Our freedom from government and the liberty that goes with that freedom is under assault from every direction. Our government at all levels has decided over the years to limit your right to self defense with a firearm. The most troubling part is that the people in charge think they have a right to limit the provisions of the Constitution for our own good since it is apparent in their minds that we don’t know what is good for us. 

Firearms ownership continues under assault by the Sarah Brady group, members of Congress, and most notably, Senator Charles Schumer of New York. Brady and Schumer vow to end the right to own guns by decent law-abiding citizens; however, they cry foul whenever it is suggested that criminals be dealt with harshly when they possess guns and or use them in the commission of a crime. It is convoluted thinking at best and pure idiocy at the worst.  

Sonia Sotomayor couldn’t answer the simple question of do you believe that there is an individual right to self-defense. She waffled, zigged and zagged, spluttered and otherwise tried to avoid answering the question. She said she didn’t know of any court decision that had addressed that matter. So when reminded again of the simple question, she launched into a mindless discourse about states and the laws on self-defense and wouldn’t answer yes or no.

 The answer to the question is yes and there are no if ands buts or maybes. The Second Amendment is about self defense from draconian government intrusion, and against predators of every description. Given that Sotomayor isn’t much of a constitutionalist given to original meaning of the document, her dancing around that question wasn’t unexpected. In fact, it is reasonable to say that she has no knowledge of what Jesus said about self defense.

Self defense is a natural right and Jesus recognized that when he told the apostles the following: But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.  (Luke 22:36) Jesus knew there were thieves, robbers and violent people out there in that day and age, just as there are now, and that those going about need to protect themselves. They didn’t need a government permit to carry swords either. The founders recognized the natural right of self defense and protected it with the Second Amendment. It is simple, and understandable. While courts have the duty to determine that self defense was rightly used in each situation that comes before the court, it isn’t the courts business to question whether one has the natural right to self defense. The court’s proper course is to affirm the right of self defense if or when it is questioned. The word shall not be infringed should be sufficient to send the message of hands off, but the anti-gunners of all stripes in and out of government refuse to follow the message.

States and cities have passed laws curtailing the ownership and carrying firearms. The ones who pass such laws had better read Article 6, Clause 3, which declares that all state officials are duty bound to support the Constitution and that includes the Second Amendment, since in the Chicago, Illinois case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to the states (incorporation doctrine). Articles Nine and Ten do not give the state or local governments the right to limit firearms owned or carried by law-abiding citizens in view of that ruling. Oddly, many state constitutions have Second Amendment type provisions and yet, they pass laws that do not honor their own constitutions.  We seem to be in a period of lawlessness wherein politicians do as they please to appease certain groups no matter the limits on their powers.

Three types of people are trying to limit your rights; one is the power mad who want to control; another group is composed of those who are afraid of guns and use that fear to try to limit others; the third group just lives with a utopian mind set that refuses to see the reality of the dangerous world in which we live. They can’t see any reason for carrying firearms since the police are supposed to protect us. That is pure balderdash for want of a better word and history supports that fact.

However, there is another factor involved in the desire to limit the Second Amendment that goes beyond it. If the government at all levels can gut the meaning of the Second Amendment, then the politicians and bureaucrats can ride rough shod over all the other rights protected by the Constitution. The assault on the Second Amendment is the opening shot on all of the others.

Given the crowd that is at the nation’s helm, In Sorting it Out, it isn’t a stretch to say that if we are disarmed, we are headed for events no one will want and it will come at the hands of not only the criminals, but the government too. In some aspects, it has already begun.

03-18-2010 DEC