Gun Rights, Gay Rights, and the Constitution

By Adrien Nash · April 3, 2013  re-posted from patriotpost.us

“Without the Second Amendment we have no right to defend ourselves and our families.”

That is not correct. We have an unalienable right to life and to self-defense, as well as the means of providing self-defense. All the 2nd Amendment does is get in the face of government by ordering it to keep its totalitarian hands off of our rights and our means of self-defense by asserting in the fundamental charter of government that the People possess a right that rightfully goes without saying.

Government is not the source of the right to adequate self-defense, and thanks to the explicit language of the 2nd Amendment, all of those in government and the courts who have a brain and can understand plain language are expected to limit their “right” to abridge or infringe the rights of the People to not only keep but also to “bear” arms, which the Supreme Court has determined does not mean bear arms in one’s home, but in public.

That means that in all those old Western movies in which the town had an ordinance that mandated turning in one’s weapons while in town, the ordinance was an offense and violation of a fundamental constitutional right unless the town was in a federal territory and not a state. Did Wyatt Earp really engage in the shoot-out at the OK corral with the Clancy brothers over their refusal to turn in their firearms? If so, it must have been during the pre-statehood period.

I heard on a history show once that the number of shootings/killing in one western town like Boot Hill or Deadwood was one per day on average. So clearly people kept and carried their arms with them.

An example of the overreach of federal power, one that should give you shivers, is seen in a recent writing about the 122nd anniversary of the massacre of 297 Sioux natives at Wounded Knee Creek. The feds decided they had the right to cancel the Native Americans’ right to possess firearms, and since the natives weren’t keen on surrendering their paid-for property, the were fair game for extermination.

One interesting fact is that at the battle of Little Big Horn, Custer and the 7th Cavalry were killed because the tribes that came together to kill-before-being-killed were armed with better weapons than the cavalry. The cavalry only had single shot rifles from the Civil War era, while the Indians had gotten hold of Remington repeating rifles, making each warrior with one of them as effective as a dozen cavalrymen. So the come-to-kill cavalry got what was come to it.

The right of self-defense is innate to life in this world, along with the right to exercise it via swords, knives, or firearms, as is the right to marry, but as with the right to own arms, there are limitations which protect society and do not violate anyone’s rights because some “rights” have never existed.

Individuals have never possessed the right to own nor use weapons of mass destruction, just as individuals have never possessed the right to marry anyone whom they choose. Throughout history, for much of the human race the choice of a marriage partner was not even a right of the individual but was a right of the parents. But even in societies that didn’t follow such paternalistic regimentation (for better or for worse), individuals have never possessed certain options when it came to marriage.

The right to mate and form permanent unions is a natural right accepted by all societies and nations, but none of them accept it without limits.

The justices of the Supreme Court are being put in a corner and aren’t sure what to do or whether or not to even accept the proposition that the People have a right to defend their state constitution’s amendments or propositions (California’s Proposition 8, the officially recognized definition of marriage) if the political hacks running the state aren’t willing to defend state law before the court. The justices are probably hesitant to impose federal rulings regarding state matters, which marriage inherently is.

The argument that homosexuals are being denied equal rights is absurd on its face because marriage is inherently a discriminating institution being as no civilized society allows one to marry an animal, a child, a sibling or parent, multiple wives or husbands, (or both), nor a member of the same sex, because of scriptural prohibitions and visceral revulsion toward such couplings.

The People decide what state law is and federal judges have no authority under the constitution to override conventional social norms that do not involve being denied a civil or human right.

Marriage is a right only to the extent that society and religion validate it. The State has no moral basis to decide what the morality of the People must be.

The government, judges, governors and legislators do not have a right to tell the People what their religious foundations must be or not be, anymore than the government possesses a fundamental right to ownership of your children and can legitimately take them whenever you fail to carry out its orders and social engineering edits.

But the government acknowledges no such limit on its power and authority as we saw with the Health Care ruling. You must submit as a government slave to coercive federal mandates that require you to accept strong-arm extortion that forces you to engage unwillingly in an involuntary contract that requires a monthly payment to a health insurance company. So much for individual liberty in the land of the once-free.

Under the rule of Law and not men (with their opinions and preferences), to institute a fundamental change in society requires securing the permission of the People via an amendment to the Constitution, state or federal. Since there is no amendment to the Constitution securing the right of homosexuals to marry, the right is not and never has been secured, so how in the world can they claim a right that has never existed?

Their claim to such a right is made in the total absence of any history to support it. The States have always interfered in the legal contract of marriage because of the legal issues involved, even requiring a “license” accompanied by a fee. What “right” requires a license and a fee? Do you have to register and get a license before having a baby? Before buying and owning property? Or food?

Those who qualify for a marriage license fit a criteria decided on by the People or their representatives, not judges. Judges have no moral authority to tell the People what social norms are to be — except when laws are passed that violate human rights, such as would slavery laws, or social disenfranchisement laws that bar some people from voting or mixing equally in society.

Such rulings are fundamental in that they ban discrimination, but the proposition passed by the California voters (Prop. 8) bans nothing. It merely states that the State’s official definition of marriage is that which it has always been since before statehood. It’s like a defense of the English language and the meaning of its words versus a bastardization of the definitions of words (as the Communists engaged in by inserting the word “Democratic” in the name of their oppressive totalitarian regimes). [Pejoration: root of pejorative; in linguistics, a change of meaning, for the worse.]

Calling a dictatorship a democracy is no less illegitimate than calling marriage something other that the union of two consenting unrelated adults of opposite genders. It simply isn’t what it isn’t, so in order to make it what it isn’t requires the consent of the people, just as was needed for changing the law of the land regarding the freedom to make and sell liquor (Prohibition, the 18th Amendment); the unprecedented right of women to cast political votes in elections (the 19th Amendment); and the right of freemen to own slaves and indentured servants (the 13th Amendment).

Fundamental societal change requires an alteration in the fundamental law of the land, and that type of alteration is only legitimately effected via the only means given in our Constitution to achieve it, which is found in Article Five. It spells out the process for passing an amendment to the national charter that binds us all together as a nation.

Without following it, there is no legitimacy to any law passed by Congress which by-passes it. So the question of whether or not so-and-so supports gay marriage should be irrelevant. The only question that should be in the public’s mind is does so-and-so support a constitutional amendment permitting it. So-and-so may be a state or federal politician, or a state or federal judge.

Judges have the authority to declare laws passed by Congress to be unconstitutional, and that might be based not on a law violating the Constitution but rather violating the social norms of the society that ratified the Constitution, making it and the process of amending it, the law of the land. Remember, Congress did not and could not outlaw slavery. That was the prerogative of only the People. Same with same-sex marriage. But not only does the “loyal opposition” not adhere to the constitutional process, they aren’t even aware that they are supposed to. A perfect recipe for disaster.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

About arnash

“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Gun Rights, Gay Rights, and the Constitution

  1. arnash says:

    David in Mountain View Missouri
    Thursday, April 4, 2013

    In Answer to Ted below. The argument of inalienable rights vs. duties and responsibilities is both false and hollow. It is solely based on the straw man that rights are optional while these God given duties and responsibilities are not optional. One; this concept would nullify the well excepted Christian doctrine of Freewill. God is not going to tie us up and drag us screaming into heaven. Each day we must make a choice whether to obey God or not. Over and over in the Bible God has said “choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh. 24:14-15). Second; those who espouse this idea put forth no scripture showing the concept of inalienable rights as being unbiblical. Third; the very scripture they put forth refutes their own argument. Rightly they say they show us our God given duties and responsibilities, but it is in these very scriptures that we are granted our inalienable rights.

    Additionally if we come together to pool our resources in order to fulfill our obligations such as to provide safety and protection through our local police, militia, and neighborhood watch. If these were to became so proficient as to lower the crime rate to Mayberry standards. And then gun fatalities are primarily accidental shootings the question will be asked why are we allowing such deaths, it is irresponsible to have private gun ownership. At this point what argument do you have, since your duties and responsibilities have and are being fulfilled? None. But thankfully God did not set things up this way, for all institutions whether government, public or private, are made with men’s imperfect minds and hands. Thus they will succumb to corruption and the use of tyranny, no matter how much scriptures they codify into their laws. The only safe guard for society, for our liberty, prosperity, and welfare, is that citizen practice their inalienable rights in fulfillment of their God given duties and responsibilities in accordance with their convictions of faith in God above.

    Adrien Nash in Crescent City
    Thursday, April 4, 2013

    Unalienable rights begin in the Garden of Eden. Take it literally or philosophically, either way you can’t escape the truth that Adam could not claim a greater right to live than Eve possessed. So their right to life was equal and neither had a right to take nor enslave the life of the other because the other was not their inferior. THAT is the principle underlying all natural rights. It then is manifested in the family. The older children do not have a right to kill the younger children in order to benefit from thereby receiving a greater portion of whatever, because they are all of the same life-form, the same parental source and none are superior to the others by any measure other than chronology, which is irrelevant except in the arena of privilege. So the family is the archetype for society. Since some fail to recognize that fact, being infantile, sadistic or satanic in nature, all of the civilized and innocent members of the human race must embrace the responsibility to take care of themselves, their own family folks, and the society in which they live and raise their young, and to do so by whatever means is necessary to ward off the predatory impulses of those who think or feel that they were born to rule over or destroy those who are weaker than themselves.
    Because of human evil, self-defense is not only the right of the individual as well as his group, it is the responsibility because it is not only himself that he must defend. He also must defend the defenseless because that is his moral or spiritual duty, and if none performed it, if none had the impulse to defend the defenseless, then the evil ones among us would kill or enslave their inferiors until genocides of various sorts would threaten the survival of the human race.

    So the “right of self-defense” is not only a right of the individual, it is central to the survival and propagation of the human race. It is the only effective response to confrontation by evil, and without that response there would not be much else other than evil. Whether one views God as the source of their human rights or not does not impact the reality of those rights because they are hard-wired into the nature of life and survival. Without them the human universe could not exist as we know it. Certainly civilization could not exist. At best most of us would be dead without them or living in a Mad Max/ Road Warrior world.

    Kirk in The formerly free state of Maryland
    Thursday, April 4, 2013
    Hate to change the topic in the comments, but, I have a question. I support gun ownership and am concerned about gun registration and other controls, especially here in Maryland. But how do we respond to the question how much firepower should an individual be allowed to have? The article says “Individuals have never possessed the right to own nor use weapons of mass destruction”. OK, no problem with that. Where, and almost more importantly, from what authority do we draw the line? A line was drawn in 1934, with the ban on automatic weapons (well, actually severe restrictions I guess.) This reminds me of the abortion issue. Between conception and death there is no major biological change in a person. If pro-life then you must be pro-life from conception on onwards, and I’d say no exceptions except perhaps risk or death to the mother. Anyone have an answer on the gun issue?

    D.A.V.E. in Wyobraska
    Thursday, April 4, 2013

    It’s called the “Bill of Rights”, not the “Bill of Needs”. Some may question the “need” for an arsenal, but the fact remains: If you want to spend all of your hard-earned money on weapons, it is your RIGHT to do so. Why do I “need” an AR-15 with a half dozen or so 30-50-100 round mags? Because I can, that’s why. “Shall NOT be infringed” says it all. Don’t like it? Get 38 states to agree with you and try to change it. But if memory serves, the Bill of Rights cannot be amended.

    David in Mountain View Missouri
    Saturday, April 6, 2013

    Nash is wrong on this point. The whole point of the right to self defense, especially as recognized by the 2nd Amend. Is that each sovereign citizen can defend himself, not just against criminals or wild animals, but against tyrants as well. So this God given, inalienable right does and has always applied to the weapons of soldiers. So yes I have the right to own semi-auto and automatic weapons, even explosives and more. But we are talking about Liberty, not freedom, so with Liberty comes responsibilities. Thus we choose to leave some of the right to bears arms with our military such as nukes, missiles, battle ships, tanks etc. or with our well organized and regulated militias who should have some of the lighter stuff. Yet still, I as a sovereign citizen have the right to be armed as well as any soldier. Israel and the Swiss. do this and have nearly zero problems. This right is the only reason we are not wearing chains and will do us little good if all we have are shotguns and hunting rifles.
    Reply | Permalink

    Adrien Nash in Crescent City
    Thursday, April 4, 2013

    The common right of self-defense has its earliest manifestation within civilization as the right to own and carry a sword, or axe, or a bow and arrows,-the weapons of warriors. After the invention of the gun, the right to own and carry it sprang from the previous right. But soon technology outpaced the principle that the common man had the right to own the same rifles and pistols as would a soldier, because the invention of the automatic weapon changed the playing field. No one in the history of warfare or self-defense has ever possessed the right to own a device of mass slaughter, especially one that was light enough to fairly easily be carried. So that right has not existed in the past and should not exist in the present due to the presence among us of unbalance angry people, psychopaths, Charles Mansons. Just as there is such a thing as too much freedom (as is the case with drug addicts, and alcoholics, gambling addicts, and spend-a-holics), so also there is such a thing as possessing too much power, because power corrupts,…makes the unbalanced fall into the delusion of being something greater than what they are, like the Joker.

    David in Mountain View Missouri
    Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 11:24 PM

    Respectively I question why you would use such a term as “weapons of mass slaughter” or as we better know it “weapons of mass destruction”. This term, coined in this modern era to demonize and dehumanize people such as Saddam,so they can more easily justify any means to get him ( not that I was fan of his) and further their globalist agenda.
    [REALLY? You need to do some research about the crimes of Saddam H. and his regime. He WAS a demon and inhuman in ways that will forever be shocking]
    Now they are turning around and are using this label on gun owners. [Are you stupid? It was not the Left that “demonized” Hussein, and it is not the Right the demonizes gun owners, so exactly who the hell is “they”?]
    Why are you partaking of that? I can pick up a rock, kill a dozen people and suddenly that rock is a “WMD”. Or for that matter a master of martial arts could do the same. Is he now a “WMD”? There is no logic in this argument because the term is completely arbitrary. So using this term for any sort of personal firearm or arms is illogical and inaccurate.
    A.N.
    Any device that makes it feasible for a crippled person to slaughter dozens of people in a second or two just by contracting his index finger is a weapon of mass slaughter, potentially. Automatic rifles are meant to be that deadly but are not meant to be floating around in a civilized society in the possession of psychos.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s