“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We
didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for,
protected, and handed on to them to do the same.”
If I were to ask you to name the one thing that you would risk your life defending, how would you answer? It is a serious question, so take a few moments and ponder it before answering.
Now some of you may have answered that your life is worth defending; or the lives of your family members. Some may have answered that their homes are worth defending, or maybe even their car or truck. Some may even have gone so far as to say their liberty is worth defending at all costs.
Now I’m not saying those are bad answers; your answer depends upon what is of importance to you. However, if you want my opinion, the single most importing thing to me is the ABILITY to defend all those other things. If you are defenseless then it becomes an easy task for someone who isn’t to deprive you of whatever you care about. So to me, that ability to defend what is rightfully mind is the one thing I will never surrender; which means my right to bear arms against any, and all, who would threaten all that I hold dear.
I want you to think about something, and think about it long and hard. What is the nature of government; by that I mean what is government in comparison to the people who it supposedly represents. Is government your master; something than hands down decrees that you are obligated to obey regardless of how egregious they are? And what about those, whose job is to enforce the laws that government enacts; are they superior to you; meaning you are obligated to obey their every command?
I think, and I truly believe this with all my heart, that there is this pervasive attitude about government in which people think that it should do things that somehow benefit them; even if doing so screws someone else out of their income or their rights. However, the best way to determine if what government is doing is wrong is to ask yourself if you would go to jail for trying to do what government does to someone else; another individual.
There is a book I wish every student in America would read; that book being The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. It’s not a long book; not by most standards; only being about 40 pages long, but it contains a great deal of information that might help people understand how bad, how evil their government, (at both the State and federal levels) has become.
I see this as clear as day, but I also see many who can’t see it due to the haze induced by a public education: Any government that seeks to expand the exercise of our unalienable rights and our liberty is good, while any government that seeks to limit or restrict those things, even in the slightest degree, is bad.
People seem to be of the opinion that government is superior to them; that it has unlimited and arbitrary powers, and can do whatever it, or a majority of the people, thinks is in the overall public interest. Yes, government was created by the people; or at least that is what we are taught; but it was not given a blank check as to the powers it could exercise on our behalf. Our government was delegated with certain specific powers; found in a written constitution; which when it exceeds its acts become criminal.
Not only does the Constitution outline the powers our government can lawfully exercise on our behalf, it places further restrictions upon its power to take any action that can violate, or infringe upon, certain unalienable rights. These rights, some of which are outlined in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, were not granted the moment the Bill of Rights was ratified; they were pre-existing and the Bill of Rights was only the effort of the creators of government to place restrictions upon government’s ability to violate them.
But the Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper; having no more ability to stop infringements upon those rights than the paper this article is written upon. It is up to each and every person living in this country to defend those rights against attack; something most people seem unwilling to do. All I hear from people is; follow the rules, pay your taxes, get the proper permits, pay the proper fees; obey, Obey, OBEY! All the while your rights are being infringed upon and taken away from you.
In that book I mentioned, The Law, Bastiat defines the law as, “… the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.” Now moments ago I mentioned that our rights pre-date the Bill of Rights; well let me prove that to you.
The Bill of Rights was written AFTER the Constitution was ratified. Yet almost 20 years before the Bill of Rights was written Samuel Adams wrote the following in a report for the Boston Town Meeting, “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 man may change, but the laws of nature remain constant. So if the rights to Life, Liberty and Property, along with the right to defend them, existed in 1772, they still exist today; and if government, in any way, shape, or form, seeks to limit or restrict them, government no longer serves the purpose it was created for and should be opposed.
In 1943 Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote an opinion in the case of West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette in which he explained the nature of our rights; ALL OF THEM, “”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.”
Therefore, if our rights pre-date the Bill of Rights, if they pre-date government, doesn’t it make sense that the purpose of government is to better secure those rights to us; not find ways in which to infringe upon and violate them? Doesn’t it make sense that if a government does not serve that purpose that it should not be supported; and that it, and those who enforce the laws which violate our rights are…TYRANTS?
Getting back to Bastiat’s book, he continues by saying, “Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.”
Read that again, EACH OF US HAS A NATURAL RIGHT―FROM GOD―TO DEFEND HIS PERSON, HIS LIBERTY, AND HIS PROPERTY! What that means is, I can’t take those rights from you, and you can’t take them from me. This is why I asked you earlier to ask yourself if you would go to jail for trying to do what government does to someone else; another individual; for if government denies any of those rights to one group, simply because a much larger group does not like them, than the larger group is violating the rights of the smaller group; or minority.
Then Bastiat lays out the reason and authority by which government derives its power, “If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.” (My emphasis)
Read that emphasized section again if you must, but plant it firmly in your minds. If each of us, as individuals, has the right to defend our life, our liberty, and our property; and if government acts solely as a body to exercise the collective right of all the individuals, it can only exercise the same power that we, as individuals had prior to government being instituted. Furthermore, if government oversteps that power and deprives a single person of their rights, government is no longer worthy of your support.
It doesn’t matter if it is a Republican controlled government, or a Democratic controlled government; if government as a body, an entity, denies your rights, it does not deserve your respect and support; let alone your obedience.
Oh, you think I’m wrong; that regardless of whether a law is unjust we must obey it? Well then, why did Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas state, “When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen’s constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all.” (My emphasis, Dissenting opinion in Poulous v. New Hampshire, 1953)
Then of course there was this, delivered by Justice Potter Stewart in 1967, “The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it’s invalid on its face.” (Source: Walker v. Birmingham)
Then of course there is this, taken from 16 American Jurisprudence, 2d, Section 177, Sec 256, “The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
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 it’s unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”
Then it goes on to say, “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies not acts performed under it…
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statue runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
Yet under the authority of these ‘unconstitutional laws’ offices have been created, and power given to demolish the rights and liberty that government was instituted to secure. I can think of a few federal agencies right off the top of my head whose sole purpose is to enforce unconstitutional laws; the DEA, the BATF, the FDA, the EPA, and the BLM; just to name a few.
Then of course there are all the subsidiary ‘law enforcement’ agencies who also participate in depriving us of our rights and liberty. Under what authority do they act if the laws they are enforcing are null and void from the get go; certainly not MY authority!
Then of course there is the court system itself, where the only law that matters is the law passed by those in power; not the Supreme Law of the land, and certainly not Natural Law. I tell you, it’s hard to obtain justice when those who write the law, those who enforce it, and those who uphold it from the bench, have no regard for fundamental, or Natural Law.
In 1785 James Madison, (as much as I’ve come to despise the man) wrote something you ought to consider, “The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be universally maintained but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves.” (My emphasis, Source: A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785)
The only means by which our rights and our liberty can be preserved is if we know what those things are; what they entail, if we care that our lawmakers are doing things which infringe upon them, and if we care enough to rise up and oppose those who would deny us our rights and our liberty. We cannot vote to secure them; recent history surely has proven that to be true.
And the only means by which we can defend our rights and our liberty is if we are armed; and not just revolvers and single shot rifles either. We need to be sufficiently armed to pose a threat to those who would deny us our freedom; and now government, (at least in 13 States), is increasing its efforts to deny that right as well.
You may not care about that; your only concern might be keeping you and your family safe from the bad guys out roaming the streets seeking to do you and your family harm. Me, I care, for those bad guys on the streets are of far less concern to me than the bad guys roaming the halls of our State and federal governments. Those are the bad guys I worry about, and they want to take away my ability to defend myself against them?
Well, I’ve got but one thing to say to them; and to YOU if you support them in their efforts to take away my guns: