Beyond the Cusp

March 15, 2013

If We Save Only One Child’s Life

If We Save Only One Child’s Life

 

Senator Dianne Feinstein, President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the rest of the legions of gun-grabbers all have a love affair with the phrase, “If we save only one child’s life our efforts will be worth the time and trouble we spend fighting those Neanderthal gun-nuts.” There is the false claim that nobody needs these so-called “assault weapons” to hunt deer. There are two problems with this argument. First, no soldier in their right mind would take one of these so-called “assault weapons” into a combat situation when real assault weapons capable of sustained fire or burst mode are available thus the weapons in question are nothing like real assault weapons. Second, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting or any other recreational pursuit requiring firearms and these spiteful politicians know this full well but persist in lying hoping that we the people are ignorant enough to take their words for everything. Fortunately, many people have begun to wake to the real meaning behind the designs of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Most are also relearning the justifications and revolutionary concepts behind the Declaration of Independence. Some have even traced the ideas and ideals back through the political philosophers whose ideas were the inspirations behind much of the forming of the United States and have even traced the concept that man is a noble creature capable of self-rule all the way back to the Magna Carta. There are those who have also traced the concepts of individual liberty and that government is formed to serve the people and that those who rule, even kings and other nobility, are forbid to take treasure of any sort, not gold, silver, gems, horses, cattle or other excesses greater than any normal subject possesses which is contained in the Bible in Deuteronomy and other books. These people also have become aware that the Second Amendment was written to allow the people to restrict government whenever it became unwieldy and broke the original promises made to the people and instead began to be an oppressive burden. To this end the Second Amendment was written to allow the common people to own the same weaponry as was utilized by any who were in the service of the government including the military or any form of law enforcement. This little truth puts the lie to the myth of legal gun control in the United States.

 

Unfortunately, far too many citizens in the great lands of the United States have settled into a comfort where they prefer to allow the government to usurp many of the responsibilities which the Founding Fathers took great care in assuring that such power would remain with the people to the extent that the United States Constitution forbade the government these powers. But as the people came to live in great concentrations in large cities, even megalopolises, they no longer provided for themselves in the same manner as the founding generation. No longer do most Americans ever meet the farmers and herders who raise their food. They often do not even know the people who live on their block, let alone most of those who reside in their community and definitely not the entire city. They have become cogs in a large machine. With this change the people no longer know the people who represent them in the government, not even the city government who are supposed to be the closest government to the people and the one that most affects their lives. Reading the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights and one realizes exactly what President Obama meant when he described the Constitution as a document of negative rights. He did not mean it denied the people of rights but that it forbid the government from growing or performing beyond strict limitations. The most striking evidence of this concept is contained in the Bill of Rights with the Tenth Amendment being the most glaring evidence of limiting the Federal Government. It reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” You probably could not find a better or more forceful way to state that the Federal Government is prohibited from exercising powers or jurisdictions beyond some strict limitations. The exceptions to the limitations are spelled out within the constitution and anything not listed there as a power permitted to the Federal Government or strictly forbidden for the States to perform, then the Federal Government may not exercise such powers. When reading the Bill of Rights you see that there are distinct rights listed which are granted to the people and the Federal Government is forbidden to curtail or limit these freedoms. Adding to the Tenth Amendment is the Ninth Amendment which reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This plainly grants that the rights of the people are limitless and beyond the power of the Federal Government to constrain, limit, or otherwise deny the innumerable rights which are granted to the people by the right of personhood. Such a powerful statement is one that was intended to warn politicians and public servants that they only held power at the permission of the peoples and the peoples did not have to turn to government for their freedom as it was theirs independent of the government and guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

Some claim that the most powerful of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment which contains five freedoms placed beyond the reach of government. The First Amendment reads “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” These rights allow the individual great amounts of personal power over their life and to express their beliefs and opinions free of government influences or limitations; express grievance with the government and expect the government to respond and correct or repair damages or other infringements; report news and political opinions without restrictions or censorship by the government; and lastly to assemble in pursuit of goals or activities free of government limitations. The rest of the Bill of Rights has more restrictions limiting the government from injecting itself or its limitations and restrictions over the individual or group of individuals. The problem which people had always faced in restraining government came about as the government always had held all the power over the people and the people were unarmed. The government having all of the arms could even act beyond limitations which were supposedly established on them by founding documents or other legal writings. This was the entire concept behind the Second Amendment, to arm the people as well and as powerfully as was the government thus making the people the equal and not the subjects. The phrase that has found favor with many supporters of the Second Amendment is a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson which reads, “ When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Now tell Senator Dianne Feinstein and President Barack Obama to leave our guns alone and simply inquire as to what part of “shall not be infringed” they do not understand.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

January 19, 2013

The Overriding Lie Ignored by the Gun Grabbers

The one thing you can be assured of is that after any shooting which provides great emotional drama usually due to the vulnerability or the complete innocence of the victims and the ability to paint the perpetrator as uncontrollable evil loosed upon an unsuspecting society to wreak havoc. The same week as the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut there were almost twice as many murders throughout the United States perpetrated throughout the inner cities of the country. Most of the victims of the shootings in the inner cities were also somebody’s baby, there precious young child yet they did not present the sympathetic victim scenario that the gun banning politicians wait for with an almost salivating anticipation. The espousers of banning all firearms are silent on the slaughters that make up the vast majority of those injured or murdered by firearm violence because there is no real sympathy content to be exploited. If the anti-gun proponents were to be honest we would hear about these murders and not a day could go by without their expressing their great sorrow for the loss of life across the lands. The choices of which victims of gun violence the grabbers choose to utilize as their inspiration to maximize societal outrage speaks volumes about both the people who wish to deny guns to all and their target audience. Their selective sympathies leave me suspect as the largest number of victims of firearms misuse are completely ignored except when utilized as cold statistics.

The whole subject of gun violence in our societies has grown and matured completely in the past fifty or so years. Except for the spree of gun violence during the years of prohibition, gun violence was the exception rather than the rule and mass murders were virtually unheard nonexistent. The gun violence of the 1930s was directly tied to organized crime and mostly the result of turf wars between different gangs. This has once again become a prevalent problem with the growth of the drug trade and the developing of wars over areas of control by the different drug interests. The problem this presents to the gun grabbers is that the carnage resultant of the violent contests between different drug gangs and other illegal industries is they do not provide a sympathetic victim for them to exploit. That is why we only hear about gun violence when some usually disturbed your man who is most often found to be under care for some emotional or mental difficulties and often on psychotropic or other mental transformational drugs. If one of these disturbed shooters were to go on their shooting spree on a Saturday night in downtown inner city America we would likely hear about a rash of gun deaths and that the police were trying to figure out a common thread but we would not hear even one peep about the necessity of stronger gun laws. This little truth makes one wonder about the driving motivations of many of the gun grabbers, doesn’t it?

If the gun control supporters were really about preventing gun violence they would be addressing all violence but that is not their motivation. Their motivation is about control and they know that government can only control an unarmed people. The gun prohibition people are fully aware of the political science theory which states, “Where the government fears the people you have liberty but where the people fear the government you get tyranny.” They are also fully aware that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting beyond putting food on the table, nothing to do with target shooting beyond mastering your accuracy, nothing to do with defending your home and life though that is a benefit of being armed, but is all about preventing the usurpation of power and the onset of a tyrannical government. The real motivation for the Second Amendment was directly related to, “The shot that was heard around the world.” With that shot and the rest that followed it were when the War for Independence began. But how many of you know why the American settlers were fighting the British troops that day and the mission given those British troops. The little secret that is rarely taught in history classes any longer is the British troops were dispatched that spring day of April 19, 1775, to go to Lexington and Concord and impound all the weapons from the American settlers’ armories. That’s right; the British were enforcing gun control and were out to grab the settlers’ guns in order to continue to exercise the tyranny of King George. That was the bases and inspiration that was behind the Second Amendment and not self-defense or hunting or any other gun related gun activity.

The above little fact is often countered by claiming that having any firearm that is readily owned under existing laws are hardly sufficient to fight a tyrannical government with a military that is fully equipped with modern weapons systems, tanks, jet fighters, bombers and other support units. The truth to that is that during the American Revolution the settlers fought against the most powerful army on the face of the planet, the English. The American settlers utilized the rifle over the hearth, so to speak. They augmented their armories by capturing support weapons such as during the battle for Boston when the settlers dispatched the Green Mountain Boys led by Ethan Allen and Colonel Benedict Arnold who defeated the English troops to capture and bring back the cannons from Fort Ticonderoga. These cannons arrived just in time to be placed on a hilltop overlooking Boston and the harbor forcing the British to flee to their ships and depart the field of battle that day. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising they had a collection of revolvers, three rifles with each of the groups with some homemade Molotov cocktails, and only two land mines and one submachine gun in the entire Ghetto with which to take on an entire Panzer Battalion. With this meager amount of armaments to begin the uprising they took out as many guards and German soldiers as they could without arousing any suspicions in order to attain more and superior weapons with which to fight what they knew was a futile but necessary resistance. They held the German forces off for almost an entire month and only lost when the entire ghetto was destroyed using Panzer tanks, poison gas, and setting one fourth of the city of Warsaw alight destroying everything by fire. Then there is the story behind the FP-45 Liberator and the French freedom-fighters during World War II. These one shot excuse for a firearm were produced by the thousands and dropped into the French countryside and used by the French resistance. They would take one of these single shot weapons and use it to kill one Nazi soldier and take his weapon. Then they could use that superior weapon to shoot the next Nazi soldier or group of soldiers and take those weapons. Eventually they would have sufficient weapons to take out a machine gun position and gain some really great firepower. That is what can be done with a gun that has one bullet in one primitive single-shot weapon and that once fired is made useless. To win a war it is not necessary to actually defeat the enemy, it is only sufficient to make their continuing to hold their position so expensive in men, material and other costs that it is no longer worth the efforts to retain or resist the opposition. That is the entire principle behind asymmetrical warfare. The people at the top of the organization fighting to take away all firearms from the people are never interested in controlling guns; they are simply interested in control, most often unchallenged, all encompassing, undisputed control of the populous. That is the real and hidden truth behind gun control, or should we simply call it by its real name, people control.

Beyond the Cusp

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.