WHY YOU NEED TO THINK OUTSIDE
THE BOX TO SEE WHERE AND WHEN YOU MIGHT NEED A GUN,
EVEN IF TODAY YOU THINK THEY ARE NASTY THINGS...
A 2A supporter knows he can work a food processor, a chain saw and
drive a gear shift car so why wouldn't he know how to work a gun properly?
A 2A supporter cares a lot for his mate and children. A WHOLE LOT. Enough
to qualify for a pistol permit and keep said pistol or rifle in a safe
place which only he knows about so if the fit hits the shan, he can shoot
back. In addition, this shooter is brainy enough to through his mind into
a future day when some #*%&-eating pol turns into KING GEORGE the
III and this Wizard of Oz might be starting up, oh, say a BIG CHICKEN
FARM, with covies for each family, and some straw? And a slice of bread
a day? Maybe in some more cynical year they'd have called it a concentration
camp? But let's call it Camp Pauper. To qualify for some Dickensian drama,
you need only welch on your credit card debt in an Decadus Terribilus
of DEEP RECESSION brought upon us by the twin devils of Wall Street and
Washington. Well guess what gang, if that happens, you have a gun you're
ready.
OUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT: THE MILITIA IS THE KEY!
Exclusive: Alan Keyes explains current battle is not about guns,
but about liberty!
BIG BROTHER WANTS US EXTERMINATED?
HEY GUYS, LET'S MAKE IT HARD FOR HIM!
Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time
leader in the conservative movement. He is well-known as a staunch pro-life
champion and an eloquent advocate of the constitutional republic, including
respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He has worked
to promote an approach to politics based on the initiative of citizens
of goodwill consonant with the with the principles of God-endowed natural
right.
Any effort to disarm the American people is unlawful. That is clear
according to the 'laws of nature and of nature's God' and the clear, plain
language of the Constitution. Moves to disarm the people are unequivocally
the benchmark of a design 'to reduce them under absolute despotism.'
Despotism is Barack Obama's purpose and the purpose of any and all
forces in our society who support his bid to render Americans defenseless.
Some of his less astute supporters are already sighing aloud about the
need for dictatorship. Others, less imprudent, slyly promote the notion
that to secure ourselves against madmen and terrorists we have no choice
but to surrender to government all means of defending ourselves against
either. Their policy is 'Disarm and trust the government.' But when those
in government become, or make use of madmen and terrorists (as the totalitarian
Communists and Nazis of the 20th century did), what then?
Because government power, when abused, is precisely the source of
the greatest threat to liberty, those in government cannot be trusted
as the ultimate guardians of liberty. That task is properly and inevitably
left to the people themselves. As individuals, in their families, and
especially through their local institutions of religion
and government, they were and are the proper focus for all the decisions
and activities involved in maintaining the 'well-regulated militia' that
is the key concept of the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment's logic arises from the connection between
the people's right to keep and bear arms and the security of their freedom.
It aims to make sure that Americans do not easily forget a hard truth:
moves to secure a government monopoly on the legal possession and use
of arms war against what is, in practice, the sine qua non of the people's
right of self-government. Unlawful bills, (or, as in Obama's plans, the
issuance of unlawful 'executive orders') that aim to disarm the people,
on whatever pretexts, are the open declaration of this war against republican
self-government. As such, they signify the onset of what will inevitably
become a war against the property, persons and lives of the people.
America's founders understood this, which is why the Second Amendment
sets up a bulwark, in the Supreme Law of the land, to defend the right
of the people to keep and bear arms. This bulwark marks the Rubicon that
separates lawful government from the abuse of power by lawless forces
usurping the name and authority of government. It also signals the moment
when the peaceable courses of action envisaged and protected by the Constitution's
First Amendment (which I discussed recently on my blog) give way to the
stern necessity that makes a well-regulated militia necessary to the security
of a free state.
But when law is abused to assault the people's right of self-defense,
the threat involved is not just physical. Would be tyrants clothe their
lawless actions with the outward appearance of legality to demoralize
people determined to stand firm in defense of freedom. They seek to impair
the people's sense that what they do is an exercise of right fulfilling
the responsibility laid upon them by 'the laws of nature and of nature's
God.'
In this respect, the most important purpose and effect of the Second
Amendment's recognition of the people's right to keep and bear arms is
its contribution to the morale of those inclined to defend their God-endowed
liberty. It allows people unmistakably to recognize the unlawful nature
of edicts that purport to disarm the people. It encourages and justifies
them as they point out this lawlessness, and as they resist it. It highlights
the connection between the people's arms and the security of their state
or condition of freedom. It invites them to discern and articulate the
arguments, based on rational principles and actual experience, which prove
the essential truth of this connection. In this way it encourages people
to arm themselves with logic, reason and sensible proof against lawless
efforts to eviscerate their capacity to defend themselves and their freedom,
individually or in association with one another.
But reasoning is not enough. On my blog I recently reposted the
advice I offered in 1999 with respect to the purpose and implementation
of the Second Amendment. Though laid out over a decade ago, the proposal
it outlines is still a good indication of what is needed. Its goal is
not just to respect the Second Amendment right, but to enforce it. The
essential starting point for the discussion is the recognition that, like
all unalienable rights, our Second Amendment right ultimately derives
from our natural obligation to respect and preserve human life as endowed
by our Creator. It is first of all an obligation to ourselves, as individuals.
But it is also an obligation to the rest of humanity. (For more on this
point, as it was understood by America's founders, read my blog post entitled
'The Natural Logic of Second Amendment rights.')
We need to offer Americans, from their youth, an ongoing course
of education intended to help them recognize and carry out this responsibility.
This involves more than knowing how to use whatever happen to be the appropriate,
contemporary means of self-defense. It involves understanding and accepting
our responsibility for the right use of liberty. It involves developing
the character and self-discipline needed to assure a firm commitment to
fulfilling that responsibility. In this respect, preparing citizens for
the exercise of their Second Amendment right is the practical core of
the education they require to fulfill their natural right of self-government.
Indeed, it literally leads them to accept the inward inclination of mind
and will without which they are apt to become morally unfit to do so.
The most telling indication of the elitist faction's determination
to overthrow self-government in the United States is the fact that in
this regard they seek by all means to destroy, rather than strengthen,
the moral fitness of the American people. In the formal institutions of
learning and in the informal education derived from games, movies, television
shows and other entertainment media, elitist agents of corruption encourage
people to believe that the essence of freedom is self-indulgence. They
induce them to reject all discipline except the scourges of fear, sensual
desire, greed and the human will to power.
Ignorance and folly may lead susceptible people to accept the poisonous
stew of lies that identifies this noxious view of freedom as 'progressive.'
In effect, however, it is exactly the opposite. It aims to mute the twin
voices of reason and conscience, thereby intentionally promoting human
degeneracy. As these twin voices fall silent, people become less and less
capable of standing apart from the compulsive stream of merely sensual
perception and experience. Their inner life becomes a montage of preoccupying
images and impressions, devoid of logic and the conceptual perceptions
it makes possible. Eventually their consciousness becomes barely distinguishable
from what appears to be the consciousness of beasts, deprived of all but
the most rudimentary capacity for self-conscious thought or action.
It is both correct and inevitable to conclude (as Joseph Farah reports
Bill Clinton does) that people in whom distinctly human consciousness
is thus virtually extinguished cannot be trusted to make right use of
liberty, or the arms required to defend it. But when people like Bill
Clinton voice this conclusion it's imperative that we remember that they
are the ones who have been and are most willing to be instruments of the
elitist agenda that purposely and systematically seeks to degrade the
moral intelligence and self-discipline of the American people.
For decades they encouraged this degradation by promoting selfish
gratification, self-indulgence and even self-murder (for individuals,
in the form of legal suicide; and for the species, in the form of abortion
and gay marriage, the institutional equivalent of abortion.) They looked
forward to the time when, by exploiting the rotten fruits of this degeneracy,
they could once and for all deprive people of the freedom that is their
birthright when their human nature is preserved, as intended by their
Creator. Now Obama is instigating what could prove to be a decisive battle
against the Second Amendment. Americans still capable of doing so should
recognize what his action suggests: The elitist forces that fabricated
him have concluded that the time they have so long engineered and anticipated
has finally come.
If we fight the ensuing battle as if the war they are waging against
us is about guns, we will lose the battle and the war with it. But if
we insist, instead, that the war is about liberty, we may win the battle
and give the forces of liberty a fighting chance to win the war. To do
so we must promote the simple truth: The alternative to gun control is
self-control; the key to self-control is moral understanding and self-discipline;
and the key to both is citizen education. That course of education must
be implemented at the level of self-government closest to home, and it
must have first among its stated objectives the formation of a citizen
body armed, educated and morally capable of being the 'well-regulated
militia' the Second Amendment prudently proclaims to be 'necessary to
the security of a free state.'
|