A Golden Mean Intimidates With Guns?
The golden mean isn’t a new idea. There have been many politicians who have proposed the idea that an idea that sits somewhere between two other, opposing, ideas must be the source of an appropriate solution. When put to the test, this principle is easily exposed as nonsense (given the opposing ideas of murdering someone and not killing someone, is serious assault a good idea?), but many politicians continue to promote themselves as proponents of the golden mean, simply because it’s effective rhetoric to describe oneself as a refreshing moderate in a world of tiresome extremists.
Nicholas Ivan Ladendorf is one such politician. Ladendorf is running for the seat in the House of Representatives currently occupied by Roy Blunt, who is himself seeking to replace Christopher Bond in the Senate in 2010.
Describing his approach to making decisions about serious legislative issue, Ladendorf explains, “I form my position on issues by listening to opposing points of view. And then I figure out how to reconcile any incompatibilities.” That sounds reasonable in theory. In practice, it leads Ladendorf to conclusions that are sometimes rather odd.
Could it truly be considered moderate, for example, to propose that “Citizens need to have enough guns to intimidate the government.”? That’s Ladendorf’s position. He goes further than just defending the legal right of people to have guns, although possession of a gun is often unwise. No, Ladendorf actually proposes that citizens need to have guns. What’s more, Ladendorf suggests that the purpose of having guns is to intimidate the democratically-elected government.
Ladendorf’s view of the duty of citizens to threaten the government with guns is not at all based in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment clearly explains that the reason for a right to bear arms is to keep the government secure, not to intimidate it.
The gun issue exposes the fundamental weakness of the golden mean between two extremes: The golden mean is theoretical, rather than fact-based. Sometimes, in a dispute between two extreme positions, one of the extreme positions is correct. Other times, there’s a more subtle answer that cannot be found unless politicians are willing to consider the law in the real context of its application.
In the case of gun rights, what’s important is not to just find a theoretical middle ground, but to examine the Constitution and what it actually says. Nicholas Ivan Ladendorf doesn’t seem to be willing to take the time to educate himself about the role of the Constitution in establishing government policy. That approach makes him poorly qualified to serve in Congress, which is given the duty of conducting oversight of the Executive Branch in order to guarantee that the Executive Branch is acting in accord with the Constitution and other law.
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”- (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment August 17, 1789)
The first step to enslave a country is to disarm the citizens. That is what the government has been trying to do for many years. The government must never be allow to disarm the citizens.
At the end of WWII tje Japanese were asked why they did not invade the US after Pearl Harbor. Their answer was because most Americans are armed and would fight.
Australia banned guns there and the crime rate soared because the criminals no longer had to worry about the citizens defending themselves.
If the government is to be feared, and the government is trying to disarm citizens, how come it hasn’t succeeded yet? Who has come to take your gun?
“This amendment clearly explains that the reason for a right to bear arms is to keep the government secure, not to intimidate it.”
I would argue the second amendment is to secure the nation not the government. As a nation birthed in insurrection I would hope people wouldn’t confuse the two.
And I’ve hardly promised the golden mean. I can see how one would think that from reading the introduction. But if you look at the actual positions I take they are not simply the middle ground. My position on the second amendment proves this more than it proves I’ve sought the golden mean.
Saying that I take what is true from both sides of an issue before forming an opinion simply means that I actually attempt to inform myself instead of looking for information that supports an opinion I already formed.
NIL