

From the Radio Free Michigan archives



ftp://141.209.3.26/pub/patriot



If you have any other files you'd like to contribute, e-mail them to

bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu.

------------------------------------------------



              - ISIL EDUCATIONAL PAMPHLET SERIES -



                     Gun Control,Patriotism,

                               and

                       Civil Disobedience



                     By Jacob G. Hornberger





     The State of California recently enacted a law which requires

owners of semiautomatic weapons to register their guns with the

State. But when the law went into effect, thousands of California

gun owners, although risking a felony conviction, refused to

comply with its requirements.



     These gun owners were immediately showered with harsh

criticism, not only from their public officials, but from their

fellow citizens as well. The critics implied, among other things,

that since the law had been passed by the duly elected

representatives of the people, the gun owners, as members of

society, had a duty to comply with its terms.



     The controversy raised important issues concerning liberty,

property, government, patriotism, and civil disobedience.

As I have repeatedly emphasized, by adopting the welfare-state,

planned-economy way of life, the American people of our time have

rejected and abandoned the principles of individual freedom and

limited government upon which our nation was founded. But they

have also rejected and abandoned something of equal

importance: the concept of patriotism which characterized

America's Founding Fathers.



     There have been two different notions of patriotism in

American history. The one which characterizes the American people

of the 20th century -- the one which is taught in our public

schools -- is this: patriotism means the support of one's own

government and the actions which the government takes on behalf

of the citizenry. The idea is that since we live in a democratic

society, the majority should have the political power to take any

action it desires. And although those in the minority may not

like the laws, they are duty-bound as "good" citizens to obey and

support them.



     The distinguishing characteristic of this type of patriotism

is that the citizen does not make an independent, personal

judgment of the rightness or wrongness of a law. Instead, he does

what he has been taught to do since the first grade in his

government schools: he places unwavering faith and trust in the

judgment of his popularly-elected public officials.



     The other concept of patriotism was the type which 

characterized the British colonists during the late 1700s. 

These individuals believed that patriotism meant a devotion to 

certain principles of rightness and morality. They believed that 

the good citizen had the duty to make an independent judgment as 

to whether or not his own government's laws violated these 

principles. And so, unlike their counterparts in America today, 

these individuals refused automatically to accept the legitimacy 

of the actions of their public officials.



     Let us examine how dramatically the "real world"

applications of these two concepts of patriotism differ.



     In the late 1700s, the British colonists suffered under the 

same kind of oppressive regulations and taxes that present-day

Americans endure. What was the reaction of the colonists to this

regulatory and tax tyranny? They deliberately chose to ignore and

disobey their government's regulations and tax acts. Smuggling

and tax-evasion were the order of the day! And the more that

their government tried to enforce the restrictions, the more it

met with resistance and disobedience from the citizenry.

Sometimes smugglers or tax evaders would be caught and brought to

trial. The result? Despite conclusive evidence of guilt and the

judges' instructions to convict, the defendants' fellow citizens

on the juries regularly voted verdicts of acquittal.

And civil disobedience was not limited to economic regulations

and taxation. There was also widespread resistance to

conscription, especially during the French and Indian Wars. Those

who were conscripted deserted the army in large numbers. And

those who had not been conscripted hid the deserters in their

homes.



     This was what it once meant to be a patriot --the devotion

to a certain set of principles regarding rightness, morality,

individualism, liberty, and property; and it meant a firm stand

against one's own government when it violated these principles.

If an American of today were magically transported back to

colonial America of the late 1700s, he would immediately find

himself at odds with the colonists who were resisting the tyranny

of their government. How do we know this? By the way which

Americans of today respond to what is a much more oppressive and

tyrannical economic system -- with either meekness or, even

worse, with ardent "flag-waving" support for the actions of their

rulers.



     And what is their attitude toward their fellow citizens who

are caught violating the rules and regulations? Again, either

meekness or fervent support of the rulers. After all, what was

the reaction to the Internal Revenue Service's seizure of Willie

Nelson's property? "I'll make a small donation but otherwise

don't get me involved -- I don't want them coming after me!" And

to the conviction of Michael Milken for violating economic

regulations that were so ridiculous that even King George would

have been embarrassed? "He got what's coming to him -- he

shouldn't have made so much money anyway!" And to Leona Helmsley's

conviction for having taken improper deductions on her income tax

return? "She's obnoxious -- she should go to jail." The thought of

rising to the defense of these victims of political tyranny is an

anathema to the present-day American "patriot."

  

     And what about jury trials involving economic crimes? Like

the good, little citizens they have been taught to be in the

public school system, American "patriots" dutifully comply with 

the judge's instructions to convict fellow citizens caught up in 

this regulatory and tax tyranny. Although they have the same 

power as their ancestors to disregard the judge's instructions 

and to acquit their fellow citizens, the thought of doing so is 

so repugnant to present-day "patriots" that they choose instead 

to do their "duty" and thereby become "patriotic" agents of their 

own government's tyranny.



     Therefore, there is no doubt that the American of today

would feel very uncomfortable if, all of a sudden, he found

himself in the British colonies in 1775 -- in the midst of

smugglers, tax-evaders, draft-resisters, and other patriots of the

time.



     This brings us back to the individuals in California who are

refusing to register their guns.



     As our American ancestors understood so well, the bedrock of

a free society is private ownership of property. And there are

fewer more important rights of private ownership than the

unfettered right to own weapons.



     Why is ownership of weapons so vitally important? Not for

hunting. And not even to resist aggression by domestic criminals

or foreign invaders. No, as history has repeatedly shown the

vital importance of the fundamental right to own arms is to

resist tyranny \by one's own government\, should such tyranny

ever become unendurably evil and oppressive.



     The lesson which Americans of today have forgotten or have

never learned -- the lesson which our ancestors tried so hard to

teach us -- is that the greatest threat to our lives, liberty,

property, and security lies not with some foreign government, as

our rulers so often tell us; instead the greatest threat to our

freedom and well-being lies with our own government!



     Of course, there are those who suggest that democratically-

elected public officials would never do anything to seriously

harm the American people. But let's look at just a few twentieth-

century examples: They confiscated people's gold. They repudiated

gold clauses in government debts. They provoked the Japanese into

attacking Pearl Harbor and then acted like they were

surprised. They incarcerated Japanese-Americans for no crime at

all.  They injected dangerous, mind-altering drugs into American

servicemen without their knowledge. They radiated the American

people in the Pacific Northwest and then deliberately hid this

information from them. They have surreptitiously confiscated and

plundered people's income and savings through the Federal Reserve

System. They have plundered and terrorized the citizenry through

the IRS. And, most recently,they have sent our fellow citizens to

their deaths thousands of miles away in the pursuit of a

relatively insignificant cause. 



     Those who believe that democratically-elected rulers lack

the potential and inclination for destructive conduct against

their citizenry are living in la-la land.



     Of course, the proponents of political tyranny are usually

well-motivated. Those who enacted the gun-registration law in

California point to criminals who have used semiautomatic weapons

to commit horrible, murderous acts. But the illusion -- the pipe-

dream -- is that bad acts can be prevented through the

deprivation of liberty. They cannot be! Life is insecure --

whether under liberty or enslavement. The only choice is between

liberty and insecurity, on the one hand, and insecurity and

enslavement on the other.



     The true patriot scrutinizes the actions of his own

government with unceasing vigilance. And when his government

violates the morality and rightness associated with principles of

individual freedom and private property, he immediately rises in

opposition to his government. This is why the gun owners of

California might ultimately go down in history as among the

greatest and most courageous patriots of our time.





\JACOB HORNBERGER is founder and president of the Future of

Freedom Foundation, P.O. Box 9752, Denver, Colorado 80209. Tel:

(303) 777-3588.\



 ****************************************************************



RECOMMENDED READING: That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a

Constitutional Right, Halbrook ($12.95); Restricting Handguns:

The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, Kates ($9.95); Firearms &

Violence, Kates ($15.95). A Right To Bear Arms, Halbrook

($24.95). Available from Freedom's Forum Books, 1800 Market Street,

San Francisco, California 94102. (Add $2.00 postage & handling

for first book and $1.00 for each additional item.)



 ****************************************************************



Printed copies of this pamphlet are available for 5 cents apiece

(minimum order $1.00). Price includes shipping.



This pamphlet is produced as a public service by the

International Society for Individual Liberty. If you would like

to receive free information about our activities around the world

and receive a sample copy of our FREEDOM NETWORK NEWS newsletter

and Book Catalog please write:



         INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 

     1800 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102 USA 

                      Tel: (415) 864-0952   

                      Fax: (415) 864-7506



 ****************************************************************



This electronic edition scanned in as a public service by the 

Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment, P.O. Box 94,

Long Beach, CA  90801-0094.  CESA may also be reached on the

SoftServ Paperless Bookstore BBS: 213-827-3160.



------------------------------------------------

(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the

Radio Free Michigan archives by the archive maintainer.




All files are ZIP archives for fast download.


 E-mail bj496@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu)





