Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
At times it feels like we are standing at the breach, looking into the future at a world we have long feared. On our side of the opaque wall, we observe the world around us: the various inconsistencies between the words that we use, such as freedom or liberty, and their visible contradictions presented and enforced by our fellow men and in society and government. On the other side of that hazy barrier between now and the possible future, we perceive looming shadows of tyranny, or the rippling chaos of anarchy, both of which reflect the ugly elements of human history. In it throes of such uncertainty, pithy statements do little to staunch the flow of fear of the unknown future.
The idea that the Second Amendment is under attack has been well marketed and well shared to the tune of bumper stickers, campaign slogans, and social media posts. All of which, though warranted, beg the question of just what “shall not comply” means when the consequences could strike closer to home than then when nebulous “big tech” chooses that your voice does not deserve to be heard. The Second Amendment is Alive and Well in the United States, as over the last year, month after month, firearms and ammunition are purchased in record quantities by the citizens of the country.
The spirit of non-compliance also has a long history within the annals of America, whether it be the inception of the nation in rebellion against a king, or the way Marijuana effectively won the war on drugs. Using the statement “Shall Not Comply” as a rallying cry can be as effective at virtue signaling group affinity, much like the coexist bumper stickers that have somehow survived since 2001, or it can represent deeply held beliefs about individual liberties. The span between both creates suspicion amongst otherwise aligned belief systems, similar to the difference between effective marketing strategies for inferior products as opposed to those inventions that need no commercials to remain in high demand.
Just like the Second Amendment itself, it is not the series of words that hold the power, but the principles behind them. Our human right to own firearms is not granted by mere ink on paper, but rather, the ideas contained in them. If we do not believe that it is our right to bear arms, as humans, granted by our existence, then we have no grounds on which to uphold any statement of refusing to comply with the laws of the land. In contrast, it is individual rights that are supposed to hold the government accountable.
Non-compliance itself is not a simple idea, as the multitude of petty rebels have shown, believing that the act of “sticking it to the man” is justification in itself for refusing to follow the rules. Like a child who pushes boundaries, not out of principle, but out of mere disobedience, refusing to comply with the law out of mere disdain for the lawgiver deserves no respect, and contains no dignity. By nature, the act of non-compliance is a gamble with two realities: morality and the outcome.
The outcome is easier to consider, for refusing to follow a rule or law that, even if broken, imposes no consequences, then the act of rebelling from an impotent rule is hardly worth considering. Although it isn't the size of the empire that determines the morality of its rebels, without the possibility of persecution, or the presence of difficulty, one can hardly call it perseverance. In this reality, refusing to comply with the government gambles with whether or not one will survive their rebellion.
But the morality of non-compliance presents a much more dire problem to unravel. The act of non-compliance, if not founded in something deeper than the act itself, then becomes inherently immoral. In the same way, the gamble of morality is rooted in the complexity of human belief of what is indeed right, true, or good. Thankfully there are ways to rule out certain systems, such as “might makes right” or “the ends justify the means.” The confidence in logic is tempered by the humility of recognizing the dim glass we see through as individuals.
So as we hear of looming threats through proposed infringements on our individual human rights, we are certain to hear the phrase “shall not comply” more often. Looking into the long game of history, the threat of sweeping controls looks like a thin veil between the discomfort of today, and the tyranny of tomorrow. However, the breach in that opaque wall should be seen more as a hallway or corridor, stretching both into the future and the past, as a continual commitment to values despite the challenges of the day. Before we consider non-compliance, we must remember that the Second Amendment is the expression of a reality that we as individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what a government declares.
Firearms Ownership embodies the virtue of self-reliance and claiming independence without the ability to back it up results only in the mockery of the tenant. Owning a firearm (effect) does not make one self-reliant (cause) just as refusing to comply (effect) does not imply standing on morals (cause). As soon as we believe that it is the government that gives and takes away rights, we lose any justification to call ourselves free.
https://www.recoilweb.com/shall-not-comply-vs-non-compliance-166448.html