There is a quote often attributed to Franklin that goes something like
"Those who beat their swords into ploughshares will end up plowing for those who kept their swords."
This aphorism is usually understood in the context of nations. That is, that any nation which completely disarms leaves itself open to being conquered by another. And I believe that such an interpretation is entirely proper and in fact is part of the reason for the prefatory clause in that amenment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" (NOTE: "Well regulated" in the late 18th Century had nothing to do with regulations and everything to do with proper function). Clearly the founders saw an armed populace as a last line of defense in case of a foreign invasion.
But I believe that there is another, perhaps
MORE important meaning which can be derived from that aphorism. A people without arms are a people at the mercy of any armed group - whether that be a criminal gang, a local warlord or an out of control central government. In effect a group of people lacking the means to defend themselves are essentially slaves. They must "plow" (or otherwise labor) for anyone with both the means and the will to employ deadly force to get their own way.
Whenever anyone advocates disarming the general populace and giving government a monopoly on deadly force, they perforce are advocating the slavery or serfdom of that populace. That may not be their intention, but is most definitely the result. Since the criminal element will undoubtedly
RETAIN their arms, a disarmed populace would perforce be subject to the will of that criminal element as well.
I seriously doubt that the folks at the Brady Foundation truly desire for the rank and file to be reduced to slavery/serfdom (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here) but that is the true end result of what they seek.
The real problem is that people in government are neither angels nor plaster saints. They are human beings with all the potential for both good and evil that implies. Madison putit very well in Federalist Paper No. 51
It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
Look at part of that again:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."Ah, but none of us are angels. All of us are human beings - at times venal, at times noble; at times unselfish at other times utterly self-centered. And we -
EVERY LAST ONE OF US - can be corrupted by power. A really smart guy named Ben Moreell published a fascinating essay in August of 1997 on the "Freedom Daily" website. In his opening paragraph, Mr. Moreell wrote
"When a person gains power over other persons — the political power to force other persons to do his bidding when they do not believe it right to do so — it seems inevitable that a moral weakness develops in the person who exercises that power. It may take time for this weakness to become visible. In fact, its full extent is frequently left to the historians to record, but we eventually learn of it. It was Lord Acton, the British historian, who said: "All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.""
You can read the entire essay here.I do not believe that ANY group of human beings holding such absolute power over their fellows can remain uncorrupted by such power. I even believe that some people believe that because of their own insights/education/social status/whater, they have a
RIGHT to exercise total power over their "less enlightened" fellows. If those people possess the means to coerce others to follow their vision of "the way things ought to be" then unless the "less enlightened" have the means to contest that person's believed "right" then they have no choice but to go along. If one man involuntarily toils for the enrichment or benefit of another, how is that different from slavery or serfdom?
Without a "sword" anyone is potentially a slave.
As General John Stark so succinctly put it
Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.