In Steve Helms' world "Firearms Equal Freedom"

From the latest issue of Greene County Circuit Clerk Steve Helms' online newspaper comes this column written by Bill McCoy.

Why does the left oppose personal firearms in a democracy? The rise of personal firearms closely correlates with the rise of personal liberty and democracy in Europe and the Americas.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution is in place to protect, defend, and guarantee the First Amendment. Those crafting the Constitution knew well that neither governments, nor militaries or police could be fully trusted and had every intention of assuring that the population of the United States had the means to counter authoritarian attempts.

Prior to the advent of personal firearms, governments’ derived power from the accumulation of political and economic allegiances held in place with armies and politically trusted praetorian guards. The state imposed its will by massing large numbers trained and well-equipped soldiers against populations having only farm implements and stones for defense. Personal firearms rebalanced the algorithm and introduced a new political calculus, intruding on the authoritarian bent of any state.

The progressive left and their government icons represent a new twist on a feudal system replete with modern vassals and suzerains, in reality the foundations of the royalist system that many Europeans took a millennium to defeat. Firearms are the first target of oppressive governments be they ruled by a king or socialist elites. There is no social contract that can stand up to a leftist philosophy which demands a state monopoly on violence and any means to challenge the state.

Loughner’s shots were still echoing in Tucson when the left commenced its attack on Second Amendment rights. Setbacks in Supreme Court cases has required the left to temporarily set aside its frontal attack on firearms and to pursue an oblique strategy against ammunition, magazines, and denying firearms to those judged to be mentally impaired. The Soviet Union was renowned for its incarceration of political dissidents in mental wards, simply because they disagreed with the socialist elites. In the end, whom can we trust with this decision?