The following is my last reply on the post. It is mainly in response to a question concerning weapons of mass destruction in the hands of citizens, (Nukes, NBC agents, etc.) :
.
Below is my response to the follwing question that was posed:
.
"The SCotUS ruled that a saw-off shotgun isn't a viable "militia" weapon, is that the standard?"
.
Congress has delegated authority over the militia. That is a fact, that cannot be contested. And, if I'm not mistaken. The case you referenced was argued on the basis of the defendant(s) being in the militia.
.
The right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms is a pre-existent Right of Nature. It is a stand alone inherent, and natural right that has NOTHING to do with the militia. Other than joining with others in your community if the situation demanded it. The militia was declared as necessary to the security of a free state in the "Declaratory" clause. The right of the people was removed from debate in the "Restrictive" clause. It was specifically kept from being intruded upon by ANY acts of government/law.
.
Because Congress illegally, with the concurrence of S.C.O.T.U.S., stuck their nose in. And this, in a place where it was specifically denied any intrusion upon, or any authority over. Does that make their decisions right and legally correct? NO. It makes it an Usurpation of authority and an exercise of unconstitutional power. How can "Shall NOT be Infringed" possibly be mistaken in its meaning? It cannot. The ONLY legal authority they have, is punishment for misuse of the God-given, Inherent and Natural right.
.
However, the government is specifically charged with the duty of:
.
"...insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
.
How can a right be secured, if it is allowed to be infringed? If a person is free from confinement - they are free, they have paid their debt for their crime. They are once again in 'the state of nature' and entitled to defend themselves. Anything different than this can very well be construed as cruel and unusual punishment.
.
The weapons that are capable of causing mass destruction cannot, and must not be left up to the use of individual discretion. That would defy the whole purpose of instituting a government to begin with - security of the whole society. Which government, is supposed to have a series of checks and balances to ensure against, as far as is possible, incorrect and arbitrary decisions in the use of power.
.
The decision for use of a weapon of mas[s] destruction would be an arbitrary one, in the case of an individual. And brings in others that may not concur with its use. Thusly causing an adverse effect on the noncombatants liberty. As much Individual liberty as is possible, within the bounds of respect for the liberty of others, is the guiding rule. Or, it is supposed to be.
.
The right of self-defense/preservation is the First Law of Nature. The whole American governmental system is based upon "the transcendent laws of nature and of natures God". And is supposed to be guaranteed to each and every free American citizen without distinction. It is the basis on which our Constitution was formed - the very foundation. It cannot be discarded, or whittled down by technical misconstructions. For it is THE Fundamental law on which all others stand. It is a pillar, as well as self-defense/preservation being the guardian of ALL of the other rights. And, we are to be like armed as the military force, in the hands of usurpers, that may be employed against us. However, we do not have the right of taking those, whom are not involved by their own choice, with us. Which the use of a weapon of mass destruction would most certainly entail.
.
And, as indicated in an earlier post. If we have a government that has, or is using weapons of mass destruction on the people, than that government needs altered or abolished.
No comments:
Post a Comment