By: Michael Tuosto

Often the American 2nd Amendment gun debate revolves around tragedies like the one in Tuscon, Ariz. This is understandable since it was a tragedy “close to home.” In fact, at our home, America. For me, the renewed efforts to further restrict gun rights, due to this horrible event, are no different than the knee-jerk reaction to surrender our personal privacy in the name of national security. I’m talking, of course, about the Patriot Act as a response to 9/11. People can easily be convinced to surrender their individual liberties when such horrible events are fresh in their minds. I don’t dare condescend to this natural human reaction; it is real, comprehensible, and even logical with relation to human emotion. I simply make a concerted effort to resist it.

I believe the growing rebellion in Libya is providing a great example of why Americans must resist the urge to surrender our gun rights. Often characterized as “crazy right-wing fringe talk” is the idea that the founding fathers meant for the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution as an assurance for the people to resist oppressive government. This characterization is legitimate and successful because those who refer to our current American government as oppressive enough to warrant armed rebellion are being ridiculous and narrow minded. As large and intrusive as I believe our Federal government is no one can convince me that it is yet neglecting its obligation to derive “…just powers from the consent of the governed…” or that it’s abuses have become insufferable which Thomas Jefferson clearly states as the prerequisites for rebellion in The Declaration of Independence. The Libyan people have found that Moammar Gadhafi’s “leadership” (if you can call it that) and their government to be insufferable and thanks to the arms they were able to procure (illegally, which I will address later) they are able to make an effort to “throw off such Government” (I can’t get enough of that Declaration).

Lets be clear that the Libyan rebels are obviously not on an equal footing to Gadhafi’s forces when it comes to arms and military capabilities. As Jim Michaels reports in his USA Today article, entitled Libyan rebels hold positions in face of airstirkes, “Some [U.S.] senators…want to send arms to the rebels.” This is an example of why the symbolism of the second amendment as a means to resist oppressive government gets trivialized by second amendment critics. Obviously no show of force by a grassroots militia movement could threaten the might of the American military. In case of the Libyan rebellion, it has become clear to American representatives that the rebels need help and as Jim Michaels reports in the same article, a Libyan rebel named Saleh Mostafa believes “The only advantage (Gadhafi) has is the air force…” The American forces would have an incalculably greater advantage when faced with home grown opposition. I maintain that the symbolism is no less significant.

Perhaps we should not even get so far in the debate as to consider an armed confrontation between American citizens and the American armed forces. Lets just consider the symbolism of the sale of guns. Close to the 2008 presidential election Fredrick Kunkie wrote a piece, entitled Gun Sales Thriving Despite Tough Economy, that addressed the growing gun sales in America. He reported that “…many dealers, buyers and experts attribute the increase in part to concerns…and fears that if Sen. Barack Obama…wins the presidency, he will join with fellow Democrats in Congress to enact new gun controls.” If this were true than the gun sales were increasing in part because a segment of the population felt that their government would attack their individual liberties and in short become oppressive if elected.

I’ll accept that some of the blame rests with individuals, who are unable to see beyond their own immediate self-interests and can be easily stirred into a frenzy with the change of power in Washington. Why can’t we blame the institution, though, for allowing their actions and/or rhetoric to get to a point where a significant amount of people become afraid of oppression whenever their own political party does not win a major election. I believe their recent failure as leaders has led people to believe that Democrats and Republicans are no longer representing different ideas on how best to govern us all, but instead have chosen specific segments of the population to represent and ignore the rest.

It is this increased sale of guns that raises these questions. That, when viewed properly can lead to constructive debate about how best to reform our federal government; the institution, process, and political parties. If it were not legal to buy guns we the people would not have that barometer to judge the level of unrest amongst the population until it was too late. It might have done Mr. Gadhafi good to know how serious the people were getting about rebellion.