Monday, July 13, 2009

O, We Privileged Few

According to this news report about public housing in Missouri, "...the House Financial Services Committee adopted an amendment to allow guns in public housing projects."

"Allow"? What do you mean by "allow"? How can a right be "allowed"?

A right cannot be "allowed", but a privilege can; that is exactly what Americans are indoctrinated to believe. Take for example the oft used phrase,"Driving is a privilege, not a right." What makes it a privilege? Why are we required to purchase licenses and permits for so many things? Concealed Carry Permits are supposed to be a hard-won victory by the American gun owner, despite some areas of the country revoking them, yet is it now necessary to buy one's rights from the government?

This fits right along side Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, in which, during the opening remarks by Senators, one Democrat mentioned "the right to bear arms" in a list of laws that are less than clear in their possible interpretations.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ~Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Such ambiguity! There is, for some strange reason, so much debate over this sentence that the same offices that once instated this law, under new management, now reject it.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when 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 intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed." ~Thomas Jefferson

I have carried myself back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, I have recollected the spirit manifested in the debates, and I have conformed to the probable meaning in which it was passed.

And, in so doing, I hold to be a truth that the Second Amendment does not grant the right for individual, private citizens to keep and bear firearms without government interference on any level; rather, the Second Amendment guarantees it! No legislation can, by definition, grant any right, only declare it; rights lay dormant in every human being; nation, creed, or gender notwithstanding. One merely needs to exercise their rights for them to be made manifest.

Today, the intense corruption in our government has eroded beyond recognition our right to keep and bear arms, and we now subscribe to privileges, that may be regulated at a whim by a majority of non-representatives.

I now refer you to a spewing forth of opinion, left on a newspaper's website by an author unknown, the topic being a local ban on smoking in public. The full quote as written follows:

"It's a privelige.  Most of everything you have and do is not a right... Did anyone in Emporia actually finish school?"

This is the product of over one hundred years of compromising our standards and rights to appease tyrants and their misled progeny. The National Rifle Association, for instance, prides itself on compromise, and its members never question the fact that compromise includes "giving-in" from both sides of an argument.

I would suggest that our supposed privileges are few and far between, yet our rights are so many, that they border on being innumerable. We must stop compromising our freedom away, or we will face the consequences of tyrannies that are already upon us. Privileges are for subjects, but rights are for a free people.


Bryan said...

Under the statement of President Jefferson to return to the time the constitution was written, we have no choice to declare the current republic a tyranny and therefor we have the duty to remove those in power and reinstate the original intent. To reinstate the right vs. the privilege.

At it's writing would the citizenry have the right to concealed carry? If so we do a disservice to our founders by not fulfilling that right and arming ourselves as we see fit.

Son3 said...

At its writing, the citizenry was guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, presumably concealed arms as well. I understand that is a matter of debate, but it is currently a moot point.

Taking this country back is easier said than done, and will probably require a massive movement of Rattler Flag Americans running for every office under the American sun.

If that doesn't work, I don't know what.

Son3 said...

As to it being a disservice not to arm, true; but, any attempt to do so would be a needless waste.

Waco is an example of this.

The only revolution that will work is a non-violent revolution of average Americans dropping their plows and running for office.

Truthful, concerned, non-professional politicians in office would be an accomplishment in itself, and might save us.

Other than that, God is our nation's only answer.

Johann Van De Leeuw said...

Preach it brother! God's our only answer in any case. Keep it up!

Son3 said...

Thank you, Johann!

Indeed, He is!

Bryan said...

I agree with the statement of running for office so long as the playing field is even. That's the problem. At least here in southern californica (spelled that way on purpose) gerimanding has made a joke of running against incumbents who have made their ouster difficult to say the least. National term limits are high on my wish list. I believe the web will become more relevant in turning the lights on these roaches.

Son3 said...

Roaches, indeed.

AdamS said...

You reminded me of what I always say to pro-welfare state people, which is that government cannot 'give' you anything without first taking it from you in some way. Privileges, wealth/goods/services, what's the difference.

I am also reminded of what one Brit said (for the life of me I can't remember his site) about the incremental gun bans here in the 70s-90s; one reason gun owners didn't put up a fight was because they felt privileged to have guns, and supported ever more qualifications and regulations of firearms ownership so they would be the special few who were armed. Well, they have got what they wanted (a little over 100,000 legal guns in the UK and 3 million 'illegal' ones).

Son3 said...

Thanks for the comment, AdamS!

Gerald Ford said, "Government big enough to give you everything you need is strong enough to take away everything you have."

Britain today is what America will be like tomorrow.

Could you tell me what guns are "legal" and "illegal" in Britain?

AdamS said...

Mostly shotguns used by farmers. It's a broad stereotype, but it holds true to a surprising degree.

You can get, I am told, .22 rifles, any bolt action rifle in 'obsolete' calibres eg .303, and shotguns below a certain capacity (think it's 3 or 4 shells) but handguns have been totally banned since the 90s.

I only know one person who shoots (something I should take up myself hehe), and they don't own guns. In order to own a gun, you need to justify why you want/need one (unfortunately self-defence, let alone proclaiming it to be a counterweight to an opressive govt, are not accepted). The main reason accepted is that you own land and need to do pest control, hence why it is mostly farmers who are armed.

If the benevolent Police decide you can't be trusted to have a gun licence, then you don't get the licence. And if you use a gun to defend your home, you will be prosecuted for your 'crime'.

One ironic thing the fellow I know who does shooting told me, is that the only reason some guns are still legal in Britain is because the brainwashed anti-gun public thinks all guns have been banned. If they found out some guns were still legal, they might call for the banning of these too!

AdamS said...

Oh, and I forgot: illegal guns in Britain are typically handguns and sometimes submachine guns used by gangs.

There have been cases of the occasional AK or AR-15 family variant landing on our shores too.

Of course, there will probably be war veterans who brought home a revolver or a rifle and refused to hand it in, just kept it hidden, stuff like that will be part of the 3 million estimate too.

One big gun story here of late is the conversion of deactivated prop guns by rogue gunsmiths. There was one case of a man who converted dozens of Mac-10s into live fire weapons, and they have been linked to several murders including a dead police officer.

It's difficult to tell what I think about illicit gun ownership in Britain - on one hand it's bad because the law-abiding people are disarmed and vulnerable. But the radical libertarian in me says it's a good thing, despite the dangers to the public, because they might realise gun control is a failure and demand more firearms freedom.

Johann Van De Leeuw said...

I must say, I found that truly fascinating, Adam S.! I'm extra glad I live in (sorta) free (for the time being) America. Any chance of you moving overseas?

Son3 said...

Yes, I, too, appreciate the insight into Britain's gun culture. (Or, the lack thereof.)

If you do move to the states, Kansas would be honored to have you. We need more red-blooded, American Brits like you!

AdamS said...

I'll put it this way: most people I know who are liberty-minded (unfortunately that's not very many lol) talk of moving somewhere else.

Every time I read a UK news article about some case of government getting more intrusive, there seems to be one or two comments from Brits who say they have moved abroad because of their govt.

In a way it's a catch-22 because it would be good to keep the freedom-minded people here to save the nation, but I don't blame anyone for considering moving away.

I myself have definitely considered it, and if I was going anywhere it would be the USA. 100 million gun owners make a bastion of freedom IMO :)

And Son, I'm honoured than you're honored to have me. If I do cross the Atlantic, I'd better make sure I don't wear a red coat ;)

Websites That Make This One Possible

Ideations of a Jayhawker: Blog Policies

No vulgar, obscene, vile, or inappropriate language or insinuation may be used, and comments are subject to editing or deletion at my own discretion.

Please use proper spelling, following the rules of grammar of the English language.

The elimination of comments due to an objectionable account image may also be used at my discretion. Links given in comments that direct one to a website containing evil or unsightly content will also be deleted at my discretion.

Advocating or promoting specific acts of violence isn't allowed, but the vitriolic spewing of rants and ravings is encouraged.


Content found in this blog is public domain, and it may be used freely; permission to recreate is automatically given, I only ask that I be informed when it is copied on another website; though this is not required, it would be considered a kind gesture.

Content found at any other website that was linked to from this page is beyond my control. I strive to put out as little objectionable content as possible here, but if you do find something that you feel is inappropriate, please contact me via comment, and I will duly edit it to a degree I deem appropriate.

Quotes you may find are all sic, including spelling, grammar, etc.

Followers of this blog are more than welcome, but if you have a website that routinely displays content that you wouldn't allow a child to view or read, do not follow this blog unless you have a blogger warning previous to entering your website.
Failure to do so may result in being blocked from the followers list.

A follower may also be blocked if your account image is found to be objectionable.