The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.
As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.
The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.
The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.
Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.
To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.
There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.
The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king's government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.
Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?
By Andrew Napolitano
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
you forgot this part of the statement "as the levying of war against the U.S. or the giving of aid and comfort to its enemies" and don't forget it clearly states "political opponents" As for my views on gun control, 2nd amendment or any other, I haven't provided that, so please DO NOT take a posting of mine and synthesis it as my position...thank you.
I didn't forget that part of the statement because I didn't think it was relevant to the debate. I can't recall anybody on this board suggesting aid and comfort to the federal governments labeled enemies. Nobody suggested fighting on behalf of North Korea. The argument has been Americans having a right to own semi automatic rifles for personal protection and protection against the state in a time of tyranny.
BTW Joebxr, I know you don't take positions in issues, you just post randomly and attack a post you dislike and never take a position and argue in favor of your position. That's one thing I can say about Box, at least he takes a position and argues it and not just take pop shots at posts that upset him.
Can it also be construed as our Government intervening to prevent crime that is occurring, and that the crime is being committed by a well armed or overbearing power that the victims are unable to adequately defend themselves against???? Don't you believe there is always more than one side to a story???
Sure, that could be it. I guess the same logic could be used by a foreign country that looks at America and sees that the U.S. government imprisons its people at a alarmingly high rate, MUCH HIGHER than the rest of the world, and that the weapons the U.S. government possesses is vastly more powerful than it's citizens. They could then conclude that for humanitarian purposes they must begin selling more powerful weapons to the American people in order to stop the governments oppression and incarceration of its people.
"Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?"
By Andrew Napolitano
I agree totally with the last line of (FoxSnooze Shill) Andrew Napolitano... "Do you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all, because of the Mania and terror of a few anti govt fanatics."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Henry dances around the real reason that he wants automatic weapons available to the general public... He wants to use those weapons against the United States of America. He expects to be in a shooting war and wants to level the playing field. He has yet to rule out civilians owning RPG's, Mortars, Flame Throwers... etc. all weapons he needs for "home defense" purposes.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Henry dances around the real reason that he wants automatic weapons available to the general public... He wants to use those weapons against the United States of America. He expects to be in a shooting war and wants to level the playing field. He has yet to rule out civilians owning RPG's, Mortars, Flame Throwers... etc. all weapons he needs for "home defense" purposes.
Box, why don't you quote Henry's post where he says that? You're a little loose with the FACTS wouldn't ya say?
Looks like the established order of the vertically structured society is falling and Box is in full panic mode making WILD accusation. Hold it together box, your fear mongering seems to see no limits. You are willing to use treason and Flame Throwers to make your absurd arguments.
Henry dances around the real reason that he wants automatic weapons available to the general public... He wants to use those weapons against the United States of America. He expects to be in a shooting war and wants to level the playing field. He has yet to rule out civilians owning RPG's, Mortars, Flame Throwers... etc. all weapons he needs for "home defense" purposes.
Dances around it? I have always been clear as to the purpose of the 2nd amendment, its all here in these forums for all to see Geesh shouldn't you be out today in Saratoga protesting the gun show, I'm sure some of the people would love to have a chat with you
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Who do these anti govt fanatics look up to? Who are their hero's? Who has taken up arms against oppressive government?
~John Hinckley, Jr... who "took up arms" and shot Ronald Reagan.
~September 5, 1975, Lynette Fromme, a follower of Charles Manson, tried to fire a Colt .45 caliber pistol at Gerald Ford when he reached to shake her hand in a crowd. She had four rounds in the magazine but forgot to chamber a round, so the gun did not fire.
~ On April 13, 1972 Arthur Bremer carried a firearm to an event intending to shoot Richard Nixon, but was deterred by strong security. A few weeks later, he instead shot and seriously injured Governor of Alabama George Wallace.
~Lee Harvey Oswald Assassinated John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
~January 30, 1835 just outside the Capitol Building, a house painter named Richard Lawrence aimed two pistols at President Andrew Jackson but both misfired.
~On on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Abraham Lincoln.
~On on Friday, September 6, 1901, Leon Czolgosz, a self-proclaimed anti government anarchist, shot and killed President William McKinley
~on Saturday, July 2, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau shot President James A. Garfield, who died of his wounds.
These HERO'S of the anti govt movement have led the way for today's crazies... Leadership and example for today's 2nd Amendment Solution!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Dances around it? I have always been clear as to the purpose of the 2nd amendment, its all here in these forums for all to see ;) Geesh shouldn't you be out today in Saratoga protesting the gun show, I'm sure some of the people would love to have a chat with you :)
Oh, I have had a 'chat' with a few of them. Right after I sent my donation to the Gabby Giffords PAC.
So Henry, you still didn't clarify a point... Do you support banning civilian owners ship of RPG's, hand grenades, flame throwers, mortars, etc? You know... for home defense!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Who do these anti govt fanatics look up to? Who are their hero's? Who has taken up arms against oppressive government?
~John Hinckley, Jr... who "took up arms" and shot Ronald Reagan.
~September 5, 1975, Lynette Fromme, a follower of Charles Manson, tried to fire a Colt .45 caliber pistol at Gerald Ford when he reached to shake her hand in a crowd. She had four rounds in the magazine but forgot to chamber a round, so the gun did not fire.
~ On April 13, 1972 Arthur Bremer carried a firearm to an event intending to shoot Richard Nixon, but was deterred by strong security. A few weeks later, he instead shot and seriously injured Governor of Alabama George Wallace.
~Lee Harvey Oswald Assassinated John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.
~January 30, 1835 just outside the Capitol Building, a house painter named Richard Lawrence aimed two pistols at President Andrew Jackson but both misfired.
~On on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Abraham Lincoln.
~On on Friday, September 6, 1901, Leon Czolgosz, a self-proclaimed anti government anarchist, shot and killed President William McKinley
~on Saturday, July 2, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau shot President James A. Garfield, who died of his wounds.
These HERO'S of the anti govt movement have led the way for today's crazies... Leadership and example for today's 2nd Amendment Solution!
Box, you still idolizing Presidents like their lives have more value than average citizens? Why not name the thousands of examples where average citizens were protecting themselves with guns from criminals? Or the hundreds dead in Chicago that aren't allowed to protect themselves with guns because only those the government deems important enough to be allowed armed protection like the holy politician. You gave examples of men that have the security of heavily armed guards to protect them.
Oh, I have had a 'chat' with a few of them. Right after I sent my donation to the Gabby Giffords PAC.
So Henry, you still didn't clarify a point... Do you support banning civilian owners ship of RPG's, hand grenades, flame throwers, mortars, etc? You know... for home defense!
Actually a couple of those items are legal for civilians in some states did you know that, probably not :P
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Actually a couple of those items are legal for civilians in some states did you know that, probably not :P
He dances!!!
He bobs and weaves!!!
He runs away...
but he won't answer the question...
Henry, Do you support banning civilian owners ship of RPG's, hand grenades, flame throwers, mortars, etc? You know... for home defense!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Henry, Do you support banning civilian owners ship of RPG's, hand grenades, flame throwers, mortars, etc? You know... for home defense!
Nope since many are already legal in many states they're already out there, how many cases of a flamethrower murders ( besides the military)have there ever been. Basically it proves my point that weapons like this in the hands of law abiding citizens is nothing to fear, we need to focus on keeping them out of the bad guys hands.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Henry, box is trying to start a red herring argument. The national debate is about banning semi automatic rifles. He is attempting to take the debate to absurdity to make whatever point he's trying to make.
Henry, box is trying to start a red herring argument. The national debate is about banning semi automatic rifles. He is attempting to take the debate to absurdity to make whatever point he's trying to make.
Oh I know, his next line will be "so you are ok with civilians having nukes for home defense", I just answered his question because I knew he didn't know those weapons were legal in some states, he's probably going around the internet freaking out about what weapons civilians can legally own
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Logged
Geesh shouldn't you be out today in Saratoga protesting the gun show, I'm sure some of the people would love to have a chat with you 
