Liberty: Use it or lose it

There has been a lot of talk in the past few months about a number of our rights as citizens of the US and how they should or shouldn't be interpreted. It should come as no surprise that I have thoughts and opinions on these incursions. I've already shared my thoughts on the Second Amendment, but it might surprise you that this is not the most important of those "magical" first 10 for which I care. That is a privilege that goes to whichever one is currently the most under attack. Unfortunately, that list keeps growing.

PRISM, metadata, FISA courts...these are the buzzwords now. Why should we be upset that the government has access to our personal data while we willingly give it away to private companies more interested in adding to our stock-pile of consumed junk than watching gout for threats to our way of life? To me, the answer lies right in the question. When you get a credit card, order from Amazon, or sign up for a gmail account, you agree to allow them to collect that data and use it. True, most of us just click "accept" and never read an EULA, but when we do this we make the choice that we don't care enough to do so. Yet when a government institution gathers broad details in search of crimes that may or may not be happening, they are not seeking our permission and are (IMO) going past the 4th Amendment and the intent of illegal search and seizure. No longer do you have to be suspected of a crime to start an investigation, you simply need to have a phone number or email going to the wrong person.

Combine this with the Supreme Court's decision that gathering DNA from a suspect and keeping it in a national database is acceptable. Now we're moving in on the 5th Amendment, too. Should a crime ever occur, even one where you are not a suspect, your DNA can be searched and compared to crime scene evidence. As wrongful arrests occur more than we care to admit, the possibilities painted are grim, allowing for a future where crimes are pinned to an individual before he is interviewed or aware he might be a suspect. Simply having your DNA on file implies a level of criminal nature that should make us uncomfortable. Being wrongfully or maliciously accused of a serious crime as a minor could lead to a point where you remain tagged for your entire life, worried that having contact with someone unfortunate enough to fall victim to a crime places you instantly on a path of defending your innocence.

Incursions like these, combined with the way in which the snooping was exposed, not to mention other recent scandals around the IRS and the AP, lead to a building distrust of our government. To be clear, I in no way am implying this is strictly an issue with the current administration as it was obviously occurring in prior ones. It does, however, add fuel to the fire of those who are worried about what else the government might be capable of encroaching on. Is free speech truly safe, or by opining on such issues might we expose ourselves to incursions on our personal freedom? Do blogs such as mine put a person on a watch list of those who might be dangerous to national security as defined by those who seek to preserve the power they have gained at the expense of the American people?

Thus do we come to the crossroads of preparedness and liberty. You're all aware by now that I like to plan for the worst, but you also hopefully realize I want to live for the best. To me, this means living the life that I feel is my right as a citizen of this country. That is not a life free from all danger, safely wrapped in a security blanket of declining civil liberties. It is not a life where success, comfort, or wealth are promised me, but rather a life where I can pursue those items within the confines and opportunities afforded me by a document hundreds of years old, yet crafted with hard work and deep thought. That means being ready for the worst that can come from that liberty, but living to make the most of it.

I have a duty as a citizen of this country to live up to those very same ideals. Rights that are not exercised will disappear. We see that erosion today, we've seen it over the history of this country, and we see it in other nations around the world. I have been told implicitly by folks whose advice I treasure dearly that I would be well served by staying quiet. This is something I simply cannot do as a patriot, as a citizen, and as a believer in the ideals upon which this nation was founded. My opinions are put here exactly because we need to exercise and stretch our rights lest we lose them.

Live free, my friends, as best you can. But prepare in the event that freedom is taken from you, by nature, by fate, or by the very government sworn to uphold it.

The value of the Second Amendment

I don't do big political posts here. I'd rather not stir the hornet's nest, but readers here undoubtedly know how I feel. As a preparedness guy, I'd be remiss not to weigh in on the arguments going around. Here's my piece, take it for what it is.

Why is there a Second Amendment - This is the crux of the problem. We often hear people state that "no one will take away your hunting guns". But 2A isn't about hunting. It's about allowing the people to resist a tyrannical government. Period. That's the first thing we need to be clear on. With that in mind, let's look at the arguments made against the current state of gun ownership in the US.

The Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen what guns would be like in 200 years
First off, this is a non-argument. The 2nd Amendment doesn't include "unless technology advances".
Secondly, these were men who were the bright minds of their day. Many were inventors, authors, great thinkers. Some saw advances to firearms within their lifetime in the form of the percussion cap. They were one, maybe 2 generations removed from the heavy use of matchlock muskets. Rifling became more prevalent during the late 18th century and was used by them to good effect during the revolution. In fact, the rifle has changed less in the past 100 years than it did in the 100 before that. To state that they couldn't imagine advances to guns beyond their current experience is to assume, as so many do, that people used to be less intelligent than we are today. Certainly they wouldn't know the exact form, but they knew things would advance.
Finally, the intent was to allow the citizenry to resist an oppressive government. I doubt they expected more than civilians having the same firearms as the common soldier. Today that is a select-fire M4 rifle and an M9 semi-automatic pistol. Already we are prevented from owning select fire weapons, so the civilian is less armed than intended. And no, no one is saying folks should have more than a common soldier, no rocket launchers or flame throwers

Civilians can't fight the US military. They have tanks, jets, and bombs
That this argument is even made in the face of over a decade in Afghanistan and Iraq is astounding. The insurgency in those countries, a very small portion of the population, did an awful lot of damage being very outgunned by the US military.
When our Revolution began, the rebels were very outgunned. There were a few cannons in private hands, but very few. The budding country had no warships to call on and no control of forts. The first shots were fired by militia against trained and professional soldiers. Yet they managed, over many years, to turn the tides against the largest army in the world. Even in the modern age, there are methods used to fight against advanced technology.
There is also the fact that a large portion of the military and/or police force would have difficulty carrying out attacks on US citizens. Small groups of wackos are one thing, but a concerted uprising against a government deemed to be in violation of the Constitutional rights of a citizenry is completely different. Military oaths are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the current US government.

The constitution can be amended to remove the 2nd Amendment
Yes, it can. We've done it before for good reason. We've also done it for bad reasons, like Prohibition. That didn't work out by well for us, as banning something often makes it more desirable.
To me, the bigger problem is that the amendment in question is one of the first 10, the Bill of Rights. If we change or remove the 2nd one, what prevents us from messing with the other 9? Already the government has made inroads on our privacy and our right to a speedy trial through long term detention. Free speech comes under attack regularly. Once one falls, can we honestly say others won't?
Yes, this is the slippery slope argument, and one that has been had since the country started. Take away the 2nd Amendment, though, and you remove the last recourse afforded us when we were founded.

We already have a militia in the National Guard:
Without arguing the wording of the "right of the people" portion of the Amendment, the Guard when formed was done so as a formal militia, with the intent that the people made up an informal militia. Should the need arise, every citizen could be called upon to defend the nation. In recent years, the idea that our Guard is strictly a militia has been proven false. Regular deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan prove that they are treated as a wing of the military and not for defending the borders of the state and country to which they belong. This defies the idea that they are strictly a defensive force.

We're more advanced, we don't have to defend ourselves against the government
Yes, I have heard this. Recent history is full of examples where this has proven untrue. Iraq, Afghanistan, numerous Central and South American nations, Kosovo...the list goes on and on. The "it can't happen here" argument is never a good one. It is nothing shy of conceit to think we're better or different than other people on this planet. In the USA we love to claim we're #1, but our history is chock full of horrible things we've done to our own people.

That's my $.02, feel free to weigh in with your thoughts, arguments, etc. Preferably right here below and keep them polite. Thanks!