Over the past weekend I had a short conversation with someone on Facebook who actually believes that Donald Trump wouldn’t sign into law any Red Flag gun laws that infringed upon a person’s right to keep and bear arms. I thought to myself, is this person and imbecile or what; does he even know the meaning of the word infringement?
Then this morning, after a short trip to the post office, I found a message on my computer from a friend who told me that a friend of his in Colorado has just been charged with child abuse for having a loaded firearm in his closet with two children in his home; making him the perfect candidate for being placed on a Red Flag list and having his guns taken away from him.
Do you know what a crime is; I mean REALLY know? A crime is when you deprive, or threaten to deprive, someone of their life, their possessions, or their liberty. What crime did that guy in Colorado commit other than have a loaded firearm in his home? Whose life did he physically threaten with that firearm? Whose property did he threaten to deprive them of by having a loaded firearm in his home? Whose liberty did he deprive by having a loaded gun in the closet?
Yet now this man has a criminal record and faces the deprivation of his right to keep and bear arms because of some stupid law enacted that pre-judges people according to WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN if they use that gun for anything other than self defense. Yet that asshat on Facebook says that Trump wouldn’t sign any bill that infringed upon a person’s right to keep and bear arms. Well, if he signs such a bill, then I hope that idiot chokes on his own words because Red Flag laws are an infringement upon a right because they judge you according to what some pissant analyst thinks YOU MIGHT DO according to some formula or algorithm they’ve worked out!
You know what the problem is in this country? The problem is that the minds of our youth are being poisoned by the b.s. they are being taught in school about the nature of their rights and their right to resist encroachments upon them by their government. By the time a child graduates from high school, unless they are constantly monitored by well informed parents, a child has been so fully indoctrinated to obey government without question that they will submit to an almost unlimited stream of laws depriving them of their rights.
I remember as a kid I had swallowed some model glue and my parents rushed me to the doctor who then pumped my stomach of the poison I had swallowed. That’s what needs to happen to the people of this country, they need to empty their minds of the poisonous bullshit they are taught in school and learn the truth about their rights before they’re all gone. So, with that thought in mind, I thought I’d offer a refresher course on the 2nd Amendment in the hopes that this time I might get through to more than just the choir who routinely read these rants I scribble out.
As many of you know, I live behind enemy lines out here in California. If I wasn’t so old, and if I didn’t have roots planted so deeply I’d pack my shit up and leave this state forever, never looking back. As is I have to put up with the idiocy of both the lawmakers in Sacramento and the majority of the populace that supports them.
California already had a Red Flag law on the books where law enforcement could request that the guns of someone deemed dangerous could be taken away from them. Now they are seeking to expand the list of those who could request guns be taken from ordinary law abiding citizens. Those who may be able to petition to have a person’s rights violated include employers and co-workers; which means I’m screwed because many of the people at work seem to think I have an arsenal capable of equipping a small army, and that I am so unhinged that I could go off the deep end at any time and do something stupid with them.
Listen, the only people who have to fear my guns are those who MAY come to take them from me without just cause – those and anyone else who breaks into my home and tries to deprive me of my property or bring harm to me and my family that is.
Yet I’ve heard, from people on both sides of the political aisle, say that we need these common sense gun control measures to prevent these mass shootings. Every time I hear that phrase, common sense, I want to gag; for common sense is the last things these laws possess as they only go after the guns, not the underlying causes that lead people to commit these types of crimes.
It seems to be widely accepted these days that it is reasonable to restrict the rights of people who have never done anything wrong, simply because a few bad apples have done something wrong by abusing their rights. My God, if you only knew how ridiculous you sound when you say you support these kind of ‘common sense’ gun control laws!
Gee, using that logic why don’t we pass some common sense car control laws; as roughly 37,000 people died in automobile accidents in the U.S. last year. Why don’t we enact some common sense doctor control laws as well, because according to the Journal of American Medicine roughly 225,000 people died last year in the U.S. due to medical malpractice? Why don’t we just take the drivers licenses away from those whose cars are parked outside bars and liquor stores; for according to the same logic being used to target people for gun confiscation under these Red Flag laws, those people are GOING TO DRIVE UNDER THE INFlUENCE.
You see how stupid you sound now?
I know it may sound incredible to those who believe government is our caretaker and caregiver, but government has absolutely no authority to deprive us of ANY of our rights. To believe otherwise leads me to believe that you think our right originate from government and that they can, and ought to restrict or limit them if it serves the overall public good; or general welfare as I’ve so often heard.
Let me throw some logic at you and hope smoke doesn’t start pouring out of your ears. If you believe our rights come from government, then how do you explain this? Our government was established in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. Are you saying that prior to 1789 that no one living had any rights; that it took the establishment of a system of government for man’s unalienable rights to be bestowed upon them by an entity THEY created?
How then do you justify the fact that our Founders were able to rise up and overthrow their existing government, using guns, in 1776 when the right to own those guns wasn’t even granted to the people until 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified?
Again, do you see how ridiculous your arguments sound?
Those who signed the Declaration of Independence believed that their rights came, not from government, but from a higher authority; God. They also believed that governments were existed, not to minimize or deny those rights, but to better secure them for all the people. All one has to do to verify that is to read the opening lines of the second paragraph of that document, where it states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Sure, that doesn’t specifically say that we have the right to own guns, but it doesn’t deny that we have that right either. It only says that among our unalienable rights are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; implying that there are other unspoken rights that we also enjoy.
In 1772 Samuel Adams wrote something that was very telling about the nature of our rights, “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.”
If you’ll note, he said that not only do we have certain rights, we ALSO have the right to defend them in the best manner we can; meaning I have the right to defend my right to keep and bear arms, my freedom of speech, my right to a trial by a jury of my peers, my right to justice, my right to be able to retreat into my home and be free from intrusive searches and seizures; all of which have been infringed upon by government.
Yet I’m the lunatic, the radical, the threat to society because I understand what my rights are, and because I choose to stand up to every infringement upon them. That gives a lot of credence to what historian Charles Austin Beard said, “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.”
I won’t go into the fact that I believe our Constitution was written to produce a government that would end up violating our rights; I’ll play along with those who believe that it was a basically good document, establishing a good system of government that has been hijacked by crooks and other malcontents.
Playing by those rules, where in the Constitution does it authorize the government to enact any law that deprives people of any their rights; and to be more specific, the right to keep and bear arms? I’ll give you a hint, the specific powers delegated to government can be found in Article 1, Section 8. So go ahead, pull out your copy of the Constitution, and if you don’t have one, Google Article 1, Section 8 and read through the specific powers delegated to your government…I’ll wait…
Couldn’t find anything, could you. Well that’s because it wasn’t among the powers delegated to the government by the Constitution. In fact, prior to the establishment of this system of government there were those who demanded that a Bill of Rights be included in it to protect certain rights against the government’s ability to infringe upon them. These people basically said, “You introduce a Bill of Rights, or we won’t agree to accept your proposed system of government.”
That’s how we got the Bill of Rights. But I think some people believe that the Bill of Rights was a document declaring that government had granted those rights to the people; that without it those rights wouldn’t exist.
The Bill of Rights only declares that government cannot enact any law that infringes upon, or violates those rights. Those rights pre date government; they existed before government was established and the Bill of Rights is simply a legal attachment to the Constitution telling government to leave them alone.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights supports that position, stating, “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their 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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” (My emphasis)
Can’t you see that the Bill of Rights does not grant us our rights, it only places restrictions upon the government’s ability to infringe upon them? There was a time when those who rose to positions of authority within our government understood that.
For instance, in his book of Commonplace Quotations, Thomas Jefferson had saved the following quote regarding the right to keep and bear arms, “It is a false idea of utility to sacrifice a thousand real advantages for the sake of one disadvantage which is either imaginary or of little consequence; this would take fire away from men because it burns, and water because it drowns people; this is to have no remedy for evils except destruction.
Laws forbidding people to bear arms are of this nature; they only disarm those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”
The courts, at one time, believed that too, “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.” (Source: Wilson v. State, 1878)
The 2nd Amendment itself clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say what kind of arms, only that our right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed. It’s ludicrous to believe that our Founders could not have foreseen the advancements in the arms industry that allowed for weapons to be built that could fire multiple rounds with the squeeze of a trigger; yet we are told by government that ONLY government and law enforcement can possess those weapons.
How in the hell do people even justify that belief? Think about it, an entity created by the people to be the servant of the people turns around and says, “Oh, we can have these military style weapons, but you peasants cannot.”
Do people not know the meaning of the word infringe? Infringe means: act so as to limit or undermine. Call me whatever you will, but if the fact that government passing laws that tell the people what type guns they can own, the rate of fire they are capable of, how many rounds the magazines can hold, and whether those magazines are easily detachable aren’t limitations upon our right to keep and bear arms I don’t know what are.
Now the government is telling us that according to certain behavioral characteristics they are going to give law enforcement the authority to come and confiscate the arms of those they deem a danger to society. Well you want to know something? I think that government itself is a danger to society and therefore we ought to confiscate the arms it routinely uses to impose its will upon us. That’s what I believe.
And this is where I see the schizophrenic tendencies in many. I have seen and heard people say that they support and defend the right to keep and bear arms, then at the same time say they support and defend law enforcement.
Who do they think is going to come to their homes to confiscate their arms, Donald Trump; Dianne Feinstein? No, it will be local law enforcement that engages in the confiscation of our guns.
There may be some who refuse to follow the order to confiscate guns; but they will be a minority. There may be others who question the law that requires they confiscate our guns, but they will follow orders regardless of their feelings on the matter. And then there will be those who relish the ability to take our guns away from us; as they love being able to bully us around without the fear of retaliation on our part.
I’m not saying cops don’t have a shitty job, having to see the criminal underbelly of society all the time, but they chose that career and they took an oath to support and defend the Constitution; and if they can’t uphold that oath then maybe they ought to go seek employment at WalMart!
That’s why I preach knowing history so much; and not just the history of THIS country. History is rife with examples of what happens when the government disarms the people; and it NEVER ends well for the governed.
Stalin killed upwards of 10 million people who opposed his regime; people who did not have the arms to resist his totalitarian rule. Hitler did the same, as did Mao, Pol Pot, and every other tin pot dictator who has ever risen to power and oppressed those under them. And now, because if a misplaced sense of trust in their government, the people of this country want to create the conditions where tyranny has free reign over us?
SCREW YOU, I want no part of it!!!
The sad thing is this, once they’ve taken our guns and gotten rid of any means the people have of resisting their authority, they will come after the disenfranchised who realize they were betrayed by them; pawns used to push forth totalitarian rule. I believe it was either Stalin or Lenin who called them the useful idiots because once they had helped bring them into power they were no longer needed, and quickly and quietly eliminated.
That’s what I see when I see people talking about one more common sense gun control law, useful, or should I say, useless idiots who are paving the pathway to their own enslavement.
It’s coming people, and I fear that it’s coming faster than many of you are ready for. When it gets here you’ll realize that maybe Neal wasn’t so crazy after all, maybe we should have listened to him. But as they say, hindsight is always 20/20 and it often is useless when you live on your knees under the rule of tyrants.
Me, I’ll probably be long dead when it comes, having been eliminated in the first wave of purges. Then they’ll come after you, as there will be no one left to stand up and defend YOUR rights. And with that thought in mind I leave you with the following, from Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran Pastor in Germany during World War II, “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
They’re coming for our guns now, and when they get them they’ll come after all your other rights as well. If, perchance, I’m still alive afterwards, please, don’t ask me why someone didn’t warn you this was coming, for that’s what I’m doing right now…but you’re too blind to see it.