I believe it was George Santayana who said, “Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.” I hope I’m wrong about this, but it looks like we may be ready to witness the truth of that statement right here in the good old land of the free and home of the brave. But before I get to the meat and potatoes of this, I would like to ask those of my friends who align themselves with the political right a question: Why is it that every time your party gets into power you go to sleep as to violations of the Constitution and attempts by your government to curtail your rights? If the Democrats were in charge you would be raising hell and crying foul, but since your party currently occupies the Oval Office your radar for these things seems to have been switched off. Why is that?
What has got me all up in arms is the fact that a Republican, Senator Marco Rubio, introduced a piece of legislation into the Senate called the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019. Already the bill has 3 co-sponsors; Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island; Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, and Senator Angus King, an Independent from Maine.
I’m not going to quote the entire bill as I know that you would just skip over it. However, I would ask that you do read this segment copied from it:
(A) IN GENERAL.—A law enforcement officer, or family or household member of an individual, may submit a petition to a State or tribal court, on a form designed by the courts administrator of the State or similar office, that—
“(i) describes the facts and circumstances necessitating that an extreme risk protection order be issued against the respondent because the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by—
“(I) having a firearm or ammunition in his or her custody or control
Under this new law, if it passes and is signed by the president, once those events occur law enforcement can come into your home and confiscate any and all firearms you own – even though you have not committed a crime – simply because someone else filled out an affidavit saying that you posed a risk to them.
C.S. Lewis once said, “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” Well folks this piece of shit legislation is a perfect example of that in action. If this law goes into effect, all a person has to do is fill out an affidavit stating the reasons why they fear you, and then the cops can come and deny you the right to keep and bear arms; and we all know how honest people are, right? So there should be no reason to fear that people would lie about you; saying you posed them a threat when you really didn’t pose anyone a threat. (And that was sarcasm by the way.)
Have Americans become so desensitized to stupidity, so obtuse that they cannot see that this is the stuff fiction writers like Orwell tried to warn us about when he wrote about the Thought Police? My God people, this is almost taken straight out of the movie The Minority Report; except that instead of 3 Oracles predicting future crimes we get to have our rights taken away from us simply because someone felt we posed a threat to them? And I’m betting that there are those who support President Trump would continue to support him if this bill came to his desk and he signs it; just because he’s ‘their man’ in the White House.
Well folks, let me remind you of a little of that history you seem to have forgotten. In 1775 the King of England, although far removed from the turmoil in Boston, decided that the insufferable Colonists had become too much a threat to his control over his Colony. So he issued an order for General Gage to send his ‘law enforcers’ to the towns of Lexington and Concord to take away their guns. But that didn’t turn out so well for jolly old King George, as it ended up being the opening salvo of the American Revolution.
This only reinforces my belief that those ass-clowns in D.C. don’t care about defending our rights, and that the average American doesn’t know what their rights are, or care about defending them either; if they did the outcry would be so loud they could hear it in China.
I don’t know if it is because of a failure of our educational system, or if it is because people don’t actually think things through anymore, but it has been my experience that most people in this country don’t understand the nature of their inherent and unalienable rights; and they certainly do not understand that NO GOVERNMENT can infringe upon or restrict them.
There is a power structure, or hierarchy to be more accurate, that goes as follows, God created man and gave man their rights; man then turned around and created government to better ensure that those rights were protected. No man can give another more power than he himself has; and no group of men can give another group the power to violate or restrict the rights of an individual, or group of other men.
In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote that we are endowed with the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. While he didn’t specifically come out and say that we have the right to own guns, it was implied that we must have the means of protecting and defending those rights. The Second Amendment does not grant us those rights, it is merely our Necessary and Proper Clause stating the means by which we can do just that – defend all our other rights.
If you truly believe that we, as private citizens, should not be allowed to own guns, then how can you say that government, be it federal, state, or local, should be allowed to own guns to enforce their laws? We created government and therefore since we cannot give them more power than we have as individuals, we cannot give them the power and authority to own guns and then turn around and say that they can deprive us of the same power and authority.
I wonder how many of you have taken the time to obtain your CCW; or Carrying a Concealed Weapon permit. Why? Don’t you know that by doing so you are recognizing the fact that government can decide who gets to exercise a right; thereby limiting or restricting that right? The moment you have to obtain a permit, (implying permission from someone in a position of authority), it ceases being a right and becomes a privilege – and privileges can be revoked at the whim of those granting them. Our rights, on the other hand, are inherent and unalienable and no one, and I mean NO ONE can restrict or deny us the ability to exercise them! The only time our rights can be denied us is through due process; where we are charged with violating the rights of another in the commission of a crime, and then ONLY after we have been found guilty by a jury of our peers.
The most fundamental right of every sentient being is the right to defend itself and its property. When I say property I’m betting that many people think I’m merely talking about possessions such as your home, your car or your flatscreen TV; but you would be wrong in assuming that. I define property as did James Madison, who in 1792 wrote:
In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.
In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.
Therefore, my rights are my property, and when society, (in a general sense), or government, (in a more specific sense), attempts to restrict or limit my ability to exercise those rights, I become mighty angry. And that’s what I am now, might angry that we’re even having this discussion over this bill introduced by Senator Rubio.
In 1772, four years before the Declaration of Independence was even a consideration, Samuel Adams wrote, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”
The Laws of Nature are superior to any law written by man and they cannot be violated or restricted by manmade laws any more than man could write a law altering or denying the Laws of Physics. Now man may pass laws, and those laws might be enforced by men with badges and guns, and the people might obey them, but those laws are still a violation of Natural Law; and those who obey them without resisting are slaves. Such is the nature of gun control laws; be it limits on how many rounds a magazine can hold, a restriction on bump stocks, or whether or not the people can own fully automatic weapons – it doesn’t matter as they are all INFRINGEMENTS UPON an unalienable right!
I have had discussions with people from other countries who said that in their country the people cannot own firearms. Is that so? Well gee, if your country was so great why did you come here when you knew that there were all these guns floating around? Why didn’t you just stay in your country where it is nice and safe because the people were unarmed? Don’t come to my country and then turn around and try to impose laws which violate the very rights our ancestors fought a revolution to secure for themselves; and for their posterity. The door is always open for you to leave; and if you don’t like the fact that I own guns, you’re more than welcome to go back to where you came from.
Now let’s see how much trouble that little statement gets me into…
Last night at work I corrected a young man over the use of the term, constitutional right. I told him that our rights do not come from the constitution, or the Bill of Rights for that matter; they come from a higher source. The Constitution may, or may not have been written to better secure those rights, and the Bill of Rights may or may not have been written to impose restrictions upon the government created by the constitution so that it could not pass laws violating those rights, but the rights themselves did not come from government, nor is it the duty of government to protect them. That responsibility lies with every freedom loving individual; and if you want to surrender your rights and live as a slave, fine, just don’t ask me to tag along for the ride.
Regardless of all that, as our rights come from a higher source than government, no government, be it by Presidential decree, an act of Congress, or a Supreme Court ruling, can limit or restrict the exercise of those rights. In the same regard, no governor, State Legislator, or pissant group of city councilmen can enact a statute which limits or restricts those rights. Those who attempt to do so are tyrants, and those who obey those statutes are slaves.
In closing I’m just going to throw some quotes at you in the hope that some of them may prove to you that I’m not ranting at you without any verifiable proof. So read them and ponder them if you will, and then turn around and ask yourself what you are going to do to stop the passage of this egregious piece of legislation, or resist it should it become law.
– “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
– “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402, (1859)
– “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga, (1Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)
– “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878). [And as a side note I do not particularly care for the use of the term constitutional privilege in this ruling.]
– “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, (1943)
And since I asked you to ponder these quotes and ask yourself what you’re going to do should S.7 become law, I offer one final quote for you to consider, “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.” (Source: Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256 137, 180)
The American Revolution, although it may have been all but inevitable, nevertheless began when King George attempted to confiscate the privately owned arms of the Colonists at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. Is history about to repeat itself is only a question that can be answered by each and every American should the time come the government comes knocking on their doors, asking for them to surrender their guns.
And I’m pretty sure you know how I’m going to respond to that demand…but if you don’t you’ll read about it in the paper and probably be attending my funeral, because they aren’t getting my guns without a fight.