Tuesday, May 23, 2017

The 2nd Amendment, why is it the ultimate check on government tyranny?

I watched the above video today on my lunch break, and something kept bubbling up to the surface that neither Pier Morgan (yes, I scowl just writing his name) and Ben Shapiro didn't quite delve into.  Ben Shapiro made his point adamantly clear several times that the intent and purpose for the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was to guard against tyranny perpetrated by one's own government.  History is (as he correctly pointed out) littered with enough examples of governments persecuting it's own citizens, and that each of these examples is preceded by gun bans or restrictions.  The question is, why?

I mean, certainly, a couple of rednecks with scary black rifles isn't going to pose much of a fight to our military.  Our military armed with fully automatic (not semi automatic) firearms, tanks, planes, and enough bombs to strip mine any US town from the air in seconds.  Certainly the lopsided firepower advantage our government enjoys would clearly indicate that civilian ownership of firearms can not logically be considered to be a deterent to government tyranny.  Why then?

First of all, as we have seen in recent years, the US public owns far more than a few firearms.  In recent times, we've seen the civilian public of this country purchase enough firearms to arm our entire Marine Corps over a single weekend.  Sure, the state has them outgunned, but the civilian population has the state woefully outnumbered.

Secondly, a quick flip through a history book will point out many instances in which assymetrical warfare was easily capable of stymieing a technologically superior force.  Vietnam's larger battles were fought between well equipped armies, but a constant effort by guerilla forces (Vietnamese rednecks with bolt action Mosins and SKS's) was certainly effective in slowing US progress throughout the country.  The Russian Army was constantly harassed by the people of Afghanistan, and a generous donation of modern firepower by foreign powers (our government among them) turned the tide of that engagement quite readily.  A simple firepower advantage does not win wars, and anyone that served in the military should be able to attest to that fact.

Lastly, after my experience in New Orleans post Hurricane Katrina, I came to understand something I had not understood before.  People's behavior is controlled by a few things; morals, and consequences.  Morals would shape most people's behavior in the absence of consequences.  MOST people do not murder or rape or steal, not because these things will result in the loss of one's freedom, but because their own internal morality makes such actions unacceptable.  For everyone else not shaped by internal morality, or who's morality is more fluid than others, there are consequences.

The 2nd Amendment, ultimately, is a consequence to mold the behavior of the state.  Sure, some people would not murder or usurp the rights of their citizens due to their own moral compass, but for everyone else there is the threat of an armed rebellion.  This threat has always been present since our founding fathers inked it into our founding documents.  It was the ultimate check on power, the reset button, the citizen's nuclear option.  If your government ever turns 1930's Germany and starts lining people up outside gas chambers, you grab your rifles and you fight to the last man.  Whether or not you believe that today, THEY certainly believed it then as they had just finished fighting quite a war with a tyrannical government that did not respect the rights of its people.  And to insure it never happened again, they enshrined the ability of the people to resist with force.

And for those not swayed by such rational arguments, those that would still beat their chests and demand the scary black rifles be banned, that the gun registration place the names and addresses of all gun owners in the hands of the state, that the people be disarmed, let me point out what you are advocating.  YOU are advocating that the government, a group of men and women that are fallible as the rest of us, be given a monopoly on the use of force.  You are advocating the citizenry place their hands into chains and TRUST that our government will never abuse the incredible power it is given, nor push for more power after we have surrendered our ability to resist.  You are advocating we trust the state with absolute power, even as history has shown time and time again absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The reason this country has never taken up a unified effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment is because God willing most of this country has maintained it's sanity, it's rationality, and it's distinctly American distrust of it's own government.  Because if we remove the consequences from the state's potential actions, how long will their morality guide them? - Phil Rabalais

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Illinois, Rock River Arms, Springfield, and WHERE is the 2nd Amendment?

SB 1657 full text    

By now, I'm sure everyone is well aware of the legal tomfoolery going on in Illinois.  Through the legislature, and under the false pretense of "safety", these reasonable people expect every firearm related business in their jurisdiction to submit themselves to an entire new layer of legal bureaucracy and draconian regulation ON TOP of all the federally mandated licensing and requirements to deal in and handle firearms.  I'm not going to delve into the complete ramifications of the law, as I truthfully would have to spend a bit more time to dig through the legalese and make sure I'm not misrepresenting the truth.  What I do want to talk about is WHERE THE HELL is the 2nd Amendment in all of this?

What I'm wondering is, how long is it going to be before the federal government steps in and acts.  You see, when the Supreme Court heard and ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark gay marriage case, a precedent was inadvertently set.  In that motion, the federal government made patently obvious that they have the authority to overrule states and local municipalities in instances when they obviously and egregiously trample the rights of their citizens.  That authority is finite, as it was intended, but I certainly believe we have reached that point in the endless assault against the 2nd Amendment that the time has come to exercise it.  And had I my way, it would be swift, brutal, simple, and a direct challenge to all those that would strip the right to bear arms from citizens.

The 2nd Amendment's text is simply written, simple to understand, and not subject to constant "reinterpretation" based on the whims of politicians.  It has been infringed upon in every conceivable way short of a full on gun ban, something all but the most ardent and fanatical anti-gunners admit is impossible in the United States (and if you are one of those that would argue for it's practicality, I'd like to sell you some beachfront property in Arizona.) But the question is, how can citizens rights be honored and respected in one municipality, and arbitrarily disregarded in another?  The right to wed and associate legally and amorously is AT LEAST as personal and worth fighting for as the right to bear arms that is directly referenced in our founding documents?

The Supreme Court has historically been very coy about handling 2nd Amendment cases, and when it does so it has proven to be fairly unwilling to rule in such a broad and sweeping way as to stifle further attempts to infringe upon the right to bear arms.  The federal government in all departments, the House and Senate, and the President himself should all be engaged in this fight.  This isn't a fight to usurp state rights, this is a fight to protect the rights of citizens, and to prevent rogue politicians from perverting those rights further.  This is a fight to force cities and states to stop overstepping their authority and honor the highest law in the land, the US Constitution and it's Amendments.

And for those of  you liberal leaning fellows out there that haven't rage quit and closed your browser, answer me one question.  Did you cheer loudly and exclaim proudly when gay marriage was made law of the land from coast to coast?  Did you not sneer at conservatives that complained about state rights and federal overreach?  Did you laugh at those state officials and employees that refused to comply with the law?  Well, now the shoe is on the other foot and I'd like you to remain consistent in your position on federal and state authority. 

The precedent has been set, cities and states have no right to overrule constitutionally protected rights of it's citizens, regardless of good intentions or legal gymnastics.  The Supreme Court, and I could easily argue all branches of the federal government have not only the authority but practically a mandate to defend with all legal avenues the rights of US citizens from the overbearing rogue legislation of it's local and state officials.  And the time has long since come for us to see more than platitudes and verbiage from our elected officials.  The time has come to nail anti-gun politicians to the proverbial wall, sweep away their legislation, and restore the right to bear arms to citizens regardless of their home address. 

And if some feelings are hurt along the way, egos bruised, and outrage raised.....get over it. - Phil Rabalais