Posted on 03/28/2002 2:08:03 PM PST by RogueIsland
Since in today's world, gigantic war-states have overwhelmed the petty creations of former generations, be they religions, communities, constitutions, systems of philosophy....
Resistance is Futile...Prepare to be Assimilated...
Admit it, don't ya just want one of those for yourself?
If it can be "borne", it is protected. This includes grenade launchers and mortars, but at most excludes heavy bombs, cannon, and other uncarryable items.
Clearly, light machine guns are intended to be protected.
Like the right to freedom of speech in Communist China is primarily a "collective one."
If one were to speak to the Founders of a "collective right," they would chew him up and spit him back out.
In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic
The ACLU needs to study the last century, especially the parts where millions of disarmed people around the world were slaughtered by their own governments.
We need an organization of litigators to consistently defend our civil liberties, but the ACLU isn't it.
It is time to speak plainly for the good citizens and patriots of this nation who believe unbendingly in the Constitution of the United States of America. Though foreign governments may disarm their subjects, we will not go down that road. We will not disarm and see our freedoms stripped away. The lessons of history are numerous, clear and bloody. A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to – and dependent upon – the organs of a parental state.
A disarmed population will lose – either piecemeal or in one sweeping act – those basic rights for which the citizens of America risked their lives and fortunes over 200 years ago. We will not disarm. The right to self protection – the internal directive of every living creature, be it mouse or man – is the most fundamental right of all. It is the right that must be exercised against the predators of the streets, against the predators hidden within agencies of law enforcement, and against the most dangerous predators of all – those to be found in government, whose insidious grasping for power is relentless and never-ending. We will not disarm. Not in the face of robbers, rapists and murderers who prey upon our families and friends.
Nor in the face of police and bureau agents who would turn a blind eye to the Constitution, who would betray the birthright of their countrymen; nor in the face of politicians of the lowest order – those who pander to the ignorant, the weak, the fearful, the naïve; those indebted to a virulent strain of the rich who insulate themselves from the dangers imposed upon other Americans and then preach disarmament.
We will not surrender our handguns. We will not surrender our hunting arms. And we will not surrender our firearms of military pattern or utility, nor their proper furnishings, nor the right to buy, to sell, or to manufacture such items. Firearms of military utility, which serve well and nobly in times of social disturbance as tools of defense for the law abiding, serve also in the quiet role of prevention, against both the criminal and the tyrannical.
An armed citizenry – the well regulated militia of the Second Amendment, properly armed with military firearms – is a powerful deterrant, on both conscious and subconcious levels, to those inclined towards governmental usurpations. An armed citizenry stands as a constant reminder to those in power that, though they may violate our rights temporarily, they will not do so endlessly and without consequence.
And should Americans again be confronted with the necessity of – may God forbid it – throwing off the chains of a tyrannical and suffocating regime, firearms designed to answer the particular demands of warfare will provide the swiftest and most decisive means to this end. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen’s possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, provides an open window through which a corrupt government will crawl to steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen’s possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, being directly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, is inimical to the Constitution, to the United States of America, and to it’s citizens. Now – today – we are witnessing the perilous times foreseen by the architects of the Constitution.
These are times when our government is demanding – in the guise of measures for the common good – the relinquishment of several rights guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution, foremost among which is the right to keep and bear arms for our own defense. These are times when our government has abdicated its primary responsibility -- to provide for the security of its citizens. Swift and sure punishment of outlaws is absent, and in its place is offered the false remedy of disarming of the law-abiding.
Where this unconstitutional action has been given the force of law it has failed to provide relief and has produced greater social discord. This discord in turn now serves as the false basis for the demand that we give up other rights, and for the demand for more police, more agents of bureaucratic control to enforce the revocation of these rights. Legislators, justices and law officers must bear in mind that the foundation of their duties is to uphold the fundamental law of the land – the Constitution. They must bear in mind that the unconstitutional act of disarming one’s fellow citizens will also disarm one’s parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, children and children’s children. They must bear in mind that there are good citizens who – taking heed of George Washington’s belief that arms are the liberty teeth of the people – will not passively allow these teeth to be torn out. There are good citizens who – taking heed of Benjamin Franklin’s admonition that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety – will surrender not one of their rights.
Those who eat away at our right to own and use firearms are feeding on the roots of a plant over two centuries old, a plant whose blossom is the most free, most powerful nation ever to exist on the face of this planet. The right to keep and bear arms is the taproot of this plant. All other rights were won at the point of a gun and will endure only at the point of a gun. Could they speak, millions upon millions of this world’s dead souls would testify to this truth. Millions upon millions of the living can so testify today. Now – today – is a critical moment in our history.
Will we Americans passively lie down before a government disdainful of it’s best citizens? Or will we again declare: WE are the government, government functions at our behest, and it may not rescind our sacred rights? Will we place our faith in public servants who behave like our masters? Or will we place our faith in the words and deeds of the daring, far-seeing men and women whose blood, sweat and tears brought forth this great nation? Will we believe those who assure us that the police officer will shield us from the criminal? Or will we believe our eyes and ears, presented every day with news of our unarmed neighbors falling prey in their homes, on our streets, in our places of work and play? Will we bow our heads to cowards and fools who will not learn and do not understand the lessons of human history? Or will we stand straight and assume the daily tasks and risks that liberty entails? Will we ignore even the lessons of this present era – which has seen the cruel oppression of millions on the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America – and believe that the continent of North America is immune to such political disease? Or will we wisely accept the realities of the world, wisely listen to and make use of the precautions provided by our ancestors? Will we be deceived by SHAMELESS LIARS who say that disarmament equals safety, helplessness equals strength, patriotism equals criminality? Or will we mark the words of our forefathers, who wrote in plain language: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Let us make known: We will choose the latter option in every case.
Legislators: Do your duty to your country. Uphold the Constitution as you swore to do. Do not shame yourselves by knocking loose the mighty keystone of this great republic – the right to bear arms. Justices: Do your duty to country. Examine the origins of our right to weaponry and uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Lawmen: Do your duty to your country. Do not be misguided and misused. Your task is to serve and protect – not to oppress, to disarm and to make helpless your countrymen. To the blind, the ignorant, the apathetic, the safe and sheltered, these may seem to be concerns of another age. They are not. They are as vital as they ever have been through history. For times may change but human nature does not.
And it is to protect forever against the evil in human nature that the Founding Fathers set aside certain rights as inviolable. For these reasons we must now make known: We will not passively take the path that leads to tyranny. We will not go down that road. WE WILL NOT DISARM.
I'm not sure where this originated but, I saved it for times like this. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I took at shot at it once in regard to Nukes. This is cut an paste from that effort. I tried to lay out a general principle. Apply that to SCUD missiles, bazookas and grenades and see what happens.
"On the question of an individual right to bear arms that are nuclear in nature.
Preface
I believe in the Individual Right to bear arms that predates and is protected by the Second Amendment. I am not necessarily satisfied with the implications of some of what follows, but then I'm just taking a shot at the question.
Conclusion
The individual right to bear arms of a nuclear type is limited to virtual non-existence.
Discussion
The right to bear arms is not a fundamental right like the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If nothing else, the right to bear arms is contingent upon Mankind's ability to make something into a weapon.
An individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin. There can be vast areas where it is hard to figure out where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin. One way to resolve such situations is to weigh the cost in rights against the benefit in rights. (Another way is to fight it out.)
An individual's right to bear arms in the form of a nuclear weapon can be limited to the extent that it infringes upon the rights of others-particularly the fundamental rights of others. This is counterbalanced by whatever utility the nuclear weapon would have in the defense of an individual's rights. That utility is questionable at the present state of technology. One of the reasons it is questionable is because current nuclear arms are indiscriminate at the individual level. If in defense of your rights, you set off a nuclear weapon in my vicinity, you are virtually certain to affect my rights even though I am not the one who committed an offense against your rights. To plagiarize the words of another Freeper: "If the weapon has any nasty side effects -- like inevitably killing innocent bystanders, killing the user, killing at random, killing people who happen to be in the same general area fifty years later (and are hence inevitably also innocent bystanders,) or some such similar flaw, then it can't be considered a "just" weapon, because its use would inevitably violate the non-aggression principle." I would have said its use would violate the rights of others, but we get to the same place. Note that if you set off an automatic weapon in my vicinity you are orders of magnitude less likely to affect me, even if I am the one you are shooting at..
Weighing the cost in rights against benefit in rights, any normal benefit to one of bearing nuclear arms is outweighed by the normal cost in rights to others. Abnormal situations can change that.
Implications for RKBA as we normally speak of it (which doesn't include nukes): Historically, the benefit in rights of bearing small arms outweighs the cost in rights of doing so. The development of effective non-lethal weapons might change that situation to the extent that the benefit in rights of bearing lethal arms would be outweighed by the cost in rights of doing so because non-lethal arms would serve the same purpose.
I have not addressed arms that fit between the categories of small arms and nuclear arms. On the question of an individual right to bear arms that are nuclear in nature."
That's called campaign finance reform.
No. The ACLU says the First Amendment protects their right to free speech, which the Second does not protect your right to keep and bear arms.
I was going to say they don't understand the concept that the militia is made up of the very people referenced in the text of the amendment. But they do get this, and very well. They simply know that when the people are completely disarmed, there is no impediment to the ACLU becoming a latter-day Politburo.
I'm telling you, gather weapons and ammo now while you still can.
And you're still a liberal troll and your comments are still ignorant. But then again, those statements are redundant, aren't they?
My first reaction was to laugh and then I saw that it is too true.
Thanks for the response. I hammered that out over a couple of days a while back. This is the third occasion I have had to post it, and I don't recall that anybody else ever commented. Frankly, I expected to get flamed.
I guess there is no real right answer.
For questions like this, sometimes answers, right or wrong, only come after sweat, tears and sometimes blood.
I have had thoughts similar to yours.
Psychiatry didn't work for me but don't let that stop you from trying it. :)
LOL!
I guess in this modern progressive world, I could be considered crazy. I guess I was simply born 50 years too late.
If you don't have the second amendment; you dont have the first amendment.
I always have to laugh when gun-grabbers go off about the second amendment being about a "collective right", because they don't realize how much they're shooting themselves in the foot by saying that. If it's seen as a collective right, then that would actually expand its scope to include weapons that can be maintained and operated collectively (such as nukes). Seeing it as an individual right limits it to personal arms.
As I recall, one of the premises in the thread I originally posted that to was that backpack nukes were or soon would be in existence.
....the federal government...
Granted. But I was responding in the context of individual rights...governments aside. I tried to go back to basics: My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, your right to life ends when you are trying to take my life and all that. In other words, rights are constrained by other rights.
You surface an interesting issue though. Given that the Federal government has no power to regulate weapons, and given that the SCOTUS extends restriction of the Second Ammendment on the Federal government to the States, absent somethig in a State Constitution (I am not familiar with all of them): What mechanism will be used to mediate when there is a conflict of rights in this regard?
In addition to the discussions involving specific arms, it is important to point out that the Republic was about 150 years old before any need was invented to have federal legislation restricting weapons at all (NFA 1934).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.