Posted on 12/16/2002 10:11:12 AM PST by 45Auto
When you read what follows, keep in mind this one point: when you depart from natural law, you haven't gotten anywhere…
Apparently, the ninth circuit court has not kept this in mind, nor are they dimly aware of the consequences of attempting to flout natural law the way they have with their latest insane position they've taken about self-defense being only a collective right. That's right! "Insane" is the operative word, here, and I will attempt to connect sanity with natural law so I can eventually expose the reality of the ninth circuit's collective mental illness which precludes a basic understanding of individual rights and which has them flying in the face of the American Way.
First, the dictionary definition of sanity: the quality or state of being sane; especially : soundness or health of mind.
Now, my definition of sanity, which is that an individual is using enough of their mental potential so that they are connecting observable reality with properly-formed and interconnected abstractions in consciousness (which manifest on a conscious level as clear thought) so that the individual is in tune with natural law, thus maximizing mind/body coordination on both microcosmic, organic levels as well as macroscopic spiritual levels. More simply, sanity is the degree to which the individual is in tune with natural law, which is determined by the fineness and balance of that individual's overall mind/body coordination. It is the sharpness of balance between heart and head which rules perception and conception.
Could this possibly explain why the ninth circuit court has missed the connection between individual rights, specifically the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which implicitly include the capability to preserve that life - on an individual level - from any/all attempts to end that life? I mean, how do they "square" individual rights as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the rest of the Bill of Rights, which so clearly expound on individual inalienable rights - with their ruling that individuals possess no right to keep and bear arms? Could it be that the individuals that comprise the ninth circuit court - are insane?
I submit that the ninth circuit court buys into that form of government we shall refer to here as "mob rule" which tramples individual inalienable rights. That is, the judges on the ninth circuit court are collectivists, who see their judicial "solutions" only in terms of the collective. Well, the NAZIs operated on the basis of "public health", too, in the same manner these judges on the ninth circuit court have ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is only a collective right "owned" by the state, which they believe should maintain a monopoly on the use of force. Their ruling makes the state supreme, not the individual and it turns our form of jurisprudence on it's head.
I submit that there are only two ways to perceive these ninth circuit court judges. Either they are mentally ill, or they conspire to undermine our form of government. Of course, that the megalomaniacal ARE mentally ill, there can be no doubt. What I'm suggesting, however, is that they are opposed to the American way and are working for and toward another form of government, that being a collectivist one.
Clearly, they are socialists and traitors to the United States of America - unless they are willing to concede that they are mentally unbalanced, that they are out of tune with natural law and that they are incompetent to sit on the bench where the clear thinking of the sane must prevail. Western civilization DEPENDS on this issue being resolved.
For the longest time, the ninth circuit court has "loosed" their decisions on the United States, the highest peak of western civilization yet known to the world. The ninth circuit's consistent flouting of Constitutional rule of law which constitutes an attempt to flout NATURAL law - reveals malice. The truly insane are not consistent, since they are divorced from reality and their personal constitution with regard to natural law is by organic fiat. That is, as their brain chemistry changes from nutrition, drugs and so forth, they will experience variable mental states which should therefore yield variable approaches to dealing with reality. Not so with the ninth circuit court. They are consistent in their malice towards the western values documented in our founder's writings. So, I must once again submit that these leftist judicial activists are carrying out conscious subversion and they should be charged accordingly.
The whole basis of Western civilization is that the individual, free from the constraints of over-burgeoning government - can create, he can forge a higher standard of living (note that key word, "living"…), he can make a better world for himself and his progeny by harnessing (operating in tune with) natural law in such a way as to raise he and his family above the mean, crawling things of the earth - without doing harm, without violating the rights of others. The ninth circuit court, however, disagrees with this view that man should be able to protect his family and himself from those who DO NOT understand the premise of Western civilization, those who are intent on doing harm. They (the ninth circuit judges) disagree with natural law which says, "I, as an individual have inalienable rights, one of which includes the right to defend that life". They disagree with the natural laws which even govern our own bodies, namely those natural forces which constitute an immune-system which protects us from organisms that would do us harm on a cellular level.
The ninth circuit court - is not a friend of western civilization. In fact, they are undermining it wholesale, with forethought and malice. Specifically, they are in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the founding principles of the United States, they are opposed to Constitutional rule of law which states that individuals DO have inalienable rights like the right to self-defense, the right to keep and BEAR arms! The ninth circuit court is destroying the "immune system" of this country by declaring that the "individual cells" (individuals) in this country - do not have the right of self-defense. This is clearly a case of the "mind" (the ninth circuit) being at odds with the "body" (us), to use a transdisciplinary "holographic" model. This would be the definition of insanity, except that it is being done by a conscious mindset that is alien to Western civilization. Call it an invasion by the brain-snatchers, if you want to reverse that old title… In any case, it is fiat rule of law, not American Constitutional rule of law.
Therefore, I must submit that we have a domestic enemy among us. Whether they are infiltrators from the third world who have sprung up among us via adoption of alien views or whether they're simple mental dysfunctionals who are ruled by the fiat dictates of their diseased brains which have observable trouble apprehending natural law - those principles which promote life - these ninth circuit court judges must be removed. I am hoping that mere exposure will stop their uncivilized, third-world, anti-American rantings which are subverting my country. After that, there are few alternatives.
Frederick P. Blume Jr. 12/12/2002
Permission to repost the article immediately above is granted under the condition that you repost it in it's entirety.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
I like it!
Either they are collectively mentally ill or they are collectivists...either way they gotta go.
FMCDH
Natural law has very little to do with this. We should consider this to be a highly instructive case, and a good warning for conservatives, who play into this sort of thing all the time.
The 9th Circuit ruling is entirely consistent with, and can reasonably be inferred from, the letter of the law, as written in the 2nd Amendment. Our side nearly always loses when we focus on the letter of the law, because this effectively surrenders the spirit of the law without a fight.
Mr. Blume's Natural Law argument appeals to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. However, we've seen all too often that the left is not interested in accepting traditional statements of Natural Law, which inevitably bring into play the religious beliefs that the left does not accept, and is working hard to eradicate from society.
Blume's own hyperbolic "analysis" actually has less explicit justification than does the court's ruling. Unlike the court, which did at least engage the actual language of the Constitution, Blume continually refers to some amorphous set of principles called "Natural Law", but he doesn't offer any real description of why it's Law in the first place. (And his silly name-calling makes me want to wipe the spit off my screen.)
Blume's real problem is encapsulated by this statement: The whole basis of Western civilization is that the individual, free from the constraints of over-burgeoning government ....
This is not the basis of Western civilization. Christianity is the basis of Western civilization, and the whole theory of individual rights -- not to mention that of Natural Law -- springs from Biblical sources.
In the end, Blume's argument carries very little weight for those who do not already accept his version of Natural Law. That is the real issue here.
Hold on, now ... you're simply assuming that the judges have no choice but to agree with the underlying Natural Law that informs it.
If, however, the judges reject natural law, then they needn't "understand" RKBA as anything other than a "right" of convenience.
At root, this is just another application of the "living document" theory of Constitutional law. One way to look at it is to recognize that "living documents" do not depend on the eternal principles laid out in Natural Law. Instead, a "living document" is a relativist (and individualist) thing whereby the meaning and applications of the Constitution are governed by current perceptions of how things ought to be.
In a sense, this ruling is peripheral to the real issue, which has to do with the defeat of "the spirit of the law" in American jurisprudence, and indeed in many types of transactions in law, business, and elsewhere.
In his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Gibbon pointed out that a (the?) major cause of the fall had to do with a loss of virtue on the part of the Roman citizenry. Some emperors tried to restore the ancient virtues to Roman life, but they were usually assassinated for their efforts.
As for the United States, it's always instructive to recall the words of John and Samuel Adams
"Late in his life John Adams wrote about his concern that America would not maintain its moral and religious foundation. He warned Americans of his day that the Constitution could not help people who could not govern their personal conduct. Samuel Adams echoed the same concern. Here is how the two men expressed it:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams
Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. -- Samuel Adams"
The million dollar question is how we can regain the moral and religious foundations that allowed America to become a free country in the first place.
Without in any way desiring, condoning or advocating any kind of unlawful violence or other unlawful behavior, I agree in principal (i.e. I agree, but these particular people may not pay any price for rendering this plainly erroneous and unconstitutional decision). And without intending to violate any rules of this website (quite the contrary, I just wish to stimulate thought and discussion), I think that there is great value in having ALL adults think about the fate that could someday confront those who advocate the confiscation of arms from the general public, especially those making and interpreting the laws.
First, consider recent history, unrelated except in principle to the gun issue: The fact that the Soviet leadership seriously examined the effects of a nuclear exchange between us and the Soviets was an unmitigated good thing. Why? Because it had a deterrent effect on their actions. I seriously believe that in the absence of nukes they probably would've started a conventional WW3 during Stalin's lifetime. In the same way, it would be an unmitigated good thing for those intent on disarming the population to study the massively destructive effects of the second Civil War that they, themselves, would trigger if such a crime were attempted.
This is, by the way, exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind - to preserve our liberties by any means, including keeping the government "in awe" of the power of the people. For example,
Let them know that no conceivable combination of police and armed forces could stand a chance against even a relatively small fraction of the 80 million gun owners in this country. You see, half of all adults already own guns. They blend in with the population because they are the population. Even many of those that were too afraid, old, young or infirm to actually pick up a gun and fight would aid and abet those who had no such handicaps. As confirmation, the would-be gun confiscators need only look to the Revolutionary War - and I don't think that they want to play the role of the Redcoats.
Let them be painfully aware that what the DC-area "sniper" did a couple months back was NOTHING compared to what a single well-trained and highly motivated rifleman (let alone tens or hundreds of thousands of them), targeting anti-freedom personnel (NOT innocent civilians like the sick "sniper" did) could do to the nation's commerce.
Let them know for a fact that 10-15 million average folk have scoped rifles that are easily capable of hitting man-sized targets out to at least 500 yards, and that most of them regularly crawl around in the woods in a very stealthy manner to hunt animals that are accustomed to being hunted. Let them find out what their taxpayer-funded security details think about the odds of a perfect defense against even 1 in 10,000 of those people.
Let them contemplate the millions of veterans, many highly trained in unconventional warfare, who don't believe that a separation from service negates their solomn oaths to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...." Let them further contemplate that it has always been US military doctrine to incapacitate/kill the leadership of the enemy forces, so as to render the mass of the enemy directionless and to destroy their morale - and the fact that all of those vets know this doctrine very well.
Let them wonder whether all of the police and armed forces under their control would march in lockstep with their orders, or whether there would be a sizable fraction that would actively resist and take weapons (perhaps even WMDs) to the other side. Let them further wonder whether the apparently loyal soldier or officer at their side is really loyal, as opposed to the possibility that he or she is passing information to the other side.
Let them think again, and again, and again about whether they or their families will survive such a brutal conflict, especially when they know that a confiscation effort would target not only gun owners but their families. It seems to me that even those as dense as Congresscritters and the 9th Circuit judges could figure out that if they take everything away from a person, that person will very quickly lose his or her moral inhibitions. And if that person is armed and skilled with arms.... Would-be confiscators really need to look at this aspect of general human nature.
In short, while I absolutely don't want anyone to think that I want something like this to occur, or that I advocate that anyone commit an unlawful act of violence against any other person, I do want those who would steal our birthright (i.e. all of our freedoms, necessarily beginning with the RKBA) at the point of a gun to be painfully aware that some significant proportion of the 80 million gun owners would be pointing their own guns back. I want them to know that the power that they so nakedly covet won't be acquired for free.
This is a minimal part of the problem. This presumes it is neat and clean and the only resistance is minimal and that law enforcement wins every shootout and there are no collateral casualties (read innocents who have no stake in the matter slaughtered). This is what the Nith Circuit would like to see? Now if instead of one tenth of one percent (one out of a thousand) decides to actively resist we move the numbers up to 1 percent and of these another 1 percent decide to take the battle to those who do violence to a right guarnteed by our Constitution. That means 80,000 marksmen out there trying to do violence to those who think themselves rulers. If say each of those averages 5 opponents taken out before being neutralized There are another 400,000 dead anbd we haven't even gotten to the second round of violence this decision could beget.
It is to avoid this gfuture that I wrote of it. I do NOT wish to live in a nation undergoing such a civil war.Round III is when those who were on the losing side are either hanging from lamposts or marching into showers before the ovens.
Such is merely the nature of Civil Wars. The decisions forced upon people by such a conflict are to be avoided.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
short of the ammo box?
The only way, short of the ammo box, to get rid of these friends of tyranny is via impeachment. For federal judges, their final fate is (like Clinton's) decided by the Senate. Do you think little Tommy Dasshole, his Democrapic butt-boys and the assorted RINOs in "the world's greatest deliberative body" will let that happen?
No, the judges to blame are Reinhardt, who wrote the opinion, and Fisher, who signed on to it. They went out of their way to consider the issues of the case when it was improper for them to do so.
Stay well - stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Let's continue with our speculations:
I'm not so sure about the 15%-20% figure, even if you chose that number from the NRA membership roles. Even in the Revolutionary War, only about 3% of the population actually fought. This would equate to about 9 million total today, but we don't have the cajones that the founding generation did. I'd bet on no more than 2% of gun owners, or 1.6 million, maximum. Let's be conservative and figure on 5% of NRA members (about 225,000), 10% of the members of other gun rights orgs (which are generally more pro-gun - this would be maybe another 50,000) and 0.5% of all other gun owners, i.e. those who don't want to be on any lists (about 75 million times .005 = 375,000). The total is about 650,000 - 650,000 who speak the language perfectly, who dress and act just like the people around them, many of whom are very successful and respected members of society - in short, 650,000 rebels who blend in perfectly with the rest of the population, and who might be the least suspected people out there. And they all have families and friends who'd probably help them cover their tracks, feed them, etc.
Small (and, frankly, disappointing) as that number may sound, these would be the best motivated, best equipped, best trained of the bunch. Many of them would have lots of taxpayer-funded experience in small unit tactics; many would be ex-special forces, who would be particularly motivated and skilled, and who have a great ability to train others. Many would be hunters, skilled in sneaking up on a target and delivering an accurate shot under pressure. Many would be benchrest or high power match shooters, who could make seemingly impossible shots from long ranges. They could count on several, and perhaps tens, of millions of others for logistical, intelligence and moral support.
It wouldn't take more than a few thousand really determined rebels to have a huge impact. Look what one nutcase did in the DC area a couple of months back - two states and DC were virtually paralyzed, and it took weeks to get the SOB even with thousands of cops looking for him, and with the bozo leaving clues! ONE GUY, and a not particularly skilled or smart one, either. Imagine what 1,000 ex-Green Berets, SEALS and Rangers could do? They'd have vastly superior skills, probably would coordinate attacks, would pick high value (i.e. leadership) targets, and wouldn't leave shell casings and notes to be found. Who knows, there are supposedly "underground" organizations of hardcore pro-liberty ex-special forces types - they may already have lists of targets that have been scouted out. They'd shut the entire country down - just 1,000 people! Don't forget, there'd be 649,000 more trying to do the same. And success breeds imitators - many who hadn't taken the plunge might do so as it became obvious that the few acting were largely successful and weren't getting caught. Nope - I wouldn't want to be anyone associated with passing or implementing any confiscation orders - nor would I want to be part of their families.
Once again, I wish to be especially clear that I am not threatening or condoning violence against any person or institution, and I am most definitely not advocating that anyone else commit such actions. Threatening people or advocating that others commit crimes are, themselves, crimes, and I have no intention of committing a crime by writing here. This is a thought exercise, a mere speculation regarding a possible future (one which, by the way, our politicians and judges can easily avoid by taking their oaths of office seriously).
"ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC"
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.