The Republic of Arizona. At this point, Incorporation, the belief that the Bill of Rights applies to the States, would make more sense as it would be talking about Republics instead. The Federal government manages the borders of the Republics. Inside the Republics, the Federal government has no say.
In keeping with The Republic of Arizona example, a distinction would be made between Rural-States and City-States to ensure representation. Rural-States have populations of less than one million, and City-States have density and populations of greater than one million. Arizona has about 7 million people. Phoenix and its surrounding suburbs would be a City-State, and Tucson and its surrounding suburbs would also be one. There would be 3 Rural states: Southern, Central, and Northern Arizona. The goal of representation for the Rural-State legislature would be one representative for a maximum of 2,500 people. If that were exceeded, a new Rural-State (or City-State) would need to be formed. City-States have more people per representative due to population density, and to ensure a functioning legislature, the number of representatives would need to be capped.
Representation in The Republic of Arizona would be each Rural-State had one representative and two senators. Each City-State would have two representatives and two senators. For The United Republics of America, each Republic would have one representative for every 10 million people and always just two senators regardless of population. Hopefully, a new structure would allow the citizenry to focus on its local State government to get things done, protect their values via the State constitution, etc. In addition, republic governments would be appropriately limited to their respective borders.
Conclusion
Both sides often misplace gun rights discussions. For example, one side feels that only the 2nd Amendment protects the National Guard, while others think the 2nd Amendment guarantees individual rights. Only by being sensitive to the founding of the Republic can we understand what the Bill of Rights was trying to accomplish.
It is certainly appropriate for State Constitutions to reflect the people’s values. But unfortunately, some of our counties in U.S. States are larger than America was when it was formed. Only by getting back to clear local representative governments and focusing Republic governments on borders will we get back to what the Founding Fathers believed and discussed.