Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry
Forbes ^ | 28DEC2012 | Lawrence Hunter

Posted on 01/06/2013 9:50:49 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine

It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it.

Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; constitution; guncontrol; guns; secondamendment

1 posted on 01/06/2013 9:50:59 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Um, I don’t think short arm was the term he was looking
for.......maybe stiff arm?

2 posted on 01/06/2013 9:54:50 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68

LOL! Stiff arm is probably the intended word.

3 posted on 01/06/2013 10:11:42 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

The libs aren’t interested in talking.

They’re going to disarm us. :(

4 posted on 01/06/2013 10:16:31 PM PST by Tzimisce (The American Revolution began when the British attempted to disarm the Colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce

If they attempt to dis-arm us it will unleash such a violent backlash I’m not sure we would be able to able to put the pieces back together.

5 posted on 01/06/2013 10:22:23 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
The author of the article might be missing the point a little in suggesting that repealing the Second Amendment would be the honest thing for anti-gunners to do.

Along with infringing the right, removing the protection of the right from government infringement would justify the armed overthrow of such a tyrannical government.

The Second Amendment did not create the right to keep and bear arms, and the right would not cease to exist if the Second Amendment were to be repealed.

Removing the protection from infringement would simply embolden the government to infringe that which they have no power to infringe. Although perhaps not true of any of the later amendments, it should be obvious that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to clarify that the federal government was not being given any power to violate that which is protected by the first ten amendments.

To suggest that repealing the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", would somehow give the federal government the power to infringe which our Founders clearly did not intend it to have, is to suggest that they knowingly planted the seeds of tyranny in their own founding document.

6 posted on 01/06/2013 10:28:38 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

William Blackstone, whom John Marshall emulated, stated that the most basic right of a human being is the right to self-defense. It is a “Natural Right” which is granted by the Judeo-Christian God. The gun—even in 1776, was the most important possession of a man which could decide life and death for the man or his family. Even a horse could mean the difference between life and death, and that is why horse thieves were hanged-—because by taking away a person’s horse, meant they were trying to kill the person. Same with guns; when taken the family was left helpless and might not survive in many situations. Stealing guns or horses was equivalent to “killing” people.

Our 2nd Amendment Right comes from God-—it is NOT granted by the State. It is fundamental and inalienable.

All laws that deny Natural Rights are Null and Void (like they stated in Marshall’s time and at Nuremberg Trials.) No judge has the “right” or ability to pass any laws which remove our Natural Rights in the USA-—they are by definition—”unjust law” and, therefore, unconstitutional and have to be thrown out.

We the People need to demand it. “Rule of Law” means that there is a Higher Law than man’s—God’s Laws, Whose Rights are inalienable (Natural Law Theory)-—and they are listed in our Bill of Rights and noted in Natural Law Theory which is embedded in our Constitution. We have to demand this from ALL JUDGES or impeach them for their unconstitutional laws.

We need to get back to “Common Sense”—WE the People KNOW when applying Common Sense when judges twist and warp the “laws” which is unconstitutional. We need to clean out the sick judicial system which was corrupted and infiltrated since Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr and the Progressive/Marxists destroyed the meaning and intent of our Constitution and replaced it with Stalin’s version—separating Church and State and the elimination of Natural Rights for babies and their actual destruction of the marriage contract and the 2000 year old meaning of Virtue (Justice).

7 posted on 01/06/2013 11:19:55 PM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

Excellent explanation. Chuck Schumer, Frank Launtenberg, Mike Bloomberg et al will surely take heed. But I’m on your side and covering your six, as if you needed covering.

8 posted on 01/06/2013 11:20:45 PM PST by chulaivn66 (Semper Fidelis in Extremis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

Well spoken!

9 posted on 01/06/2013 11:25:14 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

Agreed - The central tenet here is that those rights in the first 10 ammendments aren’t “granted” by the government at all. They are mentioned to specifically prohibit their infringement. That’s why they have been chipped away at over the last 50 years. Any outright appeal would be too obvious.

There is a great article in Pravda today on the right to bear arms. No, seriously, Pravda! who would believe it!!

10 posted on 01/06/2013 11:26:31 PM PST by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

A friend of mine just sent me this email. Don’t know if it is true.

Antidote to “monopoly of force” by gov. and other hoodlums; Second Amendment to the Constitution Revisited

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont’s own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to *require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed* and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the “militia” phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as ‘a clear mandate to do so’. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a “monopoly of force” by the government as well as criminals. Vermont’s constitution states explicitly that “*the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” and those persons who are “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent..”*Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to “any situation that may arise.”

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver’s license number with the state. “There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so,” Maslack says.
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state. It’s currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system (*but too early to shoot the bastards*).”
This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns. Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

# 2

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
Now think about this:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that’s 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188
Statistics courtesy of FBI
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, ‘Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.’
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT Almost everyone has at least one doctor. This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as by a gun owner!!!
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
Out of concern for the public at large, we withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!

11 posted on 01/06/2013 11:35:32 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

Maybe we should go on the offensive and challenge the ‘86, ‘68 and ‘34 gun control acts. They are all unConstitutional so lets push back hard for repeals.

12 posted on 01/06/2013 11:56:54 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
Great article, thanks for posting. It is a demonstrable case that in individual acts of self-defense involving firearms it is the presence, and not the actual use, of firearms that resolves or defuses the matter. What the Founders appreciated is that a similar dynamic is present with an armed public. We don't have to shoot anyone to make it very clear that pushed hard enough, we can.

That is a monumental factor in the relation of the free citizen to the state, and it makes contemporary statists exquisitely uncomfortable. Not even the current media full-court press is moving the numbers very much, and the statists are beginning to wonder why not. This one's a long way from over.

13 posted on 01/06/2013 11:58:23 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine


14 posted on 01/07/2013 1:41:55 AM PST by outofsalt ("If History teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

unalienable instead of inalienable.

Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law such as when property rights are given a back seat to emerging environmental law.

Whereas under the original doctrine of unalienable rights, comes from God.
These rights cannot be abridged.

just saying...

15 posted on 01/07/2013 1:47:40 AM PST by riverss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine

History has shown us time after time that those the socialists would enslave they first disarm.

16 posted on 01/07/2013 2:33:49 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
Maybe we should go on the offensive and challenge the ‘86, ‘68 and ‘34 gun control acts. They are all unConstitutional so lets push back hard for repeals.

ABSOLUTELY. Time to push back harder than the socialists are pushing us. We need a bill to repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act yesterday.

17 posted on 01/07/2013 3:18:31 AM PST by ez (When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
-- The Second Amendment did not create the right to keep and bear arms, and the right would not cease to exist if the Second Amendment were to be repealed. --

So said the US Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois.

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.

Naturally, until Heller, the [corrupt] federal courts held this case for the opposite proposition, that states may disarm the citizens - that citizens do not possess a right to keep and bear arms.

18 posted on 01/07/2013 3:29:00 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hydrazine
The problem is that we have to stop the chipping away of our rights, and can't just wait until the tyrants feel comfortable at taking it to the level of confiscating our guns. They will weaken us in every way possible before stepping it up to the point of murdering us. We have to be able to fight back somehow at all the laws and mandates that are going to thrown at us. We also have to accept we are living in a post-Constitutional era. We have to find a way to fight against this before they come bashing in our doors in the middle of the night and murdering families.

A lot of people are willing to fight for their liberty. Dying solely on principle for what is seen as a lost cause isn't the ideal way patriots want to go out, but I fear that's what will happen if we aren't active preparing together in some way. I think information campaigns recruiting current and former members of the military and law enforcement into the patriot movement is a good idea.

A lot of intelligent people don't know what you would expect when it comes to our Constitution. It's a result of a successful liberal strategy that has intentionally promoted incorrect meanings behind our Constitutional rights, without being corrected on a regular basis. We let many issues get out of hand.

We have a huge problem even among gun owners when it comes to the actual reason we were given our second amendment right. Many have been fooled by the hunting/sport shooting, and Home/Self defense against criminals for the reason we were granted the right to bear arms. Those lies used now were seen as common sense rights by our founders. They were looking at a much bigger picture than defense against a burglar, but defense against tyrannical government which is exactly what we now face. Second Amendment groups should use a massive information campaign to educate the general public to this truth, while making a point to mention it every single time they address the issue in a situation that will reach an audience.

The reason the 2nd amendment exists is to arm the population to overthrow a tyrannical government, and that alone destroys the ridiculous arguments used by most gun control tyrants. An “Assault” weapons ban is obviously unconstitutional using the true intent of our right to bear arms, as is the stupid argument that a gun has no use other than killing humans. That is a bullshit argument all around, but it's also an argument that is shot down regardless as soon as you realize the Constitutional right is meant for us to have access to all military grade small arms in unchanged form at the very least, considering we were suppose to be armed well enough to challenge an organized military. The exact guns that are so often talked about being banned are actually the most protected under our Constitution.

19 posted on 01/07/2013 4:49:55 AM PST by ThermoNuclearWarrior (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: riverss

Thanks! That needed to be corrected. The internet has many sites that treat those words as though they are identical....and I get mixed up on the in or un and sometimes get lazy when I post.

Unalienable rights are the one’s inherent in man. Think I got it!!!

20 posted on 01/07/2013 10:07:00 PM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson