Saturday, March 24, 2007

Revolution, Part Deux

I'm sure you understand that the 2nd amendment was not established just so we could hunt and shoot at targets. A militia? Yes, but why would the founders need to restrict the government's power to diminish the effectiveness of local posses or Indian fighters?

My previous post wasn't meant to suggest that we need to take up arms this week against our government. It was meant to be a reminder that our liberties were conceived through revolution, and the revolutionaries responsible made legal provision for defense of what they fought so hard for.

The Federal Government has indeed started down a path that has already restricted our liberty to make our own laws and govern ourselves. The 10th amendment basically states that the Federal government is limited only to the powers it is granted in the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

This amendment is not favorable to unlimited Federal power and control, so it is ignored. For instance, the Constitution says nothing of marriage laws or abortion rights, so elected state representatives and local communities should be allowed to decide how to address these issues.

But when the people speak and laws are made - unelected tyrants in black robes get creative with the Constitution and basically tell the people they can't govern themselves. The "Living Constitution" is a power grab that threatens to strangle the life out of our representative democracy.

The Federal Government displays its lawless nature in the way it handles the illegal trespassers. It oppressively taxes its legal "subjects" and uses the funds to buy votes and secure its power. Its secular and socialist ideology is sweetened by the Beltway Media Propaganda Machine, and its daily hysterical rants drown out the words of composed, adult leaders who are serious about addressing the nation's problems.

And today, if the greatest statesman - the most brilliant leader ever - stepped forward to serve... He would get creamed in the primaries.

We live in a country governed by a graceless, lawless, centralized conglomerate of would-be thieves and power-hungry tyrants. The Supreme Court will not protect us from them because the Court has been purchased - and is "in the loop."

And may I pause to say I'm a little surprised that the left-leaning visitors to my blog - these courageous souls instilled with the "spirit of the 60's" - are so critical of a little seditious chatter.

In conclusion... Two hundred years ago a bunch of patriots got sick and tired of a tyrannical, unresponsive, and oppressive government over-taxing them and telling them what they should think and how they should live. They bled and died to create something really special. And then they gave us the right to speak sedition and bear arms... so that tyrants would never rule over us again.

It's something we need to think about, because we have less freedom to govern ourselves than we did 50 years ago. And while our nation is being threatened from abroad, our government is being led by politically-correct theatrical performers who fight more to protect their power than to protect us.

The Beltway "Machine" is of our own making. But it's not working. The time may come when events necessitate that we either fix it... or scuttle it.


All_I_Can_Stands said...

Malott, I knew you were not proposing a violent overthrow of the government. I also knew others would choose to interpret that you were.

Jacob said...

I generally take a fairly libertarian view of things, but in the case of gun control I find it extremely difficult to think of many legitimate reasons for allowinf private citizens to own a gun. I'm sorry, but having the right to own deadly weapons just doesn't seem on par with other, more essential, basic civil liberties.

Owning guns for the purposes of self defense is a bit self defeating really. I can't understand the logic behind having guns for safety, when clearly the whole point of a gun is to kill things.

I won't say much about hunting animals for sport other than: no civilised person shoots living things just because they can.

In Australia, our gun laws were restricted significantly about ten years ago after some guy went nuts and killed 35 people.

Since then John Howard (our PM) whose entire term in office has been spent trying to turn Australia into America Junior, has always been a vocal supporter of gun restriction. It's one of the few things that he's good for anymore.

Anyway: I don't really want an argument here, but I can't really think why ordinary citizens should have guns. They don't need them, and I'm quite convinced that most people need to be protected from guns. I'm unusually conservative like that.

SkyePuppy said...


I'm not arguing, just explaining.

Most people I know who hunt animals do it for the sport, and then they eat the meat. Venison does not taste like chicken.

I can't understand the logic behind having guns for safety, when clearly the whole point of a gun is to kill things.

The whole point of a self-defense gun is to keep the bad guys from killing you. We've had reports in the news recently, where old people (one man in his 80s) shot criminals who broke into their homes. Unlike in the UK (I don't know how Australia operates), the homeowner was NOT arrested for having the gun. The criminal was arrested (if he didn't die).

That's the way it's supposed to work. And when enough bad guys are shot at, then they and the rest of them start thinking twice (if they aren't incredibly stupid) about their life of crime.

It just seems to me that banning gun ownership is simply an invitation for criminals to be even more brazen about robbing people.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

Owning guns for the purposes of self defense is a bit self defeating really. I can't understand the logic behind having guns for safety, when clearly the whole point of a gun is to kill things.

Jacob, your statement is truly amazing. What you are doing is establishing an equality between the person breaking into a home and the person within his home. Gun ownership is one of the highest of civil liberties. It is founded upon the notion that once a person chooses to break into another's sanctuary of expected safety that he forfeits the value of his life being equal to the life of the resident.

By your notion each life is equal importance so the resident should simply give up his life to the intruder so that he doesn't kill him?

Also, your line of thinking would fall apart if you believe it ok for the police to carry guns when answering a call of said intruder. If it is ok for the police to carry guns which they may use to kill an intruder, why not the resident? The police has a right to defend me with deadly force, but I don't have the right to defend myself with deadly force?

If you think the police should not carry guns then that would be too radical for me to waste my time with. I think you have more sense than that so I won't bother with this hypothetical.

For the record, my property is protected with a firearm. I would not think twice about shooting an intruder. I would not have an ounce of guilt or regret if I did, either.

The example of the 35 people dying is disturbing. How many people I wonder die each year for lack of a gun when they really need it?

PAW said...

Courageous 60's what? CMac, I think you're being belittled...

For a less hysterical discussion of constitution theory, the wikipedia entries on the living constitution and on constitutional interpretation are quite good.

PAW said...


In case you haven't seen it, consider the second ammendment:

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.

Interesting, eh? Well regulated, not infringed...

SkyePuppy said...


Here's an example of why guns are handy to have at home: