"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-- George Mason, quoted in today's New York Sun editorial.

Last night I discovered that Jeff Soyer was written up in the UK's Guardian -- although hardly in a manner which could be called respectful. Aside from quoting Jeff without linking him (a definite blog faux pas -- of the Wolcottian variety when done deliberately), they also paid him a sort of lefthanded compliment by calling him part of "the lunatic fringe of the US right." I quickly emailed Jeff to make sure he knew about this compliment, and this morning he thanked the Guardian for honoring him.

As Jeff noted, though, the Guardian neither linked the post they were quoting, nor was it quoted in context. In his post (about Kalashnikov rifles) Jeff said:

Is the AK-47 being used by bad people? Yes. It's also being used by good people. The firearm is neutral.

If some third-world governments are using the AK's to "trample human rights" then rather than banning the sale and export of them, the UN and other so-called "human rights" groups ought to be making sure that AK's are also available and used to fight for human rights and be provided to those who are being "trampled upon".

Instead, they follow the faulty (and proven wrong) logic that banning guns will stop bad people from having them and using them for evil. Cities such as DC and Chicago prove this everyday when they prevent the law-abiding from handgun ownership, thereby empowering the criminals and thugs to prey on them.

As the saying goes, "God created man... Sam Colt made them equal." (Actually, I suspect the original went, "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal.")

To me, this is basic ABCs-of-freedom stuff. To the Guardian, an elementary principle of freedom is apparently "lunatic fringe."

Ditto the United Nations and its gun grabbing venture - which wants to use "International Law" as a cover for preservation of the rights of dictators at the expense of people living in places like Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Sierra Leone. Or China, Iran, Belarus, and Egypt.

Jeff links Cam Edwards, who reports from the United Nations:

The Cambodian genocide took place just a generation ago. Yet already the Cambodian government is disarming its citizens, with the approval and help of the United Nations and its disarmament program. In a perfect world, the United Nations would be holding an armament program for the people of Cambodia. It would understand the right of self-protection. It would understand that the State isn’t always the good guy.

Human history shows that tyrannical governments are an inherent threat to freedom. When people are disarmed, tyranny and totalitarianism flourish. When they are armed, tyranny and totalitarianism hesitate.

Nobody put it better than Jefferson:

When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

If arming citizens against tyrants is a lunatic fringe idea, then by all means count me as part of the fringe.

I'll close with more from the New York Sun editorial:

A ban on arms ensures that these oppressive regimes have a complete monopoly on force. Those struggling for freedom in their totalitarian states will have no means to realize their dreams. The Chinese regime wants to defend its ability to conduct a massacre in Tiananmen Square without people being able to fight back.

The Founding Fathers saw the Second Amendment as a way to ensure Americans never faced the same tyranny that dominates the United Nations. A Second Amendment in other countries would be a gift to freedom seekers. As Madison noted in the same Federalist paper quoted above, if a people have arms and local governments "it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." This conference instead seeks to solidify the thrones of today's tyrants.

You'd have to be a member of the lunatic fringe.