Let me explain this to him.
The 2nd amendment is not about fun or hunting or even personal protection.
The 2nd amendment is to dissuade the state from becoming tyrannical.
""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)
""The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)"
The Constitution does not grant rights. It recognizes them. It restrains the legislature from restricting our God given, self evident, unalienable rights. It is also about the duty of the people to maintain the republic.
Law enforcement is not supposed to be better armed than the citizenry. They are a part of the community. They are to work in partnership with the community. They should be able to call upon the citizens of the community for assistance should THEY need it It is to the benefit of all to train all citizens in the handling of firearms and in their duties as citizens. (Yes, BLM, I'm talking to you. You complain that the people in your communities are treated like thugs. Are YOU, as individuals, acting like thugs and criminals? When your neighbor commits a crime, do you report them? Do you stand as a witness? Do you do those things that are necessary to let your neighbors know that you are a law abiding citizen and you expect the same courtesy from them? Or do you just shake your heads and ignore it until the crime is against you or yours and then wonder why no one else will help you and why the police don't do "something" to make your neighborhood better? )
What scares me is that this man thinks the legislature may remove or restrict - beyond their natural limitations - any God given, self evident, unalienable right. And he is the DA. Now that's scary.
It is scary because it indicates that he (along with most of those currently in government) wish to think of citizens as the children of the government, to be protected from the realities of life. When the reality of the American form of government is that We The People are to be self reliant, personally responsible adults who are also to be in charge of the government. That we are to limit the government to the absolute minimum of control over our lives that is compatible with a stable society and which provides for the greatest amount of personal liberty within that stable society boundary. And, truthfully, we have done a poor job in that regard. Today's citizenry turns to government to solve their problems with distressing ease. And that is how governments become tyrannical. It is one thing to request enforcement of the law by the government - that is one of the responsibilities of government after all. It is quite another to expect the government to see to your daily needs, to provide you with housing or food or education. (Although, I do approve of government provided education so long as the curricula and all other aspects of it are controlled on the local level. Parents, community and employers are the best judges of what a child needs to learn.)
As Christ said : "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all".When done in the correct spirit, this is a good thing. When done as a way to steal power and expertise and volition from those who are served, it is evil. And that is what government does when it limits our liberty (liberty- not license) while purporting to keep us safe. It makes of us children who cannot be trusted with responsibility for their own provision or defense. And by allowing it, we cede our liberty and lose our safety.
The world is not a safe place. We have enemies at the borders and in the halls of government. Now is not the time for the citizenry to remain complacent in the notion that the government will "take care of us". In point of fact it has NEVER been the job of government to take care of us. It is, was and always has been the job of the individual to take care of themselves and whomever they should claim as their own. It is time now to grow up, re-learn the skills of self sufficiency and .like adults, take measures to protect our own. And it is time for government to remember that they are an unruly child and not the parent.
"33 And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
34 But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.
35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all." Mark 9:33-35
Showing posts with label BLM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BLM. Show all posts
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Thoughts on the standoff in Oregon and Oaths of Office
Many conservatives have weighed in on the current situation in Oregon. And many, if not most, of them are urging caution and questioning the value of the action being taken and decrying it as giving the government an excuse to crack down on the second amendment. The idea that we should not support these folks because it will give the government an excuse to crack down on guns assumes the premise that the government is looking for an excuse to do that very thing.
Think about that.
The federal government of the United States of America can now be presumed to be looking for excuses to disarm the people from whom that very same government derives it's authority.
Why aren't they under arrest already? Because We the People no longer understand the freedoms for which the founders of this nation fought, nor are We willing to undergo the fatigues necessary to defend them.
"THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough to depress our fortitude. It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same." ~ Thomas Paine But, getting back to the situation in Oregon, let's look at the legal limitations on the ownership of land by the federal government:
"Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To ... ...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; ..." ~ The United States Constitution Has anyone bothered to check and see if the federal government's purchase of the federal lands in Oregon that are at the heart of the dispute were purchased with the consent of the Oregon state legislature? Are there any "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" erected upon all that land?
One might even question the existence of Oregon as a state given that, according to one article, the Congressional Research Service says the federal government "owns" 53% of it's land.
To be sure, in the early days of the nation, the new national government was caught off guard when the Treaty of Paris awarded them the Northwest Territories after the 7 years war. Here they had ended up in legal, but unconstitutional, possession of a great deal of land. What to do? After the states ceded their (often competing) claims on that land to the national government, the Northwest Ordinance was quickly passed in order to put that land into the hands of the people and eventually the states that were formed and granted membership in the nation. The land was held in trust as territories until the people of those territories could meet the requirements set up to apply for statehood. Is Oregon a territory held in trust or is it a state?
The federal government is not to own land because, at a very basic level, land is power. Grants of land and estates was one of the powers of the monarchy that was used to assure loyalty. If the monarchy had to take your estate, it could then grant your former estate to someone who would be more loyal or who had connections that would work to the benefit of the monarchy. This power of land granting was well understood by the founders of this nation and it was not a power they wanted the national level of this new government to have. It was a safeguard to the nation that the national level of the government was not allowed to own large swaths of land which it could award to those who might help to overthrow the people and render us slaves once again to a less freedom inclined form of government.
The bottom line is that the hour is late and we are threatened from within. Contact your legislators and let them know that the remedy called for in the Declaration of Independence is not out of the question.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
"Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;" ~ 1 Peter 1:13
The federal government of the United States of America can now be presumed to be looking for excuses to disarm the people from whom that very same government derives it's authority.
That alone, should see government officials up on charges for the violation of their oaths to protect and uphold/defend the Constitution. The government did not grant these rights, because they lack the authority to do so. The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, as do all the others, merely recognizes a right we HAVE. The government may not take that right away. Not for handguns, not for AR 15s, not for machine guns or cannons. In the words of Tenche Cox:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.
[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
"THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough to depress our fortitude. It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same." ~ Thomas Paine But, getting back to the situation in Oregon, let's look at the legal limitations on the ownership of land by the federal government:
"Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To ... ...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; ..." ~ The United States Constitution Has anyone bothered to check and see if the federal government's purchase of the federal lands in Oregon that are at the heart of the dispute were purchased with the consent of the Oregon state legislature? Are there any "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" erected upon all that land?
One might even question the existence of Oregon as a state given that, according to one article, the Congressional Research Service says the federal government "owns" 53% of it's land.
To be sure, in the early days of the nation, the new national government was caught off guard when the Treaty of Paris awarded them the Northwest Territories after the 7 years war. Here they had ended up in legal, but unconstitutional, possession of a great deal of land. What to do? After the states ceded their (often competing) claims on that land to the national government, the Northwest Ordinance was quickly passed in order to put that land into the hands of the people and eventually the states that were formed and granted membership in the nation. The land was held in trust as territories until the people of those territories could meet the requirements set up to apply for statehood. Is Oregon a territory held in trust or is it a state?
The federal government is not to own land because, at a very basic level, land is power. Grants of land and estates was one of the powers of the monarchy that was used to assure loyalty. If the monarchy had to take your estate, it could then grant your former estate to someone who would be more loyal or who had connections that would work to the benefit of the monarchy. This power of land granting was well understood by the founders of this nation and it was not a power they wanted the national level of this new government to have. It was a safeguard to the nation that the national level of the government was not allowed to own large swaths of land which it could award to those who might help to overthrow the people and render us slaves once again to a less freedom inclined form of government.
The bottom line is that the hour is late and we are threatened from within. Contact your legislators and let them know that the remedy called for in the Declaration of Independence is not out of the question.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
"Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;" ~ 1 Peter 1:13
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
