Implications to Society
Note: This article is not meant to provide statistical analysis or attempt to convince people to lobby Congress to remove restrictions on firearms.
Congress was prohibited by the Bill of Rights, Article IV to infringe on that right and there is a volume of material already available to provide favorable statistical information. The focus here is to paint a picture of what a free society exercising their right to keep and bear arms will look like and the benefits to society of being armed, as well as the economic benefit to arms manufacturers in a free economy.
I will be exploring a very brief observation of the historic reason for weapons, the utility of firearms over other inferior weapons, as well as their contribution to American life in history without passing ethical judgment on the men who wielded them. My focus in this article is on firearms and our inherent, God-given right of self-defense, which by necessity when you consider what we’re defending against, requires firearms.
This article will deal with what I consider to be the most important right we possess, which if we’re denied the ability to exercise it will make exercising the rest problematic to say the least; the natural right of self-defense, specifically our right to keep and bear arms.
Our Creator endowed us with intellect and reason; substantially setting us apart from the beasts we share this world with. It is through that ability that we’ve learned to make fire and fashion weapons to hunt food and protect us from others that attack either our life or property. The natural right to keep and bear arms of any type is mankind’s resource to protect his other rights from other men, as well as the beasts of the earth, such as lions, bears, poisonous snakes, etc. Without our ability to successfully defend the most basic of rights or our life, we would soon find ourselves extinct as a species or subjects of the most despicable of tyrants.
Our ancestors in America survived primarily using firearms. Yes, they used other implements of war, as well as snares, traps, and other means, but firearms, since their invention, have always been the premier weapon of choice for anyone who could obtain one, since a lead projectile fired at high velocity was more effective than any of the other means of removing a threat or putting meat on the table.
While primarily thought of as an implement of war, firearms were primarily used to put meat on the table and repel threats in defense of natural rights, more than to impose their will on others. Since most people possessed arms in early America it was much more difficult to attack them. Many, if not most people today, owe their existence to the use of firearms by one or more of their ancestors in the defense of life, liberty and property. Had they been unsuccessful by using an inferior weapon, they would have died; and their line, which includes you, would never have existed.
Today most Americans live under governments that wish to remove their arms and are openly attacking their natural right of self-defense in contravention of their oath to support the Constitution. They are seeking to regulate away our ability to exercise that right.
This assault against our arms has been ongoing since shortly after the Civil War, when organizations, such as the KKK and political parties such as the Democrat Party, sought to keep arms out of the hands of freed slaves; specifically blacks.
The problem with denying one group of people the peaceable enjoyment of their natural rights is that the effort ends up denying all of us in the end. What is done out of fear and ignorance more often than not, comes back to harm everyone but is always a benefit to government; especially when it regards our ability to repel their attacks against our rights as individuals.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – Bill of Rights, The Fourth Article of Amendment proposed to Congress.
The rights of the people to arm, organize, and defend their natural rights, which include life, liberty, and property, requires the availability of the arms necessary for that purpose. All governments, both state and Federal, have sworn an oath to abide by the terms of the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a vital part.
By that one sentence in the Bill of Rights, it is clear that government is prohibited from infringing in any manner on our pre-existing right to keep and bear arms of any type or configuration we require, whatsoever. The first Congress slammed the door on any debate on the matter.
Now let us explore what a free armed society of people might look like. For some of you, that is not a problem, since not all states have made gun ownership as difficult as the Federal Government would like. Criminals flee armed communities because their victims can and will fight back, resulting in a particularly unsafe work environment for their chosen professions. Clerks can shoot armed robbers, women can shoot rapists, everyone can shoot muggers, as well as anyone else who attacks us. Peace officers, after it is established that a murder has been stopped, can merely call the coroner to clean up the mess, fill out some paperwork, and rest easy knowing that the people removed another pest from society by defending themselves. If there is any question regarding motive, an inquest, (CLGJ), can be called to determine the facts.
Since Congress is prohibited from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, (Fourth Article of Amendment), it exempts the arms industry from many Federal regulatory powers internal as well as external, since those regulations would infringe on the American people’s right. We should have access to any arms required for Militia use, to repel any threat, including threats from arbitrary and criminal government.
As government becomes more sophisticated in their arms the Militia must have the freedom to keep pace, in fact, Congress is required under Article I, Section 8, and clause 16 to facilitate that:
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Arms are an integral part of a free society; free men are armed, slaves are not. In an armed society, most people will never have to fire a weapon except to practice and remain proficient. Most ammunition would be expended into targets or wild game, not the body of another human being. Government wouldn’t dare attack the natural rights of the people, since every council meeting or courtroom would be attended by armed spectators jealous of their rights.
Members of Congress wouldn’t be passing or even supporting unconstitutional legislation against our natural rights if they had to face armed people at their next town hall meeting. In short, the freedom to exercise our rights, all of them, would be much more secure.
Today we live under a dictatorship in Washington, D.C. The Office of President has been usurped, with the aid and comfort of all three branches of the Federal Government and with the tacit approval of the states who continue to comply with the Federal government and impose its usurpation and taxation on the people of America.
Barack Obama is attempting to use any device he can conceive to deny us the power to exercise our natural right to defend ourselves from the Islamic and international forces he is bringing into our communities in order to subjugate us and destroy the Republic. I can see no question as to his intent or doubt of the complicity of so many today in government to his criminal and treasonous activity. There is one thing distressing Obama and his loyal subjects though.
Armed Americans who have refused to comply with his demands and have been building their inventories of arms and ammunition in preparation of the conflict to come. Our natural right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Bill of Rights, is the only thing holding off a much greater tyranny than we already have.
©2015 by Thomas Mick, All Rights Reserved.
Permission to distribute for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted, in whole or part, provided attribution and a link to this article is included. Commercial distribution without the written permission of the author is prohibited.
You do not seem to understand, the present people in power hates the Constitution.
The constitutions, as recognized by the courts, recognizes, even today, two completely different classes of citizens even though the communist controlled gov now longer does. There are people who are only citizens of their state. These are the people that are suppose to have a long list of common law rights. People who's rights are suppose to be secured by their own state's constitution and gov. No gov body, state or fed, has ever been granted the power to deny them the right to own guns.
There are citizens of the United States [ fed gov ] via the 14th amendment. The communist controlled gov has an official policy of imposing that status upon everyone in total disregard of the constitutions. The courts have repeatedly stated that such people do not have any rights secured by the 2nd amendment.
If you are going to challenge the gov on the right to own guns, you need to know what you are up against. The communist controlled gov [ state and fed ] is engaged in an actual war against its own citizens. Only by a declaration of war can a gov strip a sovereign class of people of all their common law rights - rights secured to them by their state constitution.
The present "governments" are corporations and foreign to the very concept of American foundational principle under Natural Law. I am sovereign under Natural Law, accountable only to the Creator and NOT a citizen owing allegiance to any government. I AM NOT the property of any man or body of men and refuse to be ruled by their rules and statutes.
i have a NATURAL RIGHT of self-defense and the NATURAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms is a natural extension of that right. NO government or other body of men have a right to deny the exercise of a Natural Right... such acts are Wrongs and immoral.
And don't forget that the Bill of Rights, the 1st ten Amendments of the Constitution, was intended to restrict the federal gov't--NOT the States. Today, even the NRA, the preeminent defender of the 2nd Amendment, is calling for a federally-mandated conceal-carry reciprocity agreement among the States. NRA's specious justification? Without the unimpeded ability to conceal-carry as one traverses State lines, one's ability to "travel safely" across State is impeded. From a constitutional standpoint, NRA's position in this matter is a mighty stretch. The point is that reciprocity in this regard among the States is a matter completely outside the authority and scope of the federal government. Best the States decide among themselves if reciprocity is acceptable. Never place in the hands of the federal gov't a power which has not been constitutionally delegated by the States and the People to that gov't. Slippery slope, indeed, for what the feds can grant can also be quickly rescinded. And this from an NRA member.
People are misled about jurisdictions. The fed constitution was only for the fed gov. The fed bill of rights was for the territories destined to become states. State-only citizens are suppose to be protected by their state constitution.
Today it is easy to prove that the gov on all levels is claiming everyone is a citizen via the 14th amendment. This is important because the courts have always stated such people are not under the protections of any bill of rights.
and the decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the 14th Amendment did not forbid the states to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first eight Amendments, because those rights were not within the meaning of the clause 'privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.' If it be possible to render the principle which governed the decision more clear, it is done so by the dissent of Mr. Justice Harlan. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of national citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the states." TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78, 98-99 (1908)
The Bill of Rights lists only pre-existing Natural Rights and granted rights to no one; it merely forbade the government from abridging or infringing on our inherent rights freely granted by the Creator.
You are correct and this is something most people are programmed not to understand. These are merely a few of the rights inherent in the citizens of the territories destined to become states.
The same applies on a state level for true state citizens / sovereigns. However, the courts have rightly ruled that these rights are not rights recognized under Art 4 and are not secured to people the gov claims are 14th amendment citizens.
Claiming that everyone is a mere 14th subject is how the gov claims to get around having to acknowledge any of these same rights when secured on a state level for state-only citizens. The whole gov appears to have been under absolute communist control since the late 40's.
First the controlled all attorneys via the Bar, then judge courts via the judges, then the legislatures via the trial judges and attorneys.
That miserably misinterpreted 14th Amendment has wreaked havoc on the Rule of Law. No doubt about it. The 14th ABSOLUTELY, INCONTROVERTIBLY applied to emancipated slaves who became new citizens of the country--NOT to all other US Citizens. Folks need but to read the 14th framers' words to understand this and reject lawyerly obfuscations.
I respectfully disagree. While the 14th is a horrible amendment, it's unconstitutional application has allowed the communists to take over. The courts in the past clearly stated that the 14th does not impact the lives of the people that are only citizens of the states.
The communists have used their trial courts and legislatures to impose it on everyone - which is unconstitutional and this has allowed the gov on all levels to impose its will far beyond what the constitutions actually allows.
This policy does in fact constitute an act of war by the gov upon state-only citizens.