Читать книгу Thoughts Of A Patriotic Old Grouch - Bud Barnes - Страница 6

U.S. Constitution Second Amendment: Inarguable

The Framers of our Constitution understood that there are rights which are fundamental and inherent in life itself, as is elucidated in the Declaration of Independence “…we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” When drafting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, the Framers gave deference to the Declaration of Independence and the certain inalienable rights, which are paramount in securing and preserving liberty. The Founding Fathers were so adamant, regard the preservation of liberty, they incorporated Article III and Article IV of the Bill of Rights into the Constitution as Amendments I and II, which are both the quintessence of an INALIENABLE RIGHT.

The word inalienable is defined as anything that cannot be bought, sold, or transferred; and INALIENABLE RIGHTS are rights that are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. An INALIENABLE RIGHT is INARGUABLE and is the right of the individual and cannot be altered, modified, or taken from the individual by any branch of government, any organization or any other individual. It is neither within the purview of the three branches of our federal government (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) nor any government (State, County, Local) to arbitrarily deviate from the original and probable intent of the Framers of the Constitution, and they must employ deference to the Document as written.

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”—Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, (June 12, 1823)

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” Samuel Adams

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals… It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” Albert Gallatin, (1789)

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee, (1788)

“What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the BANE of LIBERTY.” Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, (1789)

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson

“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” Richard Henry Lee (1787–1788)

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”—Tench Coxe “A Pennsylvanian” June 18, 1789.

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops…”—Noah Webster (1787)

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed—unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”—James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243–244

“Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense…”—John Adams (1788)

Considering the quotes alluded too above, that were primary concerns during the debates pertinent to LIFE and LIBERTY, it is quite obvious that our Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution fully understood that Amendments I and II, of the Constitution, were recognized as CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Further, they recognized that an armed citizenry of any society is the sole protector of FREEDOM and LIBERTY1. They also realized that any infringement on the right to bear arms and use thereof would be a blatant violation of an INALIENABLE RIGHT. An infringement is not necessarily the confiscation of firearms it is also through gun control, selective banning of targeted firearms and accessories, rationing of ammunition, excessive taxation on firearms and ammunition, unreasonable permit and registration of firearms, a data base identifying all firearms owners, any impediment to the use of a firearm, etc. Any attempt to pass legislation, regard the Second Amendment, through subterfuge will be an egregious violation of the Constitution and a violation of an oath of office.

Our Founding Fathers considered firearms not as a proactive tool, but as a reactive tool. The Second Amendment in our Constitution does not advocate the use of firearms in a proactive way, but use firearms to resist aggressive acts toward you whether the acts be initiated by another person or an oppressive government. The Progressives cannot seem to put their arms around the fact the firearm is an inanimate object until it gets into the hands of a person, after which it can then become a deadly weapon. The Progressives like you to believe the Second Amendment is antiquated and current law enforcement agencies contravene any validity of the Second Amendment, this is risible at the least. To rely on the police and military solely to protect you is the essence of living in “la la land.” When a situation occurs where seconds count and your sole protection is minutes away, you might as well grab your ankles and kiss your ass goodbye. What I find to be the epitome of a paradox is how the Progressives touting the fact there is no need of a source of self protection and then rely on police and military, are the same people stifling and imposing greater constraints on the people they rely on. I find this to be typical: “Liberal Lunacy.”

I know the argument will come up that convicted felons are not allowed to possess a firearm, so the Second Amendment is already modified or altered. The argument is fallacious, because, when a person violates the conditions and regulations of the society in which they reside they at the same time forfeit any benefits extended by that society. You need only refer to Samuel Adams: “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…

What I find most interesting is how the militia has morphed into what we now refer to as the National Guard. The Guard has now become an integral part of the standing army and is regulated by the President of the United States, a far cry from what the Founding Fathers envisioned. I refer to Rep. Elbridge Gerry, “a standing army is the Bane of Liberty.”

In summation I submit: Our Founding Fathers considered firearms not as a proactive tool, but as a reactive tool. The Second Amendment in our Constitution does not advocate the use of firearms in a proactive way, but use firearms to resist aggressive acts toward you whether the acts be initiated by another person or an oppressive government. The Progressives like you to believe the Second Amendment is antiquated and current law enforcement agencies contravene any validity of the Second Amendment, this is risible at the least. When a situation occurs where seconds count and your sole protection is minutes away, you might as well grab your ankles and kiss your ass goodbye.

“Liberty once lost is lost forever”—John Adams (1775)

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”—Benjamin Franklin (1755)

It’s quite obvious INALIENABLE RIGHTS are INARGUABLE!

YOU MAKE THE CALL.

08/02/2010

1 It should be noted that the debates did not establish the right to bear arms was solely for the purposes of hunting or recreational shooting.