Posted on 09/14/2004 6:29:22 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Homeland Security. My doesn't that sound wonderful. It almost gives you that same warm feeling a rousing rendition of God Bless America inspires in most Americans.
We've been hearing that phrase, "Homeland Security," a lot, ever since nineteen Muslim nuts flew two planes into the twin towers in New York, one into the Pentagon in Washington, and one, apparently unintentionally, into the ground in Pennsylvania.
The reason we've been hearing that phrase a lot is because it is in the name of H.R.5005, Homeland Security Act of 2002 The purpose of the Homeland Security Act, as everyone knows, is to give the government the power necessary to prevent another attack by Muslim nuts. This power is necessary, we are told, so the government can protect us from a repeat of 9/11, or hundreds of children being tormented and murdered in our schools, or one of our cities being gassed or nuked by even more Muslim maniacs.
Some of us thought that was already what the government was supposed to be doing. Some people are even wondering, if, with the most powerful military in the world, the most sophisticated (and expensive) intelligence agencies in the world, and the most efficient law enforcement agencies in the world, the government could not stop nineteen Muslim fanatics who didn't even have guns, how giving the government more power is going to make us any more secure.
Be assured, we are told, it is only a little more power, and it is only, "temporary." "Just give us the power to read all your email, listen to all your telephone conversations, examine all your bank accounts, know where you are every moment of your life, and to force you to have inoculations you do not want, and we will make you secure." One thing is sure, these measures are only temporary, because when they do not work, and there is another terrorist attack, the reason will be, the government did not have quite enough power yet, but, if we just give them a little more, then they will make us secure.
Your Security
You may even be wondering how your wife being pawed by some complete stranger at the airport is going to make you any more secure? That is because you are probably thinking of security the way the founders of this country thought of security and the way the Constitution describes it. You probably have some naive concept of security like, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."
The Three Ps
I know the idea is old fashioned, even naive, but I happen to like the ideas the founders had. They did not have social security in mind when they talked about security. What they had in mind were the three Ps. The security the revolution was fought to win and the Constitution was instituted to ensure was the security of individuals, their persons, their property, and their privacy.
If it seems to you, those are the very three things the Homeland Security Act not only does not secure, but actually violates, and wonder how that makes you more secure, it is because the government does not mean by security what you, and I, and the founders of this country meant. You are assuming it is your person, your property and your life the government intends to make secure, but that is the last thing they are concerned with protecting.
To the government the "Homeland" means, "the U.S. Government." "Homeland Security" means, "Government security," and the whole purpose of the Homeland Security Act is to make the Government secure. That is why your politicians can, with a straight face, describe how they are going to violate your privacy, your property, and your person and do those things to provide you security. To them, your personal security is a small price to pay for the security of the government.
Two and Four
If they were really interested in your personal security, instead of finding as many ways as they can to abrogate the Fourth Amendment, they would be working for the reinstatement of the Second Amendment. While not officially repealed, it might as well have been, because it is ignored by every federal, state, and local law restricting the ownership and use of firearms.
The Fourth Amendment protecting the security of every individual's person, property, and privacy, interestingly, is directed not at the possible violations of these things by other individuals. It was written specifically to protect individual security from violation by the government.
The founders very wisely understood that no piece of paper signed by any number of people has ever, or will ever, stop anyone, particularly a government, from doing anything it is determined to do. With that in mind, they wrote the Second Amendment. As King George found out, when the citizens are free to arm themselves, there are limits to how much the government can get away with doing those things the Fourth Amendment prohibits.
A government that has no intention of violating the security of its citizens has nothing to fear from an arm citizenry. Citizens, however, have everything to fear from a government that, directly or indirectly, is party to their disarming. Whether that government's intentions are tyrannical or not, once the means of protecting oneself from such a government are eliminated, there is nothing to limit that government from engaging in any outrages of tyranny and oppression against it citizens.
Make Them Prove It
L. Neil Smith is right. The test is guns. Any politician that claims to be interested in your security that is not outspokenly insisting that every citizen be free to arm himself, is a liar. They are especially a liar if they way they propose to make you secure is by violating those very things, your person, your property, and your privacy, which security is all about.
Will any of the government measures, all the men dying and billions being spent waring in every hell-hole in the world do anything to prevent another terrorist attack? Will any of the provisions of the Homeland Security Act, while heaping more government violations on your personal security, make you one bit more secure? They might, but they are terribly expensive ways to do it, in terms of human life, money, and individual liberty.
There is one sure way the personal security of every individual in America can immediately be improved, and it will cost nothing at all. Restore the Second Amendment, allow and encourage all American citizen to arm themselves, to protect there own person, property, and privacy and homeland security will instantly increase a hundredfold. Any politician that is not saying that is a liar, and has no interest at all in your security, and you have every reason to suppose his real intentions are not your security, but your oppression.
Funny, the same number of people had voted when I just voted.
Keep me on your list, thanks!
There'll be just one question: Are willing to fight for you and your familys FREEDOM or do you prefer the security of a slave?
Surrender your weapons and your score is an automatic F
Lets hope there are very few A 's
Question has already been answered. Bans in Cali and confiscation in Michigan. Until it hits one of our home towns, ain't a single one of us gonna do squat.
Was it not Ben Franklin that said (paraphrasing) those that would give up liberty for protection deserve neither!
An AMEN to that notion!
>>When asked why I need an assault weapon,<<
It is to assist me in a gaining access to the RPG's and the heavy weapons that an enemy would be using to take away the Freedom of the American people. Other than that I have absolutely no use for any weapon that would support hi-capacity magazines.
My old Anchultz bolt action, single shot .22 caliber is much easier on your ears and mine PLUS it is more of a challenge to shoot on a windy day at 100 yds.
Probably the mental requirement to accept the reality that another American, yes an American can become your deadly enemy.
Traitors within our society are much more difficult to locate because we have one helluva time even thinking that an American Senator or President could be intentionally taking away our Bill of Rights and our Constitution with all the Amendments, line by line, day by day.
Would Senator Fienstien please stand up with Senator Kennedy and raise your hands so that all may see your faces.
Imagine the reaction in Sacramento, if this weekend 5000 men and women with their hunting rifles slung over their shoulders were to quietly march around the state capitol buildings, each carrying the flag and a small sign that said,
Hank,
Definitely keep me on your list.
Not just a good, but an excellent essay. Thanks.
Great read - your list is a "keeper" for me, I am glad to be there. Thanks for posting.
BTTT.
We keep getting shouted down by those who say "give the system a chance". We make cosmetic gains while they continue to flush everthing else down the toilet. We say vote for a real conservative candidate (McClinock), they say winning is more imporatant (RINO Aah-nold).
It happens with court case, legislation, and the vote. Chicken sh*t moderates and those more than half way on the other side of the fence continue to marginalize and defuse the patriotism, fervor, and love of freedom from those who want REAL change in this downward slide.
Heck, some of them will probably pop up on this thread...
Things will have to get a lot worse....
Thanks for the ping. Interesting read. I like what it says about the necessity of the 2nd Amendment. IMO, it's perhaps the most important amendment of them all. It's the lynch pin that keeps all the others secure. There shouldn't be any restrictions on any weapons, imo. The "dark, ugly side" of the 2nd Amendment is that it's meant to keep the citizenry as well armed as possible, to stand against any tyranical threat, both foreign and domestic. Can't do that if we ban guns for cosmetic reasons, or just because some nutcase doesn't use them responsibly.
I'll probably take some heat though for my support of Homeland Security. I don't think the author is right when he says that the government is asking us, "'Just give us the power to read all your email, listen to all your telephone conversations, examine all your bank accounts, know where you are every moment of your life, and to force you to have inoculations you do not want, and we will make you secure.'" It's not "everyone", rather people who are already suspect, like those student visas that expire, or those ME people coming over with passports from Canada or Mexico, engaging in already suspicious activity. Put another way, I haven't had my telephone tapped, or my bank accounts examined, or, (and this is perhaps the most laughable part of the author's 'concern') been forced to take inoculations I don't want. Never. Has anyone else here? I have yet to hear of one American citizen, doing nothing wrong, who's rights have been violated by the Patriot Act.
I think this is about right.
He's expressed similar sentiments before. And the Test works. It is the prime reason why my vote for Bush was not decided until this past Monday.
The Second Amendment...
America's Original Homeland Security!
Be Ever Vigilant!
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.