Gun Ownership Rights Aren’t As Safe As Many Think
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 2 months ago
Through landmark Supreme Court decisions, gun controllers could have anti-gun judges re-interpret the Constitution in a way that disregards the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has a long history of re-interpreting the Constitution as a way of justifying government overreach in matters traditionally belonging to the states. This has been the case with the Supreme Court’s acceptance of New Deal legislation and its creation of a federal “right” to abortion.
It also does not help that the Second Amendment’s original decentralized militia model has been gutted, thus exposing several chinks in the Second Amendment’s armor. The militia’s original concept—locally-controlled military units designed to keep federal standing armies in check—has been effectively neutered.
Okay, this is a pregnant bit of prose and needs a little unpacking. First of all, rights come from the Almighty and are always safe. As we’ve discussed many times before, the second amendment is a covenant between men and before God, for blessings upon obedience and curses upon breakage. Reinterpretation of the second amendment only means that men are preparing for war. It has nothing to do with our rights.
Second, as we’ve also discussed many times before, the notion of the militia must be soft in the interpretation of the covenant of the second amendment. The founders didn’t write the second amendment because of the militia, as if the sole reason for the second amendment was that a militia must function.
The proper function of the unorganized militia is only one of many reasons, and the founders only needed one. That the many others aren’t specifically called out in the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean they weren’t taken as axiomatic during the time of confirmation of those rights. As we’ve observed before:
… all the founders needed in order to object to federal control over such God-given rights is to find a single example of such an infringement that would be found unacceptable. The militia served as this example. That doesn’t mean that it is, would have been, or must have been, the only example or reason for the amendment. The amendment clearly states what the FedGov shall not do, not what it can or may do or the sole reasons for its existence.
So a man has a right to the ownership of weapons if he is a paraplegic and unable to serve in the militia. A people have the right to overthrow their government whether there is such a thing as a militia or not. I can tell the militia (whatever that is in this context or any future context) to go pound sand and that I refuse to join, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with either [a] my God-given rights to keep and bear arms for self defense or the amelioration of tyranny, or [b] the fact that that right is recognized in the constitution, which is a covenant under which we have agreed to live.
My rights (and duties) flow from the Almighty, the very fountain of liberty. The constitution is a mere covenant. The Bolsheviks should tread carefully. Breakage of that covenant means more than they think it means.
Finally, anyone who thinks that a civil war in America will go down with great armies lining up in fields of battle with tanks, aircraft and artillery, is foolish beyond belief. 4GW will be the order of the day, and few people in America are prepared for such a thing. Neither is the FedGov.
Nothing and no one has been “neutered.” Only the form has been changed.
On September 27, 2018 at 9:32 am, Frank Clarke said:
“4GW will be the order of the day, and few people in America are prepared for such a thing.” Least of all, the elites who think they’re in charge…
http://tinyurl.com/TipgPt2
On September 27, 2018 at 11:48 am, Fred said:
“Reinterpretation of the second amendment only means that men are preparing for war.”
Rightly stated indeed. There is no reason to attempt to limit my access to weapons unless there is a design upon my liberty for which superior firepower is required. They can take all of my rights but that leaves the enemy with a major problem. They have reduced my decisions to those based upon duties. I have no duty to submit to a declared intent upon my freedom. No duty whatsoever. One thing that the Classical Liberals got right is that this is a declaration of war.
“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.”
Pity the enemy doesn’t know the LORD’s Commandments.
“…Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
Everybody loves to tell Christians how we are to love our neighbor but what does ‘as thyself’ mean? It ain’t the so called golden rule.
On September 27, 2018 at 2:01 pm, Gryphon said:
I read that Zerohedge Article and maybe the first 100 Comments, and it seemed that most of them at least understood the concept of Inalienable Rights, but as for Captain Smith’s statement here to the Effect of “..rights come from the Almighty and are always safe.”, I would Strongly Differ.
Rights are Granted by God (which I don’t dispute) but the Godless commie (((bolsheviks))) neither recognize God nor the Rights of Man, which is Why (((they))) are so Desperately trying to Erase any Free Exercise of those Rights, particularly the Right of Self-Defense.
Our Rights to Life and Liberty are Only Safe if we are Willing to Kill those who would Deny them, and I would suspect, based upon the actions of the (((enemy))) within the feral government, that it is only the Fear of what may Happen that has kept the ‘government’ in Check so far.
On September 29, 2018 at 8:48 am, Donk said:
@Fred “…but what does ‘as thyself’ mean? It ain’t the so called golden rule.”
I am not disputing what you say, however, could you point us towards a resource that fleshes out this a little further.
On September 29, 2018 at 7:22 pm, Fred said:
How should you treat yourself? It’s that simple.
God commands us not to kill and we are not to take that which is not ours. God enjoins what He commands, ie; don’t let people take your guns and don’t let them harm you.
In the context of this TCJ post, if I conspired to take another man’s property, a gun, the Holy Spirit would have my backside. There is no reason, before a Holy righteous God to want to do this, be it Envy, Hate, Jealousy (not the same as envy), even mistrust or the desire for superior firepower because I Fear real men and their tools.
Now, what should I do? How should I love myself? How should I treat myself in this situation? Not only should I not covet another man’s property of any kind, should I surrender my guns because somebody else has Envy, Hate, Jealousy, or Fear? Heaven forbid it. Their problem is not with me, it’s with the LORD.
All I’ve actually done here, it’s not even clever, is flip the equation. We almost always think of ourselves first but Jesus wants us to think of God first and ourselves second (“take care of your own house first”) and others third in order to arrive at a more sound conclusion. The conclusion is the same either way. He could have said, you know it’s wrong to mistreat others so don’t do it to yourself (by letting somebody take your guns). Right? Instead He says, as a child of God you know how our Holy father treats you, with consequences for doing wrongly, so treat yourself and others this way. So, bless those who bless us, and if somebody were to mistreat me they may indeed incur some consequences, of the way, shape, form, and fashion of my choosing, OBTW.
The Golden Rule as taught to me; ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.
The Golden Rule is the root of welfare, it’s an affront. If I were to follow the Golden Rule, again in context, I would simply surrender my firearms because; do I want 1000 kick ass weapons for free, taken from somebody else? Well, duh, yeah…but God…and we land back at; as thyself.
See the commie logic; I should have free health care, housing, money, etc. because I desire that others should have these things, because I care. Without ranting too much, this is where the American Church is causing more problems than its fixing. Only the truly indigent should be given free stuff over any length of time.
There are a lot commands in the Bible to believers and unbelievers but these are universal:
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.”
The first four are how we are to treat God and the last 6 are how we are to treat each other. I thought of 1, 6, 8, and 10 when composing my original comment, keeping in mind that which God enjoins. What Jesus did in his words that I quoted in my first post was to convict heretics who were asking him what the greatest commandment is. Here is the complete exchange:
“But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
The 10 commandments and the Word of the Old Testament are brought to a simple conclusion that even I can understand by our LORD. The reason I didn’t give you a reference on this is mostly because of the American Church’s false love of government. You would be hard pressed to find the explanation I’ve provided here, in writing except for prior to 1900.
These conclusions may not reflect those of Mr. Smith, proprietor, I should point out. Begging alls pardon for the lengthy reply but merely, I do love the LORD so, how could I not.