Freedom and Firearms
A Speech to the 2nd Annual Western Conservative Conference in Los Angeles
by Tom McClintock, June 9, 2001
"There are two modern views of government that begin from entirely
different premises.
There is the 18th Century American view propounded by our nation's
founders. They believed, and formed a government based upon that belief,
that each of us is endowed by our creator with certain rights that cannot
be alienated, and that governments are instituted to protect those rights.
This view is proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and reflected in
the American Bill of Rights.
The second view is 19th Century German in origin and expressed in the
philosophies of Marx and Hegel and Nietzsche. It is a restatement of
philosophies of absolutism that have plagued mankind for millennia. In this
view, rights come not from God, but from the state. What rights you have
are there because government has given them to you, all for the greater
good-defined, of course, by government.
In the 20 years I have been actively engaged in public policy, I have seen
the growing influence of this 19th Century German view. It disdains the
view of the American Founders. It rejects the notion of inalienable rights
endowed equally to every human being by the "laws of nature and of nature's
God." In this view, it is the state, and not the individual, where rights
are vested.
I mention this, because of a debate that occurred last week on the floor of
the State Senate. It was a debate that occurred under the portrait of
George Washington and the gold-emblazoned motto, "Senatoris Est Civitatis
Libertatum Tueri"-"The Senators protect the Liberty of the Citizens." At
issue was a measure, SB 52, which will require a state-issued license to
own a firearm for self-defense. To receive a license, you would have to
meet a series of tests, costs and standards set by the state.
We have seen many bills considered and adopted that would infringe upon the
right of a free people to bear arms. But this was the most brazen attempt
in this legislature to claim that the very right of self-defense is not an
inalienable natural right at all, but is rather a right that is licensed
from government; a right that no longer belongs to you, but to your
betters, who will license you to exercise that right at their discretion.
During the debate on this measure, which passed the Senate 25 to 15, I
raised these issues. And I would like to quote to you the response of
Senator Sheila Kuehl, to the approving nods of the Senators whose duty is
to protect the liberty of the citizens. She said, "There is only one
constitutional right in the United States which is absolute and that is
your right to believe anything you want."
I want to focus on that statement. "The only constitutional right which is
absolute is your right to believe anything you want."
Now, compare that to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths
to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed
by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed."
What rights have a slave? There is only one: a slave can think anything he
wants: as long as he doesn't utter it or act on it-he may think what he
wants. He has no right to the fruit of his labor; no right to self-defense,
no right to raise his children, no right to contract with others for his
betterment, no right to worship-except as his master allows. He has only
the right to his own thoughts. All other rights are at the sufferance of
his master-whether that master is a state or an owner.
Now, let us continue to look at this new constitutional principle
propounded by Senator Kuehl, under the portrait of George Washington to the
delight of her colleagues whose duty, according to the proud words above
them, is to "Protect the Liberty of the Citizens."
She continued, "Other than that, (the right to your own thoughts)
government has the ability to say on behalf of all the people-I will put it
in the colloquial way as my grandmother used to-your right to swing your
fist ends where my nose begins. It's a balance of your rights and my rights
because we all have constitutional rights. And the question for government
is how do we balance those rights?"
Indeed, the right to swing your fist does end where my nose begins. An
excellent analogy. Shall we therefore amputate your fist so that you can
never strike my nose? And would you deny me the use of my own fist to
protect my nose?
Senator Kuehl and her colleagues believe government has the legitimate
authority to do so. It is simply the question of balancing.
It is very important that we understand precisely what Senator Kuehl and
the Left are saying.
A thief balances your right to your wallet against his right to eat. A
murderer balances your right to life against his right to freedom. A master
balances your right to "work and toil and make bread," against his right to
eat it. These are matters of balance.
The American view is quite different. In the view of the American Founders,
the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God endow each of us with rights that
are inalienable, and we are each equal in those rights. It is not a
balancing act. These rights are absolute. They cannot be alienated.
But in a state of nature, there are predators who would deny us those
rights. And thus we come together to preserve our freedom. In the American
view, the only legitimate exercise of force by one person over another, or
by one government over its people, is "to secure these rights."
Senator Kuehl continues, "My right to defend myself in the home does not
extend to my owning a tank, though that would make sense to me, perhaps,
that no one would attack my home if I had a tank sitting in the living
room."
Let us put aside, for a moment, the obvious fact that a tank is only an
instrument of self-defense against a power that employs a tank. But let us
turn to the more reasonable side of her argument: that rights can be
constrained by government; that there is, after all, "no right to shout
'fire' in a crowded theater. How can a right be absolute and yet
constrained by government?
To Senator Kuehl and the Left, the answer is simply, "it's easy-whenever we
say so." Or, in her words, "government has the ability to say (so) on
behalf of all the people."
The American Founders had a different view, also, not surprisingly,
diametrically opposed to Senator Kuehl's way of thinking. The right is
absolute. In a free nation, government has no authority to forbid me from
speaking because I might shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Government has
no authority to forbid me from using my fist to defend myself because I
might also use it to strike your nose. And government has no authority to
forbid me from owning a firearm because I might shoot an innocent victim.
Government is there to assure that the full force of the law can be brought
against me if I discharge that right in a manner that threatens the rights
of others. It does not have the authority to deny me those very rights for
fear I might misuse them.
Senator Kuehl continues, "In my opinion, this bill is one of those
balances. It does not say you cannot have a gun. It does not say you cannot
defend yourself. It says if you are going to be owning and handling and
using a dangerous item you need to know how to use it, and you need to
prove that you know how to use it by becoming licensed."
How reasonable. How reassuring. How despotic.
We must understand what they are arguing, because it is chilling. They are
arguing that any of our most precious rights enshrined in the Bill of
Rights-any at least they decide are conceivably dangerous-may only be
extended through the license of the government.
If that is the case, they are not rights. With that one despotic principle,
you have just dissolved the foundation of the entire Bill of Rights. You
have created a society where your only right is to your own thoughts.
Inalienable rights are now alienated to government, and government may
extend or refuse them upon its whim-or more precisely, upon a balancing act
to be decided by government. Let us follow-in our minds at least-a little
farther down this path.
Hate groups publish newsletters to disseminate their hatred and racism.
Sick individuals in our society act upon this hatred. The Oklahoma City
bombing killed scores of innocent children. Shouldn't we license printing
presses and Internet sites to prevent the pathology of hate from spreading?
Such an act doesn't say you cannot have a press. It does not say you cannot
express yourself. It says if you are going to be owning and handling a
printing press, you should know what not to say and prove that you can
restrain yourself by becoming licensed.
And what are we to do about rogue religions like those that produced
Heaven's Gate and Jonestown. How many people around the world are killed by
acts of religious fanaticism every year? Should we not license the
legitimate churches? Such an act doesn't say you cannot have a church. It
does not say you cannot worship. It says if you are going to be running and
conducting a church, that you must know how to worship and prove that you
know how by becoming licensed.
The only right you have is the right to believe anything you want. The only
right of a slave. The rest is negotiable-or to use the new word,
"balanceable."
In 1838, a 29 year old Abraham Lincoln posed the question for which he
would ultimately give his life. Years later, he would debate Stephen
Douglas, who argued that freedom and slavery were a matter of political
balance.
But in this speech, he spoke to the larger question that we must now
confront: "Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over
the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!-All the armies of Europe, Asia
and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted)
in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by
force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a
trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger
to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst
us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must
ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live
through all time, or die by suicide."
The American Founders worried about the same thing. Late in life, Jefferson
wrote to Adams, "Yes we did create a near perfect union; but will they keep
it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom.
Material abundance is the surest path to destruction."
And as I listened to Senator Kuehl proclaim that "the only constitutional
right in the United States which is absolute ... is your right to believe
anything you want," and as I gazed at the portrait of George Washington,
and as I thought about the solemn words, "the Senators Protect the Liberty
of the Citizens," I couldn't help but think of an aide to George Washington
by the name of James McHenry, who accompanied the General as they departed
Independence Hall the day the Constitution was born. He recorded this
encounter between Benjamin Franklin and a Mrs. Powell.
She asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
Answered Dr. Franklin, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."
For this generation, that is no longer a hypothetical question. History
warns us that to one generation in five falls the duty-the highest duty and
the most difficult duty of this Republic-to preserve the liberty of the
citizens. It is the most difficult, because as Lincoln warned, it is a
threat that springs up not on a foreign shore where we can see it-it
springs up amongst us. It cannot be defeated by force of arms. It must be
defeated by reason.
Have you noticed yet, that ours is that generation? And how ironic it would
be that the freedoms won with the blood of Washington's troops, and
defended by so many who followed, should be voluntarily thrown away piece
by piece by a generation that had become so dull and careless and pampered
and uncaring that it lost the memory of freedom.
The Athenian Democracy had a word for "citizen" that survives in our
language today. "Politikos." Politician. The Athenians believed that a free
people who declare themselves citizens assume a duty to declare themselves
politicians at the same time. It is time we took that responsibility very
seriously.
In 1780, the tide had turned in the American Revolution, and the Founders
began to sense the freedom that was within sight. John Adams wrote these
words to his wife that spring. He said, "The science of government it is my
duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and
administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude,
in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons
may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to
study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval
architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their
children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary,
tapestry and porcelain."
Ladies and gentlemen, the debate is not about guns.
It is about freedom. And the wheel has come full circle. Our generation
must study politics that we may restore the liberty that our parents and
grandparents expect us to pass on to our children and grandchildren. If we
fail, what history will demand of our children and grandchildren, in a
society where their only right is to their own thoughts, is simply
unthinkable. And be assured, history will find it unforgivable. A
generation that is handed the most precious gift in all the
universe-freedom-and throws it away-deserves to be reviled by every
generation that follows-and will be, even though the only right left to
them is their own thoughts.
But if we succeed in this struggle, we will know the greatest joy of
all-the joy of watching our grandchildren secure with the blessings of
liberty, studying arts and literature in a free nation and under God's
grace, once again.
Ladies and Gentlemen, isn't that worth devoting the rest of our lives to
achieve?"
(c) 2001 Tom McClintock for State Senate 1121 11th Street, Suite 216,
Sacramento, California 95814
916-448-9321, Fax 916-456-3279,
E-Mail: tom@tommcclintock.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:12:15 EDT