Category Archives: Second Amendment

Perceptions vs. Reality

The Second amendment was written in recognition of human behavior, in all its forms, both good and bad. It’s not there to preserve hunting rights, sporting events, or permission to collect interesting mechanisms. It was written as a right of every free person to defend themselves or their property, and as a means under extreme circumstances to guard against tyranny and anarchy.

Those who use a firearm in a criminal enterprise, do so to get gain. They may when confronted with deadly force, recognize the error of their ways and stop. Those who are driven by murderous compulsion, often don’t stop until deadly force is used. You need to be in possession and capable with a firearm, or near someone with one, who can save you.

For those without a means to defend themselves a greater form of tyranny emerges, and there’s no simple way to restore prior rights. The European Jews realized this too late in Nazi Germany. After World War II, they swore to never again willingly give up their freedoms to an oppressive government.

K-12 and University Shootings Deaths: The number of deaths has been declining over time

Stoneman_Douglas_High_school_Parkland_FL

Click on the picture above

It’s not quite what some may think in the UK

Everyone who advocates gun bans, likes to use the UK as an example. Let’s look at their homicide rates before and after the ban. Compare that with the number of police they put on the streets.

UK-Firearm-Homicide-Rate

 Click on the above chart to see the effects of gun ban in the UK

England_Wales_police_strength

Just as important as it is to be able to speak freely, gather together in common purpose, prevent unjustifiable search, capricious arrest & property seizure, worship how we may choose; self-protection is absolutely fundamental to a free society. Without it, the other civil liberties can’t be guaranteed.

Murder in the USA is primarily concentrated in larger populated areas of 250,00 or more. 54% of US counties have zero murders. 51% of all murders occur in 2% of US counties. * 2014 statistics.

What we don’t seem to recognize or are unwilling to deal with on a rational basis are the issues of hatred, mental dysfunction, and violence.

Instead of figuring out why less than 1% of the population turn to using firearms as instruments to carry out their violence, we want the ~ 99% of people who own and use firearms safely, to support vilifying the mechanisms and not the people.

Repeatedly throughout my lifetime I’ve witnessed good people taking it on the chin for the insanity and depravity of others.

Frankly, I’m a little tired of it. I’m tired of hearing about how teachers aren’t helping little Johnny or Suzy become model citizens, while their parents or parent are a mess and couldn’t safely raise a Gerbil, let alone a child.

We cheered when a mother saw her son acting out in a public disturbance, grabbed him away from the crowd and swatted him. We see that’s usually not the case. The home has to be the place where it starts to come together. Society isn’t responsible for all the ills.

Yes we need police, but they can’t be everywhere to guard everyone. If they were that prevalent, we would be hearing even more complaints about living in a police state.

You can choose not to own a firearm, that’s your right. I don’t want to force you to own one. Neither should you tell me I shouldn’t own any or it has to meet your specific criteria on limited effectiveness. Frankly, I want the most effective firearm available should the need arise.

Stop making inanimate objects responsible for the carnage. Start to recognize those people who do, and demand more effective ways to keep them from coming into possession of any.

Quit letting your fears and emotions drive your life or insisting that others bend to your will. Obviously the anti-gun owners believe in firearms because they want the full weight of government to take them away from the >99%, even at gun point if necessary.

Think what that implies for your future as well as mine, because a government that can disarm a population wont stop there. It won’t be immediate, but further subjugation will happen, maybe not completely in your lifetime.

I’ve lived through a time when I was vilified by others for serving in the military. I’ve been accused of imaginary crimes for being born a man, and for serving in the Marines during Vietnam. All of that criticism was nonsense, but for those who insisted their perceptions were correct, they fully believed in their delusions.

I didn’t support their ridiculous ideas then, and I certainly don’t support the irrational insistence of anti-gun people now.

Societies protect themselves, and so should any free person. If we cast our fate to the whims of criminals, and fortunate timing of a benevolent government appointed employee, we stand as victims in waiting, without assurance or a legal right to self protection.


Advertisements

Why Do We Need Guns?

Statute of Liberty There have been several horrific events which have brought out the worst of humanity to take advantage of people gathered to either worship or enjoy themselves. Most, if not all, if my memory serves me, were perpetrated in designated safe zones. This is the hallmark of people who are predators.

The person attacking anyone with deadly intent is an angry and aggressive psychopath with no sense of the moral dimension of their crime. Their internal logic is different from yours.

Those thwarted in some criminal enterprise for profit, who use firearms to get gain, may recognize the error of their ways and stop. Those driven by compulsion won’t stop. You need a good tool to save you. Whether that tool is a firearm which you’ve been trained to use, or a baseball bat, the result needs to be the same. That psychopath needs to be stopped or the carnage will continue.

The second amendment was a recognition of human behavior in all its forms, both good and bad. It’s not there because, oh by the way, we may want to hunt, go to sporting events, or collect interesting mechanisms. It was written as an inherent right of every free person to defend themselves or their property.

Just as important as it is to be able to speak freely, gather together in common purpose, prevent unjustifiable search, arrest & property seizure, worship how we may choose; self-protection is absolutely fundamental to a free society. Without it, the other civil liberties can’t be guaranteed.

Eventually, without a second amendment, a greater form of tyranny emerges, and there’s no way to readily restore prior conditions. To keep pace with these real and constant threats, the law abiding citizen must be able to continue to legally possess and use the latest in weapons technology.

It’s not about sports, militias, parades, or historic relics of the past. It’s about each one of us being able to defend & protect against any aggressor, no matter their size, shape, or societal status with weaponry capable of matching that challenge.

Societies protect themselves, and so too should any free individual person, unless we accept our fate to the whims of criminals, and the providential timing of a benevolent government appointed employee.

Freedom comes at a price purchased by the observant, able to work, and willing to sacrifice for it.

George Orwell seeing in front of our nose


Rights – Laws – Public Opinion

ve1_vespucci_amerigo

Letter of Amerigo Vespucci to Pier Soderini 1497

There’s not a moral imperative to challenge every public indiscretion or misconduct, however when threatened, we’re obligated to control our reactions based on the threat level.

Commitment to a cause isn’t the problem, it’s being committed to the right cause which creates progress and permits people to improve on their own volition. Would You Pass the “Red Shirt Warrior” Test?

Natural and legal rights are distinct types of rights. The two may intersect but aren’t synonymous.

Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (i.e., rights that can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).

During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws were used to challenge the divine right of kings. This concept became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, human rights law, and government, legal rights, first outlined in the Magna Charta, a form of early separation of heads of government from absolute power.

Up until this time period, Kings & Queens were seen as representative of God on earth, they deserved allegiance because of a divine blessing and above reproach moral character. Monarchs ruled through the social contract that gave them the power to declare anyone a traitor to the crown. Treason has been used against many people, putting to death anyone challenging the authority of the crown.

The concept of natural rights are used to challenge the legitimacy of usurping individual freedoms through governmental law. The distinction between natural law and natural rights are and have been argued throughout centuries of human declarations and legal precedent.

“All natural rights may be abridged or modified in their exercise by law.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1790.

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” – Thomas Jefferson

Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss.

The Declaration of Independence

Section 2: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 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. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

All of this was the basis of the reasons for government to exist and for people to accept the authority of the newly formed government. The United States wasn’t recognized internationally as an independent body when these declarations were made.

Fundamental changes to the interpretation of these rights through legal precedents contradict natural rights. Laws where written to justify tyrannical and egregious behavior, defy natural rights. The most obvious contradictions were slavery & civil rights, including women suffrage (voting & property rights).

If you take a moment and think what are the most fundamental rights any human has three basic ideas should immediately come to mind.

  1. the right to exist unharmed
  2. the right to think independently without restrictions
  3. the right to own property

When the governed are threatened by the full force of government, losing life, freedom of speaking their mind, and loss of property, they are precipitously on the knife-edge of rebellion, or at the minimum, disrespect toward the law and those hired to enforce those laws.

The first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. Called the “Bill of Rights”, were designed to respect natural law, but as everyone should be aware legal and natural rights aren’t synonymous.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights have no role in “creating” rights. The Constitution itself is useful only insofar as it lays out the guidelines, structure, and organization of the government.

When people talk about rights, many have the confused belief that individuals or representatives or majorities can create rights by writing them down on a magical piece of paper.

Freedom of speech is absolute because you have the right to your own thoughts. Public opinion may not approve of those thoughts, but those are yours alone. The right to protect yourself from harm or be deprived of your property by anyone is absolute. Therefore owning firearms isn’t a right granted because of a Constitution or a court, it’s fundamental to yourself.

Because the founders of the United States understood human rights can be limited or curtailed by a corrupt government, they made their declarations public and swore their allegiance to the principles, even at peril of their own lives.

If you’re in doubt as to what each of these rights mean, rather than have someone else do your thinking for you, read their explanation in their personal writings.

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that . . . it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).” – Thomas Jefferson

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

The power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
– Patrick Henry (Virginia ratifying convention – June 2 through June 26, 1788)

America is being cleverly divided, to be controlled through division and animosity.

REFERENCES

University of Virgina ~ Collections of Thomas Jefferson
Quotes from the Framers and Their Contemporaries
United States Declaration of Independence – Wikipedia
John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
Constitution of the United States – Bill of Rights
Rights Don’t Come From Governments
Federalist Papers

————–