It amazes me just how many Americans do not understand the concept of Second Amendment Rights and where this American right originates. Even American’s who support the Second Amendment, own firearms, join the NRA, and exercise their rights under the Second Amendment daily often misunderstand its origins.
What is scary to me, however, is that the left-wing liberals certainly seem to, at least on one level, understand the reason that the Founding Fathers wrote Second Amendment and included it in the Bill of Rights. That is why they are so intent on eliminating the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.
Of course, you have to understand that most liberals in this country are not liberals at all … at least not in the true sense of the liberal ideology. True liberals, as a general rule, would not support gun control because it is a violation of a personal freedom …. and all liberals certainly claim to strongly support individual freedom. This is the root of their support for the gay movement, women’s rights to murder 1.37 million American babies each year, legalizing drugs, PETA, terrorist’s rights, and the drive-by media’s right to commit libel and slander against conservatives with impunity while openly supporting their chosen liberal politicians during elections.
In this country, the term liberal is most often used to hide the true identity of anti-American movements. The ACLU, for example, originated as a communist organization dedicated to bringing about a peaceful transition to a communist American state. When the ACLU’s founding members discovered that the term communist was working against them because of the stigma attached to it, they simply changed their name.
Many other “liberals” in this country are simply socialists; but because this term also still has a stigma attached to it, they choose to hide behind the term “liberal.”
Then we also have the liberal “fascists” … like Barack Obama quickly seems to be turning out to be. What kind of government allows private ownership of business, but tells you how to run them ….. look it up!
So, what does this have to do with gun control. Despite the fact that many cool-aid drinking liberal followers live in a dream world where we all sit around the global campfire singing Kumbaya, their leaders (the movers and shakers of the liberal elitist movement) are actually very intelligent. They understand that, with the exception of California and the New England states, the backbone of real America is still made up of bitter common folk who cling to their Bibles and their Guns; and … that these bitter (or shall we say Freedom Loving Rugged Individualists) simply do not want to live in a socialist (or a fascist) nanny state. Their solution, then, is to lie, cheat, misinterpret, play on fears, elect any and all rabid anti Second Amendment politicians (or judges) they can find, use their control of the mass media, and otherwise work to dissolve our Second Amendment rights.
Because of this on-going assault on the Second Amendment, we often hear some really odd soundbites such as
its people like you who will hand the White House over to some COMMI DEMOCRAT, who will elect some liberal Supreme Court Justices … and they will destroy the Second Amendment
or even such nonsense as …
the jack-booted feds will roll you up like an old carpet. If you think you can resist them then you will join the ranks of the Branch Davidians and the martyrs of Ruby Ridge. All the good sheeple will fall in line … or die.
Rhetoric such as this is silly and misses the point entirely.
Implicit in comments such as these is the idea that our rights, including those validated under the Second Amendment, are somehow granted to us by the 9 old men and women on the Supreme Court; or from our legislature; or from our president. Implicit in these comments is the idea that the right to Keep And Bear Arms actually comes from the Second Amendment itself. This is a fallacy. The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, the legislature, and the presidency are all thing created by men, and thus, they can be taken away by other men.
The truth is that the Second Amendment (and the other rights listed in the bill of Rights) simply acknowledges and allows us to protect our Inalienable Rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Depending on your personal belief system, these rights would be granted to us as either Natural Rights based on our condition of being Human Beings …. or as Divine Rights granted to us by God.
Such rights are yours from the moment of your birth and cannot be taken away by other men … unless you allow that to happen.
Of course we can write our congressmen, join the NRA or the GOA, write letters to the editor, argue cases in court, and work hard to elect pro-gun legislators … and we should certainly be doing all these things. However, our Second Amendment rights are not based on the outcome of these mechanisms. Those “liberals” currently in power like Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Emanuel Rahm, Harry Reid, Janet Napolitano, Sarah Bradey, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and soon to be Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor among others, would certainly want to have you believe that it does; and will certainly work to convince you that it does … but, in truth …. it does not.
Our Right To Bear Arms rests entirely upon our willingness to stop, by whatever means necessary, anyone who attempts to confiscate them. What these other mechanisms do is simply postpone any coming day of reckoning … which is certainly worth doing as long as it is feasibly possible.
However, any political or governmental entity acting to confiscate or deny an honest, law-abiding American citizen the right to keep and bear arms is acting in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a legitimate government agency.
And for those of you who will certainly, without thinking or doing any research, chime in and exclaim … “but that’s not what the Second Amendment means” … “its about militias, not individuals” … ” it is outdated because it was written 200 years ago” … you should remember that your precious Freedom of Speech was acknowledged and guaranteed at precisely the same time
… and take the time to look at and actually read some of the historical quotes listed below. You might gain some “intelligence.”
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America” – (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))
“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
“The Constitution shall never be construed….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, 86-87)
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
“The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,…taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)
“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 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 best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
“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 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson)
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington)
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])
“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])
“…the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)
“Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.” (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])
“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])
“Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame.” (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])
“The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes.” (Dwight, Travels in New-England)
“What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)
(The American Colonies were) “all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them.” [George Mason, “Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]
“To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country.” (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]
“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (James Madison, “Federalist No. 46”)
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])
“The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” (Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” Abbey’s Road [New York, 1979])
“You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you….There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”)
“You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”)
“As much as I oppose the average person’s having a gun, I recognize that some people have a legitimate need to own one. A wealthy corporate executive who fears his family might get kidnapped is one such person. A Hollywood celebrity who has to protect himself from kooks is another. If Sharon Tate had had access to a gun during the Manson killings, some innocent lives might have been saved.” [Joseph D. McNamara (San Jose, CA Police Chief), in his book, Safe and Sane, (c) 1984, p. 71-72.]
“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]
” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]
“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
Darren, I’m British and found your article interesting with plenty of good quotes. You’re right about the 2nd Amendment being largely irrelevant to the issue of Gun control and for that matter any kind of Government Control over its citizenry.
I think the roots to the Right to Bears Arms in the USA goes back to England.
The US shares with England (and the rest of the Anglo Saxon world) a concept of citizenry that is unique…I’m referring to English Common Law. Common Law (common because it applies to all) holds certain principles to be ‘natural’…that is to say ‘God’ given and not (as you correctly point out) as Government given. You’re absolutely spot on in making the point that any Government given right can be taken away by the same said Government.
Common Law is in total contrast to the concept of ‘Civil Law’ introduced by Napoleon (Code Napoleon) and adopted by most of the non Anglo Saxon world. Under the Civil Code ‘liberty’ is granted by Government and the all risks of limitation & revision that goes with it.
Throughout English history (from the 12th Century) there have been attempts by tyrannical English monarchs (who having broken their contract with the People) were forced to acknowledge the Common Law rights of the People. The Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution…were all milestones in this process.
It’s easy to forget that the American colonies declared their independence from Britain not because they disagreed with the traditional liberties enshrined in English Law, but because they wanted them respected. English Common Law forms the basis of the liberty encapsulated by the US Constitution: Habeas Corpus, trial by Jury, innocent until proven guilty and perhaps most important of all, the concept of limited government and a government that is itself subject to Law.
From Common Law we also get the right to bear arms. Henry II conceded that natural right via the Assize of Arms of 1181:
“Let every holder of a knight’s fee have a hauberk, a helmet, a shield and a lance. And let every knight have as many hauberks, helmets, shields and lances, as he has knight’s fees in his demesne. Also, let every free layman, who holds chattels of rent to the value of 16 marks, have a hauberk, a helmet, a shield and a lance. Also, let every free layman who holds chattels or rent worth 10 marks have an ‘aubergel’ and a headpiece of iron, and a lance.”
Throughout the history of England (and its American colonies), the Right to Bear Arms proved a fundamental factor in defending other elements of English Common Law…it allowed citizens to bring the likes of bad King John to account.
These natural rights were again reinforced in 1688 by the English Bill of Rights which outlined charges against James II and outlined the “true, ancient and indubitable rights” of citizens which included the Right to Bear Arms.
The concept of Common Law is a great one and one which we all, Brits, Americans, Canadians,Australians,Indians,New Zealanders and many others should not only celebrate but be prepared to defend. It is a oft forgotten common heritage: a heritage that has shaped our societies for the better.
Sorry if I’ve rambled. Here’s an interesting site that covers this off, more from a UK angle, including the treat to Common Law tradition from our own centralising Big Brother wannabe Federal Gov…the EU. http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm
Phil,
I really enjoyed your comment. I will certainly check the site you suggested. I have friends in both Australia and Scotland, and it looks like the folks in these countries are getting a good start at fighting to get their right to own guns back. They are simply tired of being victims to well-armed criminals … while their government fails to protect them and even prosecutes them for protecting themselves. I think this is wonderful and too long in coming!
Darren,
There’s little chance of the ‘Right to Bear Arms’ being restored in England. It’s a kind of lesson for you guys. Until Victorian times, citizens could carry weapons…not so now…it’s highly restricted.
I don’t think the Right to Bear arms is just about protection from criminals…it’s more about the right to resist. That’s what citizen militia are about.
I’m not a world government conspiracy theorist but i do believe governments are getting bigger and more centralised. In the US its your Federal Government in the UK, its the European Union.
Under Obama you’re heading full pelt towards an ever bigger more socalistic central government.
I wandered into your website while doing a search.
I am an American! I am a thirty-seven-year-old University of California alumnus with a degree in electrical engineering. I was born in Taiwan, grew up blue-collar in San Diego, and became a naturalized citizen. I’m a card-carrying member of the ACLU, a former union organizer, a member of the Green Party, a country/bluegrass fan, and think Sarah Palin is a faux-populist corporate mouthpiece. I hope that doesn’t make me any less of an American than some dude who calls himself “Patriot Warrior”… and I would not need to cite any “credentials” to show how much I love this country. Remember, folks who live on the coast, speak Spanish fluently, and vote Democratic, are ALSO your fellow Americans, your brothers and sisters. This is still a democracy, one person one vote, right?
That having said, I am leaning toward supporting gun rights after reading Joe Bageant. Gun control was initially instituted to take guns from former slaves after Emancipation. These Americans (like you and me) had the right to defend themselves from a loss of life and liberty from white supremacists who are upstanding “Conservative Citizens Council” members by day and white-sheeted gangstas at night. Workers in striking auto plants have the right to pick up guns against their bosses whose armed goons (“security firms”) threaten their life and liberty.
The way the gun argument is framed is too lopsided right now: “real Americans” fight by picking up guns, but the “not-really Americans” get their guns taken away and they end up becoming dependent on the authorities to do their fighting for them. What did you *honestly* think about when you saw the Black Panthers carrying rifles? Did you think it’s a people’s right to defend themselves? Or did you think “black street hoodlums”? By the way they were wiped out by the authorities, Waco-style. Black people can’t be allowed to carry guns – they gotta seek justice through the police? White supremacy (actually, bourgeois white supremacy) needs gun control so it can frame its perpetual fight against big bad equalizing government. It’d be much simpler if ALL Americans are empowered to fight their own battles… starting with guns, votes, economic power, social acceptance. Wouldn’t that make a more perfect union?
You would be a hypocrite if you defend the liberties of some Americans and not others. It’d help to take a good look at your prejudices on who you think are “real” Americans who are not. I’ll spare you the suspense: we’re all real Americans. The real enemy of the American people is ANYONE who endeavors to divide us as a people by branding some of us as sub-human… oops I mean to say… sub-American. Who’s out there declaring that “We’re the real Americans!”? What’s in it for them when they do that? Am I not a real American? The real enemy is one who points fingers and blame others behind a computer screen without even trying to spend time and work out a solution together with the “other”. Democracy is beautiful but messy and time-consuming. The real enemy is hubris, which leads to self-righteousness, which leads to complacency. And with complacency, we become oblivious of any data that doesn’t fit with our worldview.
I don’t want to discourage you with this. We are a great nation. But man, we got problems right now! Let’s work it out together.
Brian,
Thanks for your comment and do not worry or lose any sleep over it … you will not discourage me at all!
Nowhere in my post do I state that real Americans must be white, nor do I call anyone sub-human or as you put it “sub-American.”
And you really know very little about me at all. I actually spend very little time behind the computer pointing fingers or blame. I am active supporting my country on many different levels.
That being said, this country was founded on certain core principles such as individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility, religious freedom, limited government, and limited government intrusion into our personal and business lives.
Yes, some do like to ignore and intentionally misconstrue our historical documents and ignore the fact the we became the great country we are in only 200 years because our nation was founded on those principles. No … the Founding Fathers were not all saints! And no, we are not without a few skeletons in our nation’s closet … but neither is any other nation and most have much, much bigger skeletons.
The Second Amendment does not grant us the right to “keep and bear arms” for personal protection … it affirms an inalienable right to life endowed to us by our Creator and the means to defend that life or the lives of those we love … (and … not only if we are of the white supremacist, white-sheeted, gangstas bourgeois variety).
True Americans keep these core American principles (which do have room for discussion and differences of opinion within them) close to their heart and seek to protect them … as true American … regardless of race, color, ethnicity, religion, or whatever label our liberal elites seeks to catagorize you by.
Sidenote for my Democratic Brothers & Sisters:
By they way, you do know that it was the DEMOCRATIC PARTY that fought so hard against the emancipation of slaves in this country preceeding the Civil War, and that it was a DEMOCRATIC SUPREME COURT led by Chief Justice Taney ( also a democrat) that, in Scott V. Sanford (1857), virtually guaranteed a civil war over the issue of slavery by removing any means of meaningful compromise and deciding “for all time” that slaves were property and had no “Constitutional Rights.”
You do know that it was a Republican President that sent the troops into the South to enforce 60’s civil rights legislation that DEMOCRATS fought so hard against in so many ways … even resorting to passing Jim Crow Laws, etc.
OK … Sorry, just a little pet peeve of mine! … I am back!
When, however, you seek to erode these core principles, or rob Americans of their inalienable rights, or tell Americans it is illegal to fly an American flag in their own yard, or apologise to the rest of the world because we stopped killing each other long enough to work together to build a great nation, or apologise to the world because we defended our allies in their time of need, or attempt to prosecute our own soldiers because a captured terrorist got a black eye while at the same time defending the execution by abortion of 49, 551, 703 innocent children since 1973, or turn our country into just another unsustainable, unwieldy, socialist nanny-state providing mediocre services in exchange for a 70% tax rate, you are working against what it means to be an American. And anyone who does this (and I say again … without regard to race, color, religion, or ethnicity) is not a true American … no matter how eloquently they phrase their prose.
Wake up Brian … real American’s are anything but complacent! Have you been paying attention?
Reblogged this on PUMABydesign001's Blog.