- I simply cannot believe that this topic must be aired
yet again, and I also cannot believe that I am hearing and reading, yet
again, that "constitutional scholars" are trying to determine
what the Constitution really says about the individual right of private
non-government citizens owning and keeping firearms. Precisely who is
it that holds themselves out to be "constitutional scholars?"
I'll tell you who they are, but if you visit this site with frequent regularity,
you already know who they are! They are communists, socialists, fascists,
"liberals," Nazis and other similar forms of depraved humanity
with diplomas from law schools!
-
- How can one live in a "free society" and not
be allowed the enjoyment of God's creation unless through life, liberty
and property? Are we now not to be allowed the right to life? Of what
value are these rights which have been bestowed upon Man by his Creator
if one's life can be taken away by another? Of what value is a good man
or good woman if "the law" allows law-abiding God-fearing citizens
to be robbed, raped, kidnapped, tortured and murdered? A decent human
being will never abuse the right of self defense by criminally using his/her
weapon on another innocent citizen. Good people do not kidnap, rape, rob,
torture and murder; only politicians and other criminals do!
-
- Good people don't need any damn government laws or any
other such "goddamned pieces of paper!" Criminals and politicians
break the laws, not law-abiding people. But when criminals or politicians
wish to take advantage of hardworking, law-abiding citizens, "legislation"
is created which is totally devoid of either equity or justice. The Founders
were honest men; unfortunately, they were naive in believing that our "good"
politicians and rulers in the future of this greatest, yet failed, experiment
in human freedom, would be totally devoid of any modicum of basic human
decency.
-
- Speculation is rampant about what the Supreme Soviet
that is our "supreme" court will do concerning the DC-Heller
case. What nonsense! Communists have been winning in all three branches
of our criminal government since our first communist president, Lincoln,
was "elected" by Marxists in 1860. And this will be the final
government move to render US totally defenseless against our communist
lords and masters.
-
- What?! You don't believe me. Here's proof, so educate
yourselves. Look at the Ten Commandments; then read the first
Ten Amendments of the Constitution, our Bill of INDIVIDUAL rights. If
you don't know American history, than know this: the anti-Federalists who
believed, as is stated in the Declaration, that this nation was to be formed
by the people and their states to guarantee individual freedom for all
citizens, refused to ratify the Constitution until these guarantees of
INDIVIDUAL freedom were assured. So who needs "constitutional scholars"?
Does trial by jury, freedom of speech, the preclusion of self-incrimination
only apply to groups, the police and the military? Now read Karl Marx's
ten points for a perfect [communist] society. Which of these "tens"
apply most closely to our nation and its government?
-
- But the Second Amendment mentions "a well-regulated"
militia; doesn't that mean gun control? The answer to this question, once
again, is right in the Constitution. For the uninformed, or those only
MSM and government school informed and therefore brainwashed, the body
of the Constitution, the Articles, specify what America's national government
can, should and MUST do. Impeachment anyone? The Bill of Rights specifies
what American national government is not allowed to do, which is to encroach
on the individual rights and freedoms of its citizens.
-
- Once this simple constitutional rule is understood, it
is a relatively simple matter to read the appropriate sections in each:
the Articles and the Amendment. John Adams, our first Vice President and
second President, and also a Federalist, offered that our nation is forever
protected on both sides by two vast oceans, and that all we needed for
protection and defense were the "walls of wood" that comprised
the Navy. It is for this reason, that BOTH Federalists and anti-Federalist
didn't wish to fund and maintain a standing army. The Founders feared
that someday, if a standing army were established and funded, a dictatorship,
as now exists with Cheney-Bush, would evolve and strip the people of their
lives, their liberties and their property. So why are speculation and
nail-biting now necessary? The Supreme Soviet will rule for Cheney-Bush
just as Congress and Madam-of-the-House Pelosi have!
-
- Article I of the United States Constitution establishes
the powers of Congress, such as those for writing and voting into effect
laws, having the power to tax, having the power to COIN money, and to declare
wars. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 specifies the power, "To
raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall
be for a longer term than two years." Paragraph 12 empowers Congress,
"To provide and maintain a navy." Do these simple statements
require interpretation by "constitutional scholars"? An army
is temporary, a navy is permanent!
-
- But what about "well-regulated" and gun control?
-
- The answer is in paragraphs 14 and 15, of Section 8,
still under Article I. Here's 14: Congress is empowered: "To provide
for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress
insurrections and repel invasions." Paragraph 15: "To provide
for organizing, arming, 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."
Are "constitutional scholars" needed here?
-
- As concerns constitutional directives regarding both
the military as well as the CITIZENS' militia, and NOT the National Guard
or reserves which weren't formed and which would have been considered as
state standing armies anyway, which section of the Constitution is more
elaborate, more specific, and a lot less succinct than that describing
the powers Congress has relative to an army and the navy? This more specific
section comprises what is meant by "well-regulated."
-
- Here for consideration is the Second Amendment: "A
well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear [carry] arms, shall not be infringed."
-
- But if there is still some doubt, why not consider what
sometime Federalist and sometime anti-Federalist and fourth President of
the United States, and a participating writer of the Federalist Papers,
James Madison, had to say on the subject of the right of states to secede
from the Union:
-
- A Union of the States containing such an ingredient [banning
secession] seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force
against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction
of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as
a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
-
- The quote is from Thomas J. DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln,
who ties together the people's right to own and bear arms as well as states'
right to lawfully secede from the Union. DiLorenzo states: "In defending
the individual right to bear arms embodied in the Second Amendment to the
Constitution, Madison invoked the right of armed secession. In warning
against the dangers of a standing army controlled by the federal government
that might invade a state (or states), Madison believed that with a well-armed
populace, 'the state governments, with the people on their side, would
be able to repel the danger' because the existence of 'a militia amounting
to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by
men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties.'"
-
- DiLorenzo clearly spells out in citing Madison not only
the right to bear arms as an individual right, but also clears up any confusion
as to precisely who comprises the militia: the individual citizen. And
as to Lincoln' runaway Federalist-Whig zealotry, his Marxist proclivities
are even further exposed in Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr.'s book,
Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists [iUniverse New York: 2007].
It's a shocker, and albeit a bit redundant here and there, quite a good
read with shocking and disturbing revelations.
-
- That all said, how will the Supreme Soviet deal with
the Second Amendment after having turned away so many cries for help from
beleaguered gun owners and Americans? Can there be any doubt? BUY A GUN
NOW! Then Cheney-Bush and his black-cloaked Reds will have to trash the
Constitution's Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3, which reads: "No
bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Cheney-Bush are,
of course already doing this, thereby legitimizing the criminal exposure
of Valerie Plame's cover and retroactively legitimizing the espionage between
Turkey and Israel and our State Department and Pentagon in allowing the
passing of nuclear secrets to these nations.
-
-
-
-
- © THEODORE E. LANG 3/30/08 All rights reserved
-
- Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
|
