“The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.”
In one of my recent rants on the Coronavirus I mentioned that we should not lose sight of the fact that evil never rests. So, while everyone else is panicking and imposing all kinds of restrictions upon our freedoms over a virus, Congress is currently discussing a bill, H.R. 5717; The Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2020. I can almost hear it now, “Oh geez, Neal’s gonna start talking about guns again.” You’re damned right I am! As long as there are people out there trying to pass laws that restrict MY right to own guns you’re gonna have to put up with it…or move to Cambodia where the private ownership of firearms is completely prohibited.
H.R. 5717 is described as a bill: To end the epidemic of gun violence and build safer communities by strengthening Federal firearms laws and supporting gun violence research, intervention, and prevention initiatives. On the surface that all sounds well and good; after all, who doesn’t want to live in a world where senseless gun violence is non-existent?
I don’t want to bore you with the specifics of what H.R. 5717 says, but some of the things it deals with are background checks, licensing, indentifying people to be placed on ‘red flag’ lists, and ensuring that privately owned guns are kept in secure locations.
I honestly don’t know what is wrong with homo-sapiens these days; particularly the sub-species Homo Americanus; they all have brains, but they seem incapable of using them. Not only are most people driven by emotional knee jerk reactions to things, they reject truth and critical thinking; and treat those who actually use their brains as if they are Public Enemy No. 1.
I simply do not understand this deathly fear some people have of guns; I just don’t. Guns are a tool; just like a hammer or screwdriver. If they are handled safely they pose no more danger than any other tool; but yet some people freak out if they even see a gun. Yet when they see law enforcement walking around with a sidearm they do not fear those guns; when that is when they should be the most afraid; for law enforcement often is far more dangerous to your life and liberty than someone like me who has a few guns stashed away in their house.
I’ve never pulled someone over and put a gun in their face and said, “Obey my commands or I will shoot you.” So why do people fear me having guns, but not the police? I can remove the magazine from a pistol, clear the chamber, and lock the slide back, and I know people who physically recoil in fear if I try to hand it to them. Just the other night at work some woman freaked out over my keychain; which is a .50 caliber round with no powder and the primer removed; totally inert and harmless, (unless I hit you over the head with it). Yet it was a bullet and it scared the shit out of her.
This absolute, irrational, senseless fear of guns has been bred into the American public by the media, politicians, and other pseudo-intellectuals who think that a gun free society is a safe society; when history proves that to not be the case.
What these people fail to realize is that, even if every privately owned firearm was taken out of the hands of their owners, GOVERNMENT, AND IT’S ENFORCERS WILL STILL HAVE GUNS; and government is guilty of far more human rights violations than someone like me could ever be capable of committing.
Almost every single mass genocide committed by governments have come after the right of the people to own guns has been prohibited; or limited to such an extent as to be ineffective at preventing government from committing the most horrific of crimes against the governed and their rights. EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME!!!
It is not the armed people who may live in your neighborhood you should fear, it is a well armed government without any concern for, and restrictions placed upon their ability to infringe upon your God-given rights and liberty that you should fear; and yet here we have people BEGGING that same government to enact laws that take away their ability to defend themselves against it.
If ever there was an example of insane behavior, that’s it right there!
I’ve gotten into some pretty heated arguments with people who say that our right to keep and bear arms is not a God-given right. God may not have specifically said that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, but the Bible does contain passages about arms, and the ability of the people to defend themselves and their property.
– If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. (Exodus 22:2)
– But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke 22:36)
– Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong. (Joel 3:10)
Let’s just say, for those non-believers out there, that there is no God; do you think that any man alive does not have the right to defend their lives, their property, and their freedom against any who would take it from them?
Mankind, before government, lived in what is called a State of Nature; meaning that only Natural Law applied to them. Seeing as there was no government, what other laws could apply to man except those granted by nature? One of those laws of nature speaks of our liberty; which John Locke defines as, “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”
Thomas Jefferson, the author who gave us our Declaration of Independence, spoke of this natural right to liberty in a letter to Isaac Tiffany written in 1819, “Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”
Now as most people have not read Locke’s Second Treatise, they probably do not see that what Jefferson did is he took that first passage I already shared, and combined it with another that states, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
So basically, liberty is a person’s right to live their lives as they please, free of any restraints, provided they do not harm another in their ‘ life, health, liberty, or possessions.’ Unfortunately, people can be, and are often, evil; they seek to take from others what is not theirs to take; and they often hurt or kill others for trivial and senseless reasons. It makes absolutely no sense that there would not be a law of nature that gave to people the right to defend themselves, their property, and their liberty against those who would deprive them of those things.
In Chapter III of Locke’s treatise he writes, “And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom.”
Therefore anyone, be it an individual or a group of individuals acting on behalf of others, who attempts to put me into their absolute power, (meaning impose restrictions upon my liberty), has, by their actions, placed themselves into a state of war with me; and it is my right to defend myself against them.
Locke states that concept thusly, “This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.”
I don’t know if people are capable of mustering up the brain power to truly understand the significance of that statement, but if you can, read that again and think about what it says. However, being the kind of guy that I am, I’ll try to paraphrase it in words that you might understand: If you become an aggressor and try to take away my life, my property, and my liberty, I have the right to FUCKING KILL YOU. Is that easy enough for you to understand?
I don’t care if you are a common thief, a government employee, a federal agent, a local cop, or anyone else; if you pose a threat to me, my property, or my liberty, it is my right to defend these things to the best of my ability.
Samuel Adams, one of the leading figures in the anti-government movement known as the Son’s of Liberty, stated that same belief in a paper he wrote for the town of Boston’s Committee of Correspondence in 1772, “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.”
So, whether you believe in God or not is actually quite irrelevant. The fact is that those alive in the period that saw America become a free and independent country believed that we had these things called rights and liberty that were given us by some supreme Creator. If you don’t believe me, just find a copy of the Declaration of Independence and read the damned thing! That same document says that the purpose of government is to secure those rights to the people; and that if government no longer serves that purpose it is the right AND duty of the people to abolish or alter their system of government…not kiss it’s fucking ass, or beg it to pass more laws that further restrict our rights and liberty!
But Neal, there were no automatic rifles and other sundry assault weapons back in 1776, or 1789 when the Bill of Rights was ratified. You’re absolutely right, there weren’t. But at the time the Bill of Rights was written, the government did not have those weapons either; the people were equipped with the same type of arms that might be used against them to impose tyranny; so the people and government were on equal footing as far as what kind of arms might be used to either defend the public liberty, or to deprive the people of it.
What, would you have us stage a rebellion with flintlock muskets while our government is equipped the latest high tech military hardware? That’s like the old joke about how only an idiot shows up to a gunfight with a knife. The 2nd Amendment was written so that We the People would have a fighting chance against any outside or inside threats to our lives, property and liberty; and by inside I mean government itself.
If we allow government, (which poses the most significant threat to our freedom), to dictate the terms of any battle to defend that freedom, then we’ve already lost. That is like you climbing into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson, and he tells you, “Oh, by the way, you have to tie your hands behind your back and just let me beat the fuck out of you.”
Long before we got to our current situation in which government regulates, restricts, and taxes almost every aspect of our lives, Patrick Henry warned of the danger posed by this thing most people have never made the effort to read or understand-the Constitution. On June 5, 1788 Henry declared, “Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”
I wonder what Henry, and all the other lovers of liberty who fought for our independence, would think of people today; people who not only don’t care that they’ve already seen their ability to defend their liberty significantly reduced, they are begging government to restrict it even further by passing laws like H.R. 5717. They probably think the same thing I do; you people are pathetic; you’re stupid, and you don’t know the first thing about what it means to be free; or what it means to defend that freedom.
If people truly knew what it means to have the right to keep and bear arms, they would not apply for a concealed carry permit; they would just carry a gun on their person for their own personal defense; regardless of what the law says – after all, didn’t Jefferson say that the law is often but the tyrants will, especially when it violates the rights of the individual?
Permits, licensing, fees, taxes, restrictions upon what type of guns you can own; that doesn’t sound like your right to keep and bear arms is on solid ground to me; and yet here we have people asking for further limitations and restrictions upon it; or worse, totally oblivious of the fact that government is trying, once again, to do so.
I’ll be the first to admit that there are bad people, and that they will use guns to commit crimes. However, the answer is not to punish those who have never used their guns in the commission of a crime by further restricting their right to keep and bear arms. People will keep committing crimes as long as they know there is very little likelihood of them being punished, or even caught when they do so.
If every citizen owned a gun, and was knowledgeable and trained in how to use it effectively, crime would drop dramatically; as those who attempted to commit crimes would wind up bleeding out on the sidewalks and floors of homes across America. But no, government says you cannot just kill someone who breaks into your home to steal your belongings; you must prove that you feared for your life before you can use deadly force.
So I suppose if someone breaks into my house to steal my stuff I’m supposed to say, “Stop right there thief or I’ll throw my cell phone at you, or dial 911 and wait 20 minutes for the cops to get here.” I’m sure that will prove as an effective deterrent to crime; (that was sarcasm by the way).
Criminals do what they do because they know they can get away with it; the law actually protects them more than it protects the right of their victims to defend themselves against them. In 1850 Frederic Bastiat wrote about that exact situation when he said, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it!” When innocent victims can be penalized or imprisoned for defending what is rightfully theirs then there is something terribly wrong with the laws and the lawmaking process that enacts such laws. Remember what Locke said about his right to kill a thief?
In 1878 there was the little known court case of Wilson v. State in which the court held, “”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.”
While I do not like their use of the phrase ‘constitutional privilege’ the rest is spot on as far as I’m concerned. Our right to keep and bear arms is an extension of our Natural Right of self defense; and it is not derived from some piece of paper written by men 200 some odd years ago.
What I find unbelievable is the fact that there are so many people living in this country who would take great offense if you questioned their patriotism, but then they turn around and say that they support ‘common sense gun control laws.’ The only gun control I’m in favor of is, HITTING WHAT YOU AIM AT!
What I find sad is the fact that the American Revolution began when the government tried to disarm the people; and today the people are begging for government to take away their right, and ability, to defend themselves against it. It’s even more pathetic to watch as people willingly surrender their freedom because of a virus making its way around.
Hell, the government won’t have to take our guns; all they have to do is tell us that there is some threat to our health or safety, and like obedient little sheep we will go hide in our homes until Uncle Sam tells us it’s safe to come out again.
I am only 61 years old now, and the constitution, and the government it established, had been around for almost 170 years before I made my appearance on the world stage. Even so, in those 6 decades I have seen my right to keep and bear arms diminished to such an extent as to render it ineffective at serving the purpose for which it was written.
Even Joseph Story, a strong nationalist, said this about the 2nd Amendment, “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 you morons want to hand that right to government on a silver platter. Well fuck you, count me out; I’m not giving up my guns to satisfy your fear of them, or your unwillingness to stand up to defend yourself or your property because you’re too much of a pussy to do so. If you want to depend upon government, (meaning the police), to keep you safe, fine; just don’t expect me to support or defend you should the time come when you’re left defenseless and the whole world, (including your government) is aligned against you.
You baked your cake, now eat it and shut the fuck up!