Freedom requires a ready defense by the people *updated*

“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”

~ Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

~ Madison’s original draft of the Second Amendment

 

 I’ve been running all day, and have not yet had time to read the decision (though I have indeed heard the remarks from Obama, approximately 60% of which was the word ‘but’…Marxist). 

But suffice to say…No kidding. Of COURSE it’s a right.

A right from God, and not any government!

Frighteningly, four Supreme Court justices, for some reason, nearly obliterated our right to own and bear arms today. That alone should make you piddle like a puppy after a full meal. That four justices were willing to take away one of our most very precious rights ought to terrify and outrage you.

Still, we’re safe…safer…for now.

Assert your rights, Americans. Loudly. And don’t back down. Our rights, including the right to defend our loved ones and that which our labour has earned, are from the Almighty, not a government. Upon those rights no one can righteously encroach. That’s why the Founders ensured We, The People, were free and able to own, carry, and use firearms; not to hunt, not even to protect against thugs and barbarians, but to protect ourselves from our own government should it, like that of George III and Parliament, become too overbearing, too powerful. Unfortunately, a majority of Americans do not understand this concept.

Too many people are irrationally frightened of firearms, much less other people owning, carrying, and using such things. They seem to think it means people will be irrationally shooting one another at the drop of a hat, or strutting about with cocky demeanors. However, reality and everyday life proves this is not the case: The vast majority (as in 99%) of those owning firearms legally are just like anyone else, except they’re willing to take on responsibility for their own and others’ safety. We don’t walk around looking for trouble, bullying others, arrogantly cruising for a bruising. As a matter of fact, we’re likely to be a bit more cautious and thoughtful because of those rounds sitting in a weapon we carry somewhere on our person.

The right to self-defense is just that: a right. It is not merely a privilege, nor is gun ownership. The only things that should bar a person from being able to keep and bear arms is a felony or mental illness (a real one, not a made-up one like “shopping addiction”). Barring those two things, there’s no reason anyone should be refused a firearm they desire to purchase, and they don’t need to have a reason for wanting or owning one, either. Are you asked “Why do you want this steak?” while at the supermarket? Is it demanded of you why you wish to purchase a pair of pants or underwear? Must you fill out reams of paperwork explaining why you’re at the nursery buying a peach tree, the car dealership buying a vehicle, the pharmacy buying some sunblock? No (not yet, just don’t elect the ObaMessiah)…and these things aren’t even rights.

The ability and means to defend oneself are rights, and rights from our Creator, no less. Firearms ownership being a means of defense, it is also a right; not one given by the Second Amendment, but one which has always been; the Second Amendment merely spells it out lest the government get bad ideas in its head.

Our rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — whether or not that pursuit and the life lived lead to perdition or salvation. Inherent with those rights comes the means to achieve and protect them.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as “The Bill of Rights”, and contrary to what you may have been taught, what Congress believes, and what 4 members of the SCOTUS believe, these are rights of the people. The people, NOT the government. Indeed, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rather anti-government; the Founders knew from experience what an overbearing government would and could do to the civilian population, and set up strict boundaries within which the government could and should act. These documents are restrictions on government…not the people.

Just because we (or some judges) don’t like some of those boundaries doesn’t mean we can change them at the drop of a gavel.

Without the right to keep and bear arms at will, the citizens, the civilian population is in grave danger. The Constitution and our other rights will mean nothing, for we’ll have no means to defend them with. Hitler knew this, and it’s why he disarmed the population. And armed people is dangerous to and a check upon any government, helping maintain the balance between power and tyranny.

We are all to be minutemen.

Something a lot of people like to throw at individual-rights defenders is the phrase, “a well-regulated militia”. Frankly, this is like throwing a cherry at a hot fudge sundae; again, the Bill of Rights deals with the rights of the people, of the individual; it restricts the government. Furthermore, “well-regulated” means well-trained, drilled, and educated in handling and use of firearms and other weapons. Remember, back then, “regular” meant “somebody in the military”. “Regulate” and “regulation” referred to being well-equipped and proficient. Moreover, our Founders themselves were very clear exactly who they meant by “militia”:

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

~ George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”

~ Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

~ Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

~ Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Yes, yes…republican! Way too many people (including John Piper in a recent post that made me sick) think we’re a democracy. No. We are a Constitutionally-limited republic.

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

~ Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334

We don’t carry guns because we’re afraid, or arrogant, or dangerous: we carry them because we are free.

” … most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”

~ James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

~ Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

~ Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”

~ Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

Though the grammar confuses some, the Second Amendment, which reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, ought to be quite clear, particularly in light of the above quotes and other words from our Founders, a majority not desirous of a standing army of at all, but instead a civilian army, just like the Minutemen: farmers, shopkeepers, farriers, milliners ready and willing to fight should such services be needed.

If “militia” means all of us, the people, then yes, we have every right to keep (own) and bear (carry and, if necessary, use) firearms of any kind. Still, some insist that the Founders meant only the military, police officials, and government people have the right to firearms.

Larry Anderson elaborates and explains far better than I can in the American Thinker:

Perhaps those wild and crazy Founding Fathers were just having a laugh when they wrote the Second Amendment. Perhaps the whole bit about people keeping and bearing weapons is an ironic conclusion to the Second Amendment. This version of SA, exposing the intended irony, might read:

We are a new country. We will have a standing army (well regulated militia). The members of the army will be the only citizens who can keep and bear arms. This might make the remaining unarmed citizens a little jumpy. Therefore, we will inform the people, with this amendment, that the purpose of the militia is to protect the people; and because the weapons carried by the militia are the only weapons allowed, the people do not need weapons because the militia has weapons. (Tee-hee.)

Gotta love those framers’ sense of humor.

What does the Second Amendment really mean?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

(We are a new, free country. It is necessary to have a trained, weapon equipped, standing army to help keep us free. And because we will have a standing army),

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

(if the army gets guns, so do the people, in case the army ever gets out of line.)

Cause: The government-controlled army has guns. Effect: The people, via constitutional amendment, demand, and are guaranteed, the right to weapons as well.

In short, the Second Amendment means what it says and it says what it means.

Hear, hear. To review? WE are the “standing militia”. That’s you, me, your neighbor, your co-worker, your pastor, the baker, the farmer, the businessman. We are the people, we are the militia, we are the defense for our selves, our families, our freedoms, and our nation. As such, we are to be well-equipped with our very own firearms, kept in our possession at all times, and we are also to be well-regulated when it comes to those arms. Finally, the right to KEEP AND BEAR those arms cannot be infringed upon, ever.

So yes, that means every single firearms law on the books is un-Constitutional and therefore illegal.

Enough from me. There’s a lot being written about this, and I’ll never be able to read it all, but just a few good things:

Gun control is not about guns, but control from Rattlesnake over at Christianity: Doctrine and Ethics. Though written a couple of weeks before the SCOTUS decision, it’s quite applicable. Freedom is always applicable…

…One might think that the argument over individual as opposed to collective rights should be a slam dunk, since it is clear, for example, that the First Amendment clearly applies to individual rights. In fact, those who are most vociferous about First Amendment rights are emphatic that these are individual rights—except for those, of course, who disagree with them. …when was the last time you heard a discussion about whether the First Amendment applies just to the National Guard or to individuals as well? Or, when was the last time you heard someone questioning whether eminent domain only applied to a select few?

…For those who are gleeful about the confiscation of guns just remember this: If you grant the government the power to take your firearm, you are also giving them the implicit power to take whatever they want to take from you whenever they want to take it. Be careful what you wish for, because what might please you in the confiscation of guns one day might very well come around and bite you tomorrow. Many still fail to realize that less government involvement in life is far better than more involvement.

Mitch over at Shot in the Dark had a nice celebration yesterday.

This ruling euthanizes the DC Gun Ban – which is was, like most gun control measures
, a racist concoction intended to keep all those brown-skinned people from running amok in the nation’s capitol, to return us in deed if not in thought to the days when black people had a separate, unequal justice system…

This is not the end of the war over the Second Amendment, of course. It’s not a complete victory; licensing at the end of the day is conceptually scarcely less odious or abuse-prone than a ban (as we’ve found out in Saint Paul this past year). The orcs still control much; many cities (or at least their governing elites) still pay lumpen, unthinking fealty to the notion that a disarmed, docile citizenry is a safe one.

…the only genuinely secure people in this world are the ones that can see to their own security.“

Really, the only free people in this world are the ones who can see to their own security, rather than depend on police, who are often left to be the clean-up crew after the evil has occurred, or military. And keep in mind: both can be, and often have been, corrupted, with horrific results.

It wouldn’t be gun chat without Kim du Toit, and more Kim, and still more Kim (well, okay, that last bit is obviously just an excuse for gratuitous gun porn).

In Human Events, the Nuge weighs in (but of course!).

I am responsible for my personal defense and the defense of my family. Our Founding Fathers clearly believed this as well. …I can’t imagine allowing myself to be unarmed, helpless and reliant upon the heroes of law enforcement, who, though always do the best that they can do, cannot and will not be there when we need them. They represent damage control all too often, when quality control is in the hands of responsible individuals. The same Supreme Court determined long ago that cops have no lawful obligation to protect us from anything. Self defense is our job.

Banning guns hasn’t worked to deter crime or make communities safer, in fact just the opposite. All gun bans have ever accomplished is the creation of guaranteed victims.

Happy Independence Day, just a little early. It ain’t a perfect decision, but better than it could have been.