There Is No Such Thing As Sensible Gun Laws.
This caught my eye this morning: Paul Helmke’s anti-liberty rant Guns and Governing, on The Huffington Post, December 1, 2006. Helmke is head of The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. Here is my response, December 1, 2006.
First of all, very first of all, when it comes to guns, there is no governing to be, with the exception of protection of the Bill of Rights. Since the right to bear arms is absolute, there is no governing over it; you protect the rights of the people on that and that’s your oath. Simple.
Refusal to understand this not only reflects a poor understanding of the law and practical values in America, but reveals a hidden agenda to overthrow us all. All of us, not just those who support rights, but all of us. That would include Mr. Helmke, himself, unless he wishes to own a gun secretly.
In fact, if any anti-gun activist owns positively any sort of weapon in the home for self-defense – I don’t care if it’s a baseball bat! – he/she supports self-defense and the use of up to lethal force. Or, don’t they realize what they’re saying and doing? Most anti-gun nuts do in fact own weapons. Right, Rosie? N’cest pa, Dianne?
The second amendment isn’t about guns, it’s about personal sovereignty and the use of force to back it up.
Anti-gun activists, therefore, are to be discredited utterly.
In three itemized issues, Helmke lays out mention of straw purchases, political clout of the gun rights lobbies versus election wins, and he mentions gun violence.
The first two arguments are themselves straw arguments, since straw purchases are way exaggerated as many, many writers have pointed out in the past in detail, and since the election wins and losses are not gun rights based, but far, far more based on republican disappointments, border control issues and size-of-government issues. Every voter knows it. It is silly to write that republicans lost because they listen to the NRA when voters (readers) know darned good and well their own minds and why they didn’t vote republican this time around.
The third argument got my attention. Gun violence.
Again, there is the call for sensible gun laws, but in fact there is no such thing as a sensible gun law. Could there be such a thing as sensible censorship? The only sensible gun law exists purely as a civil right, only it is absolute. If you want sensible gun laws, try no one under eighteen owns a gun, felons don’t own a gun, and non-citizens don’t own a gun, and then, repeal all gun laws.
Here is my analysis as Mr. Helmke’s piece summons of me.
The Second Amendment was made absolute and impervious to due process for a reason. The Founding Fathers knew very well what they did not want any more of – no more over-reach, no more abuses of powers, no more warrants without local supervision (jury) and more – and they knew that it all had to be backed by force forever. That force is in the hands of the People, individuals like you and me, and it is this sovereign authority that cannot be infringed. It is being infringed various different ways. It is your authority which is being infringed. Remember that gun control is attacking not guns, and it’s not attacking violence; it is attacking individual sovereign authority which is backed by lawful force.
In many ways, Americans are being bluffed out of their sovereignty.
Attacks on guns are attacks on personal sovereignty to undermine the power of the People to remain in control over the country: gun control is an attack to wrest that control from the people in an immense transfer of authority, convincing people or coercing people out of it. Remove the lawful force of the people, and the rest can simply be taken unopposed.
Many laws toward that goal come in the form of anti-crime measures, so that little by little, the people surrender – Americans cooperate – in handing over what they think will help fight crime. Americans will do a lot and suffer a lot if they believe it will help.
It’s a scam, a trap. Because of the sovereignty of the People and the People’s own lawful force to back it up, the idea of one-sided force in this country is a trap.
Helmke summarizes, “More guns are likely to make a home, a state, or a country more dangerous, not more safe.”
This is, of course, wholly untrue, and I’ll say just where.
Well, America, if you want to help fight crime and violence, listen up.
I’ve said a thousand times that police have no mandate to protect individuals. Most officers will nod and agree with this if asked. I’m surprised that some younger officers are not even aware of it. Hell, even some legislators aren’t aware of it, but it’s true. This is important for everyone willing to help to fully understand. As always, I am speaking not to gun owners, but to non-gun owners and the impartial, people looking for both sides of the issue. Heads of household who really want to understand. I know it’s hard to accept, but every head of household must come to understand that police don’t have to protect you.
Police want to help, but in actuality, in the most critical moments of a crime emergency, you are on your own.
‘Governing’ guns and people who own them means restricting before-the-fact your right to act at the moment action is needed most – when you are facing grave danger alone, and let’s be realistic: only you have the right to make that call. I support the idea of investigation for reasonableness under the circumstances, but before-the-fact restrictions (gun control) are entirely unreasonable and unlawful. It grows crime by permitting it to succeed unopposed in case after case. After case. Hundreds of thousands of times every year.
Equally realistic is the fact that some Americans believe preparedness in self-defense to be an unwanted burden. Their over-reaction of being expected to grow up and protect loved ones manifests itself as name-calling gun owners as Cowboys and Vigilantes. It’s merely a denial or a refusal to take responsibility for something that unavoidably belongs only to them.
For an example of this, please visit the Video Confession Of A Rat: An anti-gun newspaperman admits to his wife (and to himself) that he can’t be counted on to protect her.
‘Governance’ over guns and people who rise to meet their responsibility is a ruse to disarm individuals to pave the way to grow crime to the advantage of officials. In a very obvious way, the anti-gun crowd uses the crowd who doesn’t want the burden at all to increase numbers of anti-gun voters. Minions. Minions by the millions.
As I say often – very often – disarmament is a trap for the American household and a payday for officials.
Who is the real thief in this issue?
Why is the Second Amendment absolute and made impervious to due process?
Because the individual victim of crime is the first line of defense, and no matter what law you write, we always will be. Gun control takes away the power but leaves the ultimate accountability, the typical bureaucratic trap. This is anti-violence? This is American?
The individual is now and always will be the first line of defense. And when crime is an excuse to transfer liberty and authority out of the hands of the people, this then makes them the first line of defense for the entire nation.
And brother, that’s good for the country.
____________________________________
Visit www.transferofwealth.net
Â
| More from John Longenecker
Stumble It!
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
John,
the Second Amemdment is a trap into which we should not allow ourselves to fall. The right to “keep and bear arms” is one of those inviolate, “unalienable” rights which, as Thomas Jefferson so gracefully put it, was endowed to us by our Creator.
Alexander Hamilton warned against the passage of a Bill of Rights specifically because he knew that it would imply that the Government was “granting” those rights. To use his words from Federalist No. 84:
“They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”
Hamilton’s objections proved to be most prescient.
He predicted that such a provision would provide “men who would usurp a plausible pretense” for asserting their right to restrict that over which they have no power…precisely what people like Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein are attempting to do.
We must never forget that the right to protect oneself and his property is “unalienable” and beyond the power of the state to restrict. Even an amendment to the Constitution would be a violation of that covenent and grounds for the overthrow of the government.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:56 am
John,
I was remiss in saying that your column is otherwise right on. It is time for us to take the offensive against those who would usurp our rights under the pretense (erroneous at that) of increasing our security.
Keep up the good work!
Will
December 3rd, 2006 at 6:37 pm
The Bill of Rights has been demoted from Supreme Law of the Land designed to protect individual rights to Supreme Law of the Land designed to protect individual rights when it doesn’t interfere with the desires of that gang of thugs known as government, aka THEY The People.
Those that advocate and legislate violations of these rights should have their names kept in a database and be dealt with appropriately when the 2nd revoloution comes.
December 4th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Of course, Will, you’re 100% right. We are you you described. powers not granted is an area of heavy emphasis for me, and I echo your words and of our founding fathers.
This is the connection to the fact that there is no such thing as an illegan gun and no such thing as sensible gun laws, therefore.
Powers not granted plants erroneous values in the minds of impartial citizens (brushfires) and they then believe in no conflict and other non-values to the detriment of the country.
What if they come to realize as the founding value at the nation’s inception that the Second Amendment was written to be impervious to due process (short of another amendment, that is)?
What if they come to realize that 2A was written for all time?
Some don’t and won’t because with it comes avoidance of responsibility, the heart of impartiality.
(Don’t get me started, guys.)