Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Defense of Community, Family, Property...

Defense of Community, Family, Property, Self-Preservation and the effective check against Tyranny…

The headline, in a nutshell, says it all. For it succinctly provides the reasoning, of the Founders of our country, in having an armed citizenry. Pretty simple isn’t it? Now, if things were as they were intended to be. The average citizen, upon reading the above, would think or say, yeah…so?

But, since things are NOT as they were intended to be. Endless amounts of articles, that rehash similar points repeatedly, are necessary. Which article will be the one that gets those, Usurping against the American citizens Right to Keep and Bear Arms, to see the light? Which piece of writing will prove to be the magic bullet? The one, which will cause those Usurping against our Second Amendment Right, to cease in their attempts?

Considering the fact, that many of the Founders and the Framers of our Constitution, thought this Right so important. So vital, that it was enumerated into the Constitution, as the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Which reads as follows;

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

One has to ask, what is turning out to be an age old question, “What part of shall NOT be Infringed do you NOT understand?”

I mean think about it. Is it not commonly accepted, that there is both good and evil in this world in which we all must live? And, that the means for good to be enabled to keep the evil at bay. Has always been the application, or the apparent threat thereof, of retaliatory force? Has anyone come up with a truly sound alternative, other than the actual or implied use of force? One in which would provide a suitable replacement, in acting as a deterrent to the evil? If so, why have they not shared it with the rest of us?

Let us examine the issue more closely. What are the deeper underlying motives of those seeking to disarm their fellow citizens? What is their reasoning for desiring this? The most apparent motive and reasoning would have to be fear. Accepting this, one then has to ask what are they afraid of? Has the person, from which this fear emanates done something which would provide just cause for retribution by their fellow citizens? Does the way in which they normally conduct themselves, on a daily basis. Aggravate those with whom they come into contact? If that is the case, then how does their fear justify the disarming of other citizens? Leaving the others wide open to the whims of those who practice evil? Can that be considered as "Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty?" That argument doesn’t make sense. Yet, it is the commonly accepted practice. Can it reasonably be asserted as just, true liberty, equality and impartial? No, not even remotely. Those with this type of fear need to, quite simply, get over it. You need to master your fear, and stop letting your fear be yours and ours master. There are medications available if you are unable to handle your fear.

There is another angle to the issue of fear that is worthy of inspection. Let’s assume the ones seeking to disarm their fellow citizens, have a more sinister purpose in mind. One in which, they are seeking to advance their own perverse control over their fellow citizens. They want absolute power over their fellows. And if their fellows have a means of negating their lust for power, it blocks their assumption of it. To this it can be answered, yes. That is precisely the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, for placement of the Right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was a crucial aspect of the intended ‘checks and balances’ system. It is very plainly explained in the Federalist Papers should you desire proof.

This coin of fear has more than two sides however. Now, let us approach from yet another angle. Suppose the fearful one(s) are guided by their own sense of inadequacy. That they either cannot or will not defend themselves? Can this be held as a plausible excuse for disarming their fellow man? Hardly. Certainly not when justly considered in a legal or moral sense. The remedy was one that was addressed by the Framers as well. It is supposed to be one of the roles of the unorganized Militia – common defense of the community. In addition, it is the moral and civic responsibility of the citizenry to defend those who cannot defend themselves.

The solution held by so many of the fearful, is that of giving the government control over the issue. And while this may seem right in theory, it goes outside the bounds of our Constitution. For it gives government powers that it was not delegated to receive nor exercise control over. Congress was given power over the First Clause in the Second Amendment; “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” in Section 8 of the Constitution. This is known as the declaratory clause, as defined in the preamble to the Bill of Rights.

The second clause in the Bill, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, is the restrictive clause also mentioned in the preamble. Which outlines that government is in NO WAY, by ANY MEANS infringe on that Right. For Congress or ANYONE else to infringe upon that Right, is an usurpation – an illegal exercise of authority. For, quite the contrary is true, as found in the preamble, that the “further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” And furthermore, as indicated by Mr. Thomas Jefferson in a Reply to the Citizens of Wilmington, 1809, "[The] best principles [of our republic] secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights."

The Framers of the Constitution realized and allotted for the natural propensity of power is to garner unto itself even more power. And as the old saying goes ‘Absolute power corrupts absolutely’. To allow government, at ANY level control over that Right, can be likened to giving the keys to a Candy store to an overweight child that has an uncontrollable taste for sweets. They are not going to stop consuming until it is all gone.
Does it stand to reason that the Right, enumerated as the last defense against a tyrannical government, be left in control of the government against whom it was intended? That defies the laws of sanity as well as of the Constitution.
No, what our government is doing, is capitalizing on the fear emanating from many of the people. This fear provides a seemingly plausible excuse for their usurpations. And is accepted by many of the people as being for the common good. The founders warned us that there would be those in government whom would attempt such perversion. They examined many different scenarios and implanted checks to maintain balance in our intended system. The underpinnings of the foundation of our intended system are being systematically removed. It is only a matter of time before the whole structure crumbles down around or on us.

There is only one proper time that a citizen can legally be disarmed. That is if a citizen has transgressed the law and is incarcerated. When they have paid their debt to society and are released from incarceration. They have the Right and duty to resume exercising their Right. For it is a God-given and natural Right. In fact, Self-Preservation is held as being the First Law of Nature. Every last one of us has done wrong, whether in thought, word or deed. That is the natural condition of fallen man.

It is NOT within the realm of governmental power to regulate by use of prior restraint. For it is in direct confliction with the Principles of Freedom and Liberty. If it is deemed that a person, who had committed a crime, has paid their debt to society and is released. That citizen is then back into the realm of nature. To arbitrarily remove the citizens natural Right to Self-Preservation, which is the First Law of Nature, is cruel and inhuman. For they are left defenseless to the whim of others.

When the Laws of God and Nature are transgressed, there are inevitable consequences. Consider this, since the initiation of gun control by government, can it truthfully be said that crime has been reduced? On the contrary, it has gotten worse and more heinous in nature. And the reason is simple – the natural check set in place by the Framers has been perverted. Further ignorance of this fact will lead to even more severe repercussions.

We must examine the government’s motivation for the reckless disregard of our Constitution. The infringement(s) are plainly repugnant to the Constitution. Why are they assuming power beyond the clear limitations imposed? There can be no legally justifiable explanation. It leaves one to only logically assume there must be an ulterior motive. In consideration of the illegal methods employed, it can hardly be hoped that their motivations are meant to be beneficial to We The People. It is clearly more indicative of an evil intention on the part of government. For there are a number of ways this perversion could be immediately overturned. Yet there is no move by any in government to do so.

In addition, government has steadily attacked other portions of our Bill of Rights. Or failed entirely to ensure that the local and state levels were compliant of them. For it is the clearly defined duty of the federal to enforce compliance. To wit;

Article VI - This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

To further illustrate this point, consider the preamble to the Bill of Rights yet again. For it is stated:

“The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

Why would the states express a desire for further clauses if the Bill doesn’t apply to them? Can it reasonably be contended the states can pick and chose which Rights they will honor and which they will not? I was born, but it wasn’t yesterday! There are those whom contend that the Bill of Rights applies only to the Federal. Enlighten us and show us where that was the intentions of the Framers! Who do you government officials think your dealing with? Do you actually think we are so blind? That we cannot see that the intended system is not what we have currently? Are We The People the Ultimate Legitimate Authority or are we not?

Allow me to offer up a viewpoint of Mr. Alexander Hamilton, which he shared in Federalist #26:

“The opponents of the proposed Constitution combat, in this respect, the general decision of America; and instead of being taught by experience the propriety of correcting any extremes into which we may have heretofore run, they appear disposed to conduct us into others still more dangerous, and more extravagant. As if the tone of government had been found too high, or too rigid, the doctrines they teach are calculated to induce us to depress or to relax it, by expedients which, upon other occasions, have been condemned or forborne. It may be affirmed without the imputation of invective, that if the principles they inculcate, on various points, could so far obtain as to become the popular creed, they would utterly unfit the people of this country for any species of government whatever. But a danger of this kind is not to be apprehended. The citizens of America have too much discernment to be argued into anarchy. And I am much mistaken, if experience has not wrought a deep and solemn conviction in the public mind, that greater energy of government is essential to the welfare and prosperity of the community.”

Now what do you suppose Alex means by that? And Alex continues on in #26;

“Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the voice, but, if necessary, the arm of their discontent.”

Somewhat contradictory, if the citizens of the state don’t have the RIGHT, isn’t it? Just what rights are the State legislatures supposed to be vigilant, suspicious and jealous guardians of? Just what is it that you people in government are trying to pull on us?

Mr. Hamilton approaches from another angle in Federalist #28:

"The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.

"But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.

"How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!"

Well now, can you imagine that? That Alex was something, wasn’t he?

And last, but certainly not least, here is one from another author of the Federalist Papers, Mr. James Madison, you know - the leading author of the Bill of Rights. Anyways, James declared the following in Federalist #51;

"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." - James Madison, Federalist No. 51

Don’t think a snide remark is necessary on this one, do you? It sort of STANDS all by itself, doesn’t it?

There have been numerous repugnant laws and ordinances allowed to pass unchecked by the courts. And the perversion continues and is increasing in its frequency. It is up to we the people to remind our supposed representatives to resume their intended position. Which is to serve our best interests, NOT what they feel is best for us. They need to return to following the founding Principles in the peoples Constitution! Failure of our insistence on this issue, will be at our own peril.

Lady Liberty wrote an article touching on this subject called Without Exception. It is well worth a read!


straightarrow said...


E. David Quammen said...

Why, thank you StraightArrow!