Those armedprotesters at anti-tax and health care reform rallies aren’t an anomaly, arguesJoshua Horwitz, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition toStop Gun Violence. They’re part of a fringe element of the gun rights movementthat supports armed rebellion against what they see as tyrannical governmentcontrol. But Horwitz, author of Guns, Democracyand the Insurrectionist Idea, argues that this viewpoint is rooted in aflawed interpretation of the Second Amendment and the early years of thisnation. Horwitz, who will speak at a Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort benefit onOct. 22, spoke to the Shepherd aboutthe insurrectionist idea and how it influences the current debate on guncontrol.
Shepherd: What is the insurrectionist idea?
Horwitz: It’s the notion that armed political violence is a legitimate part ofour democratic process. Our thinking about that is clearly “no,” but it’s anidea that has gained a lot of traction among libertarian and other groups inthe last couple of years. It’s the idea that you can show up armed at a healthcare rally and it’s a legitimate form of protest. “You can push us only so faror we will retaliate with violence.” That’s what the message is.
Of course,that is anathema to America’smost important idea, and that idea is equality. My vote is worth as much asyour vote. Gun ownership does not have anything to do with your politicalclout. But that’s the crux of the insurrectionist idea.
Shepherd: But aren’t they just acting on their Second Amendment right to beararms?
Horwitz: But it’s an infringement on my liberty. My liberty is that my votecarries the same weight as your vote. They cast everything in the notion offreedom, but it’s really detrimental to the rest of our freedoms. It’s afundamental idea that we come to these forums as equal citizens and that youshould respect my vote even if you don’t like it. That’s the law of the land.And to believe that you should challenge that with firearms is anathema toconstitutionalism in general and our Constitution specifically.
Shepherd: But the United States was founded during a violentrevolution and bearing arms protects citizens from a tyrannical government.Isn’t that patriotic?
Horwitz: Our country was founded in a violent revolutionwhich swept away aform of government. But I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. That’s whyI call it the insurrectionist idea, which is the unlawful activity against thegovernment.
But I thinkthe most important lesson that people tend to forget is that the revolutionarygovernment’s first documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Articlesof Confederation, did not work as a governing principle. The Constitution wasformed to correct the libertarian bias of the Declaration of Independence. So Ithink that while people were proud of their revolutionary service, they foundthat those documents were impossible [to use] to run a country. We came veryclose to losing the Revolutionary War because the federal government didn’thave enough power. After the Revolutionary War, most of the major cities hadriots. Legislatures were basically nonfunctional. The federal government had 90troops at their disposalliterally.
Shays’Rebellion broke out in 1786 and a group of self-anointed militia members tookover the local courts and basically [George] Washington and others said, “We’vehad enough. We need a strong central government.” So that’s what they did. Itreally beggars the imagination to say, “Well, we want a strong centralgovernment, but let’s ratify a Second Amendment that creates the same problemwe just had.”
Shepherd: How does that translate into the current debate on gun controllawssay, mandating background checks on all gun purchases, including privatesales at gun shows?
Horwitz: If you see, as I do, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is topreserve the independence of the militias, then the states should be able toregulate the militias in any way they see fit. They may say they’re going tokeep all of the guns and people can get the guns from them. At Lexingtonand Concord thestores of weapons were in public places, in armories. Or they could say they’dlike you to keep the weapons. But, in the 1780s, they had a list of who hadweapons and what type of weapons.
The onlyargument for not wanting to have a background check or having a record of saleon all gun sales is that they don’t want the government knowing [who owns agun] because the government could take their guns away. To me, that iscompletely illegitimate. The state government has every right to know who hasguns.
Shepherd: How did this sort of fringe interpretation of the Second Amendmentbecome endorsed by mainstream politicians and Supreme Court justices?
Horwitz: That’s the scary part of this. The real battle on gun control or gunviolence prevention is between those who are the insurrectionists and those whoare not. Those who I label self-defenders or huntersif you want to keep a gunin your home, or if you want to use a gun to hunt, what does it matter if youhave to go through a background check to buy your gun? It doesn’t. In fact,it’s part of your service to your country to make sure that it doesn’t get intothe hands of criminals.
But thevehement part [of the gun rights movement] says they don’t want that. They arenot worried about having a gun for self-defense. They want a gun to take on thegovernment. Yes, it is very scary. A lot of the major presidentialcandidatesMike Huckabee, Ron Paulvery clearly said the Second Amendment isnot about duck hunting, that it’s about the ability to take on a tyrannicalgovernment. Then you have the [D.C. v.Heller] case, where you have [SupremeCourt Justice Antonin] Scalia, all over his footnotes, saying that this rightis based on the historic ability to take on the government, and moreimportantly makes the case that an independent citizens militia is an importantpart of this right.
Think about that. The rebels in Shays’ Rebellion were an independentmilitia. Our founders came together and drafted a new Constitution exactlybecause they did not want independent militias. Now we have a Supreme Courtdecision saying that’s a historic part of this. It’s very disturbing and scary.