“Armaments” and the Second Amendment
Our Founding Fathers perceived the heavy hand of government becoming more intrusive, as do the organizers of the Black Lives Matter movement, the Tea Party, Occupiers, the NRA, and farmers in Oregon and throughout the country — just to name a few.
The recent debate on “gun control” has led me to the conclusion that Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Barack Obama, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, Chris Christie and all the others are not just wrong, but they are devious buffoons. And to beat all, I am beginning to believe Donald Trump may be right; our leaders are not very smart.
I understand that those running for President and those who have an agenda for their party to win an election want to gin-up issues that we the people can be for or against. It’s called a “Crossfire Syndrome.” I discussed this syndrome at some length in a book I wrote a few years ago after I heard Michael Crichton coin the phrase more than 20 years ago. The Crossfire Syndrome is a debate over an issue in which the extreme positions both pro and con are argued, leaving little or no room for contrary positions. This process can at times prove to be feeble in finding truth between the extremes, especially when truth may lie somewhere else.
Our current debate over guns relates to this Crossfire Syndrome by way of our politicians and media taking contrary positions, and then infusing the Constitution – as a straw man – into their preset positions. Theirs is a purposeful obfuscation of the underlying issue so they have lots to talk about, because that’s what they do. The media has to fill airtime in which they talk about, deconstruct, and obfuscate the 2nd Amendment. And politicians need to create issues that otherwise wouldn’t exist so they can have you believe they are going to solve a problem they deem important; a problem that they typically create. I wrote a column a couple of years ago about how politicians do this: “Politics the Only Game in Town”.
Be aware — just because lots of people from the President to your computer tech talk about the 2nd Amendment — that does not mean they have any idea what they’re talking about as it relates to the origins and protections of our right to bear arms: one of our unalienable rights.
Our right to bear arms is not given to us by the Constitution. It is an “Unalienable Right” which is merely codified in the Bill of Rights. I hope you are able to appreciate the distinction.
The right to bear arms has very little to do with the 2nd Amendment other than it was written down for us to remember. It is your right, whether it had been written in the Bill of Rights or not. So don’t let politicians, attorneys, and the press tell you any different. (This will be explained in more detail below.)
One of the problems with the current 2nd Amendment debate is that many of the people that are arguing are either uneducated as to the origins of our “unalienable rights,” unable to recognize the underlying issue as to why this was codified in the Bill of Rights, or they don’t believe in the underpinnings of the American Revolution: the supreme position that the individual holds over any group, elected official, clergy, deity, elder, lord, king, radical Muslim thug, or president, from telling you – the individual – what to do and how to do it.
Where Our Rights Come From
The question being asked by those arguing back and forth about the 2nd Amendment, unbeknownst to many of them, is this: Do we have unalienable rights or not?
Unalienable rights are yours by the sheer fact that you are human, and you exist. They are not given to you by any government, or endowed upon you by a document. These rights cannot be abridged, changed, or taken away by an executive order of a President, Attorney General’s opinion, government dictate, Supreme Court ruling, congressional action, law, piece of paper, or any deed by others; by force or otherwise.
These unalienable rights are the foundation of our liberal democracy, and what Thomas Jefferson and others simplified for the masses by saying this: These rights are “endowed” to us by our creator . . . whoever or whatever you want that to be; you define it.
The concept of unalienable rights emanates from the presumption that an individual can determine his or her own destiny, and can make moral judgments and sensible decisions in their daily lives for themselves without intervention or coercion from “the State” or “the Church.” This presumption was not the governing model at the time of our Revolutionary War, yet became the foundational component in drafting our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. These foundational components, our “unalienable rights,” were considered to be those basic “human rights” that cannot be taken away or amended.
These explicit rights were the basis for the American Revolution. Our forefathers didn’t go to war with the lawful British government at the time based on some constitutional principles or something written in the Constitution; the Constitution didn’t exist. The basis for our REVOLT – our Revolutionary War with the Brits – as articulated in our Declaration of Independence, was due to an erosion of our fundamental (unalienable) rights; particularly our right to self-rule. Then as now, the erosion of our basic right to freedom, as well as a deficit of government to fulfill its responsibility for security, safety and defense triggered talks of revolt against our government. Our founding fathers perceived the heavy hand of government becoming more intrusive, as do the organizers of the Black Lives Matter movement, the Tea Party, Occupiers, the NRA, and farmers in Oregon and throughout the country — just to name a few.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights
The documents our forefathers wrote – the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights – contrary to what some want us to believe, weren’t written for a different day-and-time or for a different technology or for a set of sexual morays of the 18th Century. They were written simply as an adjunct to our unalienable rights and to codify those rights. As I have noted before and would like to strongly reiterate . . . These documents do not give us our rights; they are merely documents that ratify what we know (then and now) to be the essence of the human experience. And the Bill of Rights, as a protection, merely articulates some of those unalienable rights: the ones the founding fathers thought were important enough for us to contemplate and remember.
Our founding fathers wrote some of these rights down because they feared that the Constitution, as drafted, would allow tyranny on the part of the central government. They wanted to spell out individual citizens’ immunities so the government wouldn’t meddle with them. So what are we doing today? We are meddling with them.
Those who drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights understood the foibles of human nature and the relentless pursuit that some have for power, control, and swindling the wealth from the productivity of the masses.
The conditions that brought about the American Revolutionary War prove the wisdom of our forefathers in drafting these documents. And the recklessness and foolishness of our present day discourse has vindicated their insights. That’s a nice way of saying, thank God the idiots in Congress today weren’t around back then to write our founding documents; otherwise we would be living under authoritarian rule and wouldn’t have the freedoms we currently enjoy. We would be more like Iran.
Our founding fathers understood what it took to free the individual from history’s restraints and the dictates of a few; what we call today the “Political Class.” They went through a revolution against the controls and edicts of an autocratic government whose sole function was to subjugate the individual for a monarch’s edification; similar to what we see when Congress takes from the masses to give themselves perks that we the people don’t get.
Today, when the power of a government — democratically elected or not — is used to infringe on or abuse the unalienable rights of any group or individual, and the more entrenched and repressive that government gets — perceived or in fact — then that government and those in control of that government will be cause for an escalation in rebellions. It happens all over the world and it has happened here in the U.S. The solution for such a scenario is what the founding fathers and the leaders of the civil rights movement did to secure their unalienable rights: fight for them. And every time additional infringements to our rights take place, we are one step closer to an armed revolution.
Arms vs. Guns
Which brings us to the point of “bearing arms” versus “having guns.”
You may recall studying sets and subsets in junior high geometry. Simply put, guns and arms are not the same thing. Guns are a subset of arms. The founding fathers purposely addressed arms not guns; a more robust all-encompassing statement that gives us the reminder that we the people are in control and we have the right to exercise power over the government through the ballot box and with enough “arms” — meaning physical force, if needed — sufficient to overthrow the government.
As for the need for a gun to hunt . . . Those who say they don’t want to infringe on the right of an individual to have guns for hunting are purposefully obfuscating the issue; they are either devious or stupid. The Constitution is not about a person’s right to have a gun for hunting or for target practice. The Constitution merely codifies our unalienable right to have weaponry to aid us in fulfilling our individual right to life, liberty, property, and pursuing our individual dreams and aspirations. It sanctions our absolute right to protect ourselves and to bear armaments sufficient enough to kill people who take away or try to take away our unalienable rights, whether they are part of a governing authority or not.
The right to bear arms (armaments) is about guns and knives and all sorts of other weapons. The Constitution guarantees we the people the right and the ability to have like force, and if necessary a militia, to overthrow a governing authority that has become or is becoming totalitarian.
Careful of the Compromise
As noted above, our unalienable rights are not debatable. So don’t fall for the ploy of compromising as it relates to these rights. Either you have them or you don’t. There is no middle ground between having unalienable rights and not having unalienable rights. Anybody who wants to compromise or engage in a “crossfire” debate about these rights wants to take them away.
There are those who insist on going down the road of relentlessly advocating for the elimination of certain unalienable rights. If their actions are successful, they will eventually kill our constitutional republic and will bring an end to the greatest liberal democracy the world has ever seen: the same as for which a Taliban leader advocated this past week and was reported in the press. Advocating for and accomplishing such will eventually eliminate your ability to determine your own destiny. And the beneficiaries of such will be the likes of the tyrannical despots from the past. So be careful!
Last But Not Least . . .
Many of us understand that we have a legal system in place to remedy any violations of our rights. But when the legal system in conjunction with governing authorities advocates the dissolution of basic unalienable rights, then a revolt will take place. So if you don’t want people to form militias and to rebel, then quit acting totalitarian, quit voting totalitarian, and quit adjudicating for totalitarian intents.
Let me reiterate once again and try to make it very clear: the reason all of us have the right to bear arms is to kill people who take away our rights, whether in our homes or in our country.