Tuesday, March 17, 2009

They want to disarm you. Why???

I was going to post a complete Fisking of the most current Brady press release along with a rebuttal of Eric Holder's comments on the coming Assault Weapons Ban. Even though I knew that the material has been covered extensively in the past, I wanted to weigh in again.


HERE is what I wanted to say, pretty much as I would have said it.

Summary: Government wants to disarm you even though they have ZERO duty to protect you! The really astute among you should be asking yourselves WHY?

Case law is pretty clear. Government has been repeatedly held immune to liability for failing to protect you from bad things. Yet, they still want to render you unable to protect yourself from bad people. Why? Maybe Government knows that they are screwing you, yet doing so achieves a different goal for them than the one that they are stating.

Think about that.

If Government (and their willing enablers in the media and in pressure groups like the Brady bunch and their ilk) KNOWS that they are putting you at risk and making you totally dependent upon them, do they achieve something else?

Do they make you a disarmed vassal serf?

Worse, do they make you impotent to respond to their abuses?

Maybe they want you unable to respond. Maybe they want you to surrender to their control. Maybe this is about what it has always been about: Power. Power over you, for their benefit.

I am not a tinfoil-hat-wearing Loonie. I do not believe that black helicopters are hovering over my life waiting for a chance to pounce. I am not that important in the grand plan... You are though. ALL of you, in the aggregate.

Think about this fact: No army has ever attempted to win a ground battle against the United States of America, on our own soil, ever. (Yes, I know about the Revolutionary War. We were not the USA back then.) The reason? Most of the citizenry is armed.

As it should be.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not about duck hunting, target shooting, plinking, or any other "sporting purpose". It is minimally about self-defense (recently affirmed by the Heller decision, thank you very much). It is, most definitely, about the body of the citizenry being armed with weapons suitable for, and designed for, militia (military) use.

While I do not agree with the conclusion in the Miller decision about Carriage guns, coach guns, trench guns, or Blunder-busses (sorry, I meant to say "sawed-off shotguns" about 4 times there), I do agree with their conclusions made in the decision regarding the Second Amendment. Essentially, that the citizenry has a duty and obligation to maintain a current military weapon (in general use at the time, in military service), and be proficient with it such that they may be able to (quoting the original language of the Constitution) "...execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

I would add also: "Faithfully defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

If the Laws are changed, such that firearms ownership becomes a crime... Or, if the government passes a law requiring registration or disarmament, I recommend disobedience. At that point the government will have passed into overt tyranny. Our arms are ultimately our sole remedy.

For justification on this position, I'll stand on Marbury vs. Madison:

"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

So, honor the Constitution. Respect those agents and agencies of Government that are conforming to the Constitution and are operating within its limitations. Keep a close eye on those who would usurp your power and authority for their own gain, especially if they are professing to protect you from harm (remembering that they have no duty to do so).

In the meantime, keep 'em clean and oiled...we may be in for a bumpy ride.




No comments: