A story came across the newswires about a man that was forced to rob a bank.
How can you force someone to rob a bank, you ask. 46-year-old Brian Douglas Wells, a pizza delivery guy, went to a remote location outside of his home town of Erie, PA to deliver a pizza, and showed up an hour later at the local PNC bank with a "sophisticated" bomb strapped around his neck and a note demanding money. He successfully got out of the bank with the loot, but was stopped soon after by the State Police. Once stopped, he pleaded with the police that they had to remove the bomb because it was going to go off soon. He then told them his story: of going to deliver the pizza, being forced to wear the bomb, and rob the bank. The police listened, but did not remove the bomb, and it exploded, killing him.
It seems like something out of a movie, and no one's conclusively proved that he wasn't acting alone (although it seems unlikely he would concoct this story and then allow himself to blow up just to prove it), but that's not my point here. What I'm focused on, beyond the fact that the State Police allowed him to die in that explosion instead of trying to save him, are the acts of coercion, both the bomb, and the robbery.
If indeed someone attempted to force Mr. Wells to rob the bank, and he had instead been armed, this would not have occurred. His unknown assailant would not have thought to attempt this if he thought the pizza delivery guy was armed. If the populace were armed, the threat of using force like this in a bank to steal from others would not work. I'm not even envisioning or encouraging Western-style shootouts, but instead I envision a palpable decline in threats. This because every time you tried to threaten someone, they might be carrying a gun, probably would be carrying a gun, and more importantly, can retaliate. It makes every attempted act of coercion a life-and-death decision. I've often wondered why banks don't make handguns and handgun training standard issue for bank tellers. Would you rob a bank manned by well-armed tellers?
Gun control advocates have often replied to calls for relaxed gun laws by saying that people can't be trusted with guns, and it must have some oversight by other people. Or they'll tell us guns should be outlawed altogether, saying people can't be trusted with guns, that if more people had guns, there'd be more shootings on the roads and at traffic accidents, despite the fact that in the last 60 years of concealed gun permits being issued, only one person has been arrested for using a handgun at a traffic accident and that was ruled as self-defense. (Source: http://www.tsra.com/Lott6.htm) This despite the fact that, for example, of the 444,000 gun permits issued in Florida in the 1980's, only 87 were revoked for firearms violations. 87 out of 444,000. That works out to 0.0002% of the permits issued. (Source: http://www.tsra.com/Lott6.htm) And yet they persist saying we should not be trusted with guns. However, as Thomas Jefferson, among others has said, "How can one not fit to govern themselves, be fit to govern others?"
This notion of armed resistance against coercion extends beyond just protecting the innocent from the criminal. The Founding Fathers lived in a time where the government attempted via armed coercion to suppress notions of freedom and individual right. They recognized that the only way to protect the people from government coercion was to let the people arm themselves. When people are armed, they CANNOT be forced to do what they do not want to do.
That's what happened during the Revolutionary War. This is why the Nazis could not enter the Warsaw ghettos during the Warsaw Uprising. That is what has happened repeatedly when an armed populace was put upon by their government.
The belief in a free and armed populace is an essential part of American culture, and freedom in general. It was important enough to the Founding Fathers that they had it explicitly included in the Bill of Rights. It was important enough that almost every State Constitution from the revolutionary war on explicitly enumerates the right. The Constitution of Pennsylvania, as an examplem is even more explicit than the US Constitution: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” (Source: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Constitution.html)
And yet, despite all of this, people would still take away your right to protect yourself, your family, and property, and tell you you're safer because of it. And despite their desire to rescind your rights, and their desire to jail you if you choose to exercise your own conscience, they'll tell you you're still just as free as you were before.
But ask yourself, how can you truly be free, if you're not free to defend yourself?
