Let's cut right to the chase at the very outset. The Founders of this Republic believed that all citizens should be armed as the best means of preventing government tyranny, including our own. They also believed that the rights enumerated in the First Amendment were secured and protected by an armed citizenry.
Now that we have that much out of the way, let's move on to another step.
Since the Founders believed these things and included gun rights in the Bill of Rights to be protected as one of the 'unalienable rights' of citizens, all of our so-called 'reasonable restrictions' on gun rights are illegal.
The common argument, for example, in favor of gun control compares firearms registration with getting a driver's license. But the two cannot be compared because getting a driver's license is not a Constitutional right but a privilege granted by states. Keeping and bearing firearms is not a privilege granted by anyone. It is an absolute right as stated in the Constitution.
OK, so we have dropped the ball in allowing encroachments upon this unalienable right ever since the 1940s. We refused to mount a serious fight against gun control in all forms. We did not draw a line in the sand, and even if we did, we didn't force those who crossed that line to suffer any measurable consequence.
That day is quickly drawing to an end.
Citizens around this nation who are perceptive and aware enough to know that under the current administration and Congress our rights are in grave danger are beginning to wake up to the fact that a day of reckoning may be approaching.
And, as the 'run on the gun shops' is proving, the citizens in record numbers are getting prepared not only to draw a line in the sand but to force those who cross that line to pay for their actions.
Never again will we allow the forces of anti-freedom in this country to encroach upon a God-given, Constitution-protected right. We have learned our lesson from our failures of the past. And we are ready.
Here we stand.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Strongly put, but I agree.
One thing bothers me, though, and it's probably due to my hazy understanding of how the States interact with the Federal government.
Are all the amendments in the Bill of Rights supposed to be interpreted the same way? I'm stumbling here, so bear with me. I guess my question is: How much power do the states have to 'regulate' something in the BOR? If they have the authority to regulate the 2nd Amendment, wouldn't they also have the authority to regulate the first? I'm struggling to understand the separation of powers o the states vs the powers of the Federal government. If you have any resources to suggest I use to learn more, I'm all ears!
Thanks, Jim
1] Rights predate goverment. 2] A right, akin to breathing, requires neither acceptance nor permission to exist. It exists and is often most evident while being violated. Since the definitions of "infringed" and "unalienable" are the same today as they were when the BOR was ratified, one must wonder: exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" remains unclear?
Their writings easily establish that the Founders envisioned the number of rights to be so vast as to be unwieldy in print; and some even argued that any attempt to incorporate an enumeration of rights into the Constitution could lessen the standing of a multitude of other rights which were not mentioned - ergo the inclusion of the (mostly ignored) Ninth Amendment. Thank God and the Federalists for refusing to sign the ratification of the Constitution unless a BOR was included. Had these courageous men not stood their ground, the three branches of government today would argue against any the existence of any rights whatsoever.
As to the "no right to drive" comment, please note: "Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer." - Former SCOTUS Justice William O. Douglas
DrJim, you might start by studying the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and The Federalist Papers.
>>>because getting a driver's license >>>is not a Constitutional right but >>>a privilege granted by states.
Please,please,please do not accept and regurgiate the urban myth a driver's license is a privilege granted by government.
The freedom to associate and to travel is as much a part of the Sovereign Citizen Heritage as RKBA.
Best regards,
JohnJacobH
An excellent point about the driving thing, and I stand corrected.
Fwiw, a license simply makes it legal to take your car on to public roads. You can own as many cars as you like and drive them as you please without that license, so long as you keep off of publicly funded roads. Of course the places you can find to do that are limited these days.
Hi, Lee
Well, I've read all them many times. I guess maybe what's confusing me is that they seem so trampled on these days. It's clear to anybody that reads our Founding Documents that government, as it exists today, simply ignores them when it suits their purpose, and nobody has stood up to them.
Drivers' licenses are just as prohibited by the Constitution as are gun control laws.
The concept was sold the same way most people have bought into gun control, as a safety issue. When automobiles first appeared on the scene they were no more subject to licensing than were buggy horses or the buggies they pulled.
This abomination was sold to the public as a way to ensure that all drivers were qualified to safely operate a motor vehicle. And most people bought it. Stupidly, I might add as there are guarantees in the constitution that our right to unfettered travel will be protected. As for the justification that licenses are necessary to operate on the public thoroughfares, HORSESHIT! Public thoroughfares are paid for, built and owned by the PUBLIC. That's right you and I and every other I own the public byways. Therefore, coupled with our right to travel unfettered, no agency has the legitimate power to demand a fee for allowing us to use them. They have been exercising the power for a long time now, but not legitimately. They enforce that power at the point of a gun, not at the legitimate and constitutional tenets of our society.
Since the driver's license issue has worked for the state so well, that tactic has been appropriated for imposition of other unlawful restrictions, including but not limited to the right to keep and bear arms.
Now, our enemies are getting impatient, and they are going to overplay their hand with unignorable acceleration. Good! Because I am tired of dancing to funeral music (death of liberty). Let's have some martial music and march to a better drummer.
Post a Comment