Richard Shelby, Gun
The Colonial Herald
EVERY ABLE-BODIED MAN CALLED UPON TO DEFEND HIS HOME!
BREAKING NEWS....LORD SHELBY SAYS "DISARM
Americans Going Door-To-Door
London, England, 1776 --
Lord Shelby says it's time for Great Britain to send more
troops to disarm the Americans, going door-to-door if
He made the comments in
a speech in north London on Saturday.
Shelby says disarming
the Americans is dangerous, but we can't "let them pick
us off one by one."
Shelby said he supports
the war in the colonies, but the British Empire was unprepared
for the guerrilla warfare it now faces. He says British troops
fighting there are not police. They're used to fighting
soldiers, he says, "not terrorists." Britain needs to
dramatically increase the number of troops in the colonies, he
said, but this could be accomplished without the draft and
without calling up more reserves.
He suggested taking
British troops out of the West Indies and other countries where
they are not needed and move them to the American colonies.
"story" is, of course, fiction. But it is taken nearly
word for word from an actual news story, reprinted below, in
which Alabama's Senator Richard Shelby advocated gun
confiscation in Iraq. Presumably, he feels such action is
necessary to ensure U.S. control of the country. That is
precisely why it should never occur.
of Rights lists many of the rights that Americans hold most dear,
and is supposed to protect them from government infringement.
Americans do not have these rights because the Constitution says
so--they are rights deriving from the principles of natural law
that pre-exist and supercede any manmade law. The Bill of Rights
recognises that such rights exist--it does not grant them. Among
the most important of these rights is the right to self-defense,
embodied in the Second Amendment. Such a right is meaningless
without the ability to enforce it, thus the need to protect the
right of every man to keep and bear arms. In the days of the
Revolution, this meant flintlock muskets. Today it means machine
guns and "assault rifles," and in the future it might
mean lasers and ray guns. It is every person's natural right
to possess and use such weapons for defense, provided they do not
use them to aggress against others.
highly rated by the NRA, and regarded as "pro-gun."
Thus far, he would probably agree with most of what I said above.
Now for the crucial point: Americans do not have a monopoly on
natural rights. They extend to every person in existence, even
Iraqis. Every Iraqi, whether friend or foe of the U.S., has the
right to keep and bear arms, just as they have a natural right to
all the other freedoms that Americans typically take for granted
(whether Iraqis are able to exercise such freedoms as a
practical matter is another question).
wants to disarm Iraqis to ensure that the U.S. government is able
to control them. Another U.S. Senator, Charles Schumer, wants to
disarm Americans so that the U.S. government can control
us. Why does the NRA villify one man but support the
other? Both clearly hold the same bedrock view--government goals
take priority over individual rights. Can we really expect a
government that is powerful and ruthless enough to invade and
conquer foreign countries to respect the rights of its own
citizens--especially those such as the right to own weapons that
might one day be used to resist that very government?
Second Amendment isn't about "sporting guns" or
hunting. It's about ensuring that the people have the means
to resist and overthrow the government if it becomes tyrannical
and abusive of their liberties.
might respond to this criticism by saying that he only wants to
disarm those who are fighting against the U.S. These days, that
seems to be most Iraqis. Do they get Due Process and a hearing to
determine their loyalties? I didn't think so. If the Iraqis
are disarmed (something that even Saddam didn't try to do),
at what point does Shelby think a future U.S. or Iraqi-controlled
government will let them own weapons again? Can he cite even one
instance of a government which has disarmed its citizens letting
them exercise that right again? There is an old saying: "An
armed man is a citizen; an unarmed one is a subject." That
is true in America as well as in Iraq.
Iraqis possess every natural right that Americans possess. If
they are using their rights in a way that conflicts with U.S.
foreign policy, I'd suggest that Shelby consider that the
problem may lie with the foreign policy, and not with the
Iraqis are proving that all the skeptics of private initiative
were wrong. The skeptics said that national defense was a public
good, something that can't be provided by individuals. They
said that modern technology is so overpowering and destructive
that militiamen with rifles can't hope to win against a
modern army. They said that the Second Amendment is a useless
relic, of interest only to ignorant backwoodsmen and those who
live in the past. The Iraqis are proving that no nation, however
powerful and technologically advanced, can conquer and hold a
well-armed populace against their will. (For more information, read William Lind's piece on Fourth Generation Warfare).
Jefferson said, "A Bill of Rights is what the people are
entitled to against every government, and what no just government
should refuse, or rest on inference." The Iraqis have Second
Amendment rights as well. Only a would-be tyrant would deny
the part of the original report on Shelby's speech which
dealt with gun confiscation:
Shelby: Disarm Iraqis Going Door-To-Door
Ala. -- Sen. Richard Shelby says it's time for the United
States to send more troops to disarm the Iraqis, going
door-to-door if necessary.
the comments in a speech in north Alabama on Saturday.
says disarming the Iraqis is dangerous, but we can't
"let them pick us off one by one".
said he supports the war in Iraq, but the United States was
unprepared for the guerrilla warfare it now faces. He says U.S.
troops fighting there are not police. They're used to
fighting soldiers, he says, "not terrorists." He says
the United States needs to dramatically increase the number of
troops in Iraq, he said, but this could be accomplished without
the draft and without calling up more reserves.
suggested taking U.S. troops out of Germany and other countries
where they are not needed and move them to Iraq.