December 18, 2003

What is it precisely that gives government power over us? Is it the continuous and ongoing enlightenment that is foremost in our minds that we are a government of, by and for the people? Or is it the threat of fees, fines, penalties, punishment, confiscation of property, and even the potential of violence that can be used against our loved ones and us? And cannot this threat simply be summarized by the term “force?” Isn’t that how George Washington summed up government activity?

What do we the people have to counter such a threat of violent force from government, especially a government that has turned as despotic and tyrannical as ours has? More than 50 percent of our earnings are confiscated via various taxes, an amount that would never have been dreamed of by George III of England against whom we rebelled by force of arms to establish our individual freedoms. Today, socialists and communists like Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy, explain that “individualism” is a bad thing that must be “faced down.”

The Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights follows on the heels of the First to protect free speech and assembly, yet our Supreme Court has just abolished free speech on the part of individuals during election campaigns and adjudicated that right to be only applicable to network TV media outlets and the very rich. The Patriot Act abolishes the rest of the Bill of Rights. “Zero tolerance” and designation as “an enemy combatant” suspends trial by jury, the right to counsel, and the right to face one’s accusers. Habeas Corpus has been permanently suspended. Asset forfeiture and prison are penalties government now imposes based only upon “suspicion” of wrongdoing. And an ever-expanding list of government raids and murders at the hands of police and police SWAT teams using the “crime” of suspicion of wrongdoing and minor infractions for justification is growing by leaps and bounds.

Are these issues important? Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity don’t think so. FOXNews doesn’t think so. A recent guest representing the Democrat Party didn’t think so, and said that to O’Reilly on his show, The O’Reilly Factor. And of course O’Reilly agreed. In fact, O’Reilly offered his interpretation, not herein precisely quoted, of the Second Amendment: “It gives people the right to use a handgun or a rifle to protect one’s home, family and business from burglars and felons who break in intent upon committing crime.” That’s similar to the generality offered by another Bill, Bill Clinton, who offered that the Second Amendment “gives us the right to hunt.” And right there, evaluating the difference between O’Reilly’s error, and that of Bill Clinton, there is a distinction that puts their interpretations at complete opposites. Of course, both Bills are wrong, and here’s why.

As much as Bill O’Reilly and Bill Clinton wish to put themselves on a par with God, the Founders had it right when they encouraged Thomas Jefferson to write in the Declaration of Independence, that all freedoms translate to just three; they are John Locke’s “life, liberty and property.” The Founders referred to the last as “the pursuit of happiness,” indicating that private property is free to be used by its owner to generate a profit, thereby legitimizing capitalism. And God, not O’Reilly, Clinton or even our own government, gives all three elements of individual human freedom to us. Understanding this, how can the Second Amendment, or the other nine, be “rights?” They are restrictions placed upon our government by our Constitution. These are things government is not allowed to do. And we have a God-given right to protect our families and ourselves.

Liberals, who aren’t liberals but really socialists and communists, continue to insist that the Second Amendment applies only to the police and military, but these are only bureaus and agencies of American government. The Constitution was ratified by the states in 1791, the militia act was established in 1792, and did not create any specific bureau or agency of government. It only facilitated the creation of a militia comprised of private, unorganized citizens. The first National Guard unit was established in 1903. The liberal argument, therefore, that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard and the Reserves is totally and deliberately false.

But the key differences between O’Reilly and Clinton’s interpretations are the two key elements that make sports competitions and the more serious conflict of actual war understandable; namely, offense and defense. O’Reilly postures that the Second Amendment is defensive in nature, allowing one to protect oneself. Clinton, mockingly and cynically, offers the offensive nature of the Amendment as hunting rights.

The Second Amendment is a restriction placed upon our government preventing it from legislating the acquisition, selective restriction, or limitation in any way, of the peoples’ God-given right to buy, own, carry and keep firearms of every kind [yes, including machine-guns]. Remember the Founders real purpose for establishing the Second Amendment: to enable the people to have firearms so that they can be used as an offensive force to overthrow tyrannical, despotic government. This restriction only becomes defensive in times of “insurrection” or “invasion” when the militia is to be called up.

Liberals always falsify the facts and lie outright when they offer that the Second gives us a right, and that the other nine Amendments apply individually to the citizenry while the Second applies only to the military. And the National Guard and the Reserves are not a “militia,” which is an “ad hoc” rag-tag band of citizens who might or might not own guns. To make the rag-tag militia of private citizens effective in the defense of a “free and independent state,” each of the states of the United States must provide a trained and professional military officer, and provide firearms as well to those citizens that don’t have any. The provision of both a leader and additional firearms is what is meant by the term “well regulated,” and this can be verified by checking Article I, Section 8, paragraph 15, in the body of the United States Constitution. Our standing army has been illegally dispatched world wide to control other nations. We are indeed relying more and more upon our National Guard and Reserves. Who will be left to defend America when our professional military and its reserves are thinned to total inefficacy?

The intent of the Second Amendment is to arm the people to frighten government and to keep it in check. Fail that, the people have the means as well as the right to overthrow the government by violent force.

Returning to the Bills, is the Second Amendment offensive or defensive nature? Please remember, that although Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar candidate, and a professor of constitutional law, as a liberal he’s a liar, a fraud, and a hater of the Constitution. His remark concerning the “right to hunt,” was a sarcastic and cynical remark, not becoming of a lawyer, and much less one that taught constitutional law in a prestigious law school.

And although the right to firearms entails both the freedom to use them offensively or defensively, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is its enabling use as an offensive device to remove despotic, tyrannical government. The fact that the people are endowed by their Maker with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and property, devolves naturally to the concept that each individual has a right to defend these by whatever means possible from all threats, and the Founders therefore assumed such common sense regarding self-defensive measures need not be stated in writing.

Since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created to limit government force in America, and since government is an ever-increasing factor in our daily lives, the Constitution will only become outdated when government itself becomes outdated. The Constitution does not specify types of weapons available to the people to preclude a monopoly of force; hence, any weapon, machine-guns, rocket launchers, Bill O’Reilly “bazookas” and what have you, are not banned by our Constitution. The intent was to empower people. Massive destructive weapons, battleships, supersonic fighters, tanks, are not banned either – they’re just not practical for private citizen ownership and would be absurd to own. But the Constitution doesn’t ban these either!

But what happens if a “nut” gets his hands on a rocket launcher? That’s already happened in the case of TWA 800! And what did government do? It covered that successful crime up to save embarrassment and explanation. That speaks to how concerned American government is as regards the safety and security of the American people.

And what greater “weapons crime” could surpass American government’s failures on 9-11? The only time that “massive” weapons, such as tanks and fighter planes, were used illegally against Americans was at Waco in 1993 to gas and burn to death 26 children and 51 adults, and in all probability, also to shoot down an airliner flying over Pennsylvania when identified as part of the 9-11 assault.

Considering 9-11, used as an excuse to launch an illegal, unconstitutional war against Iraq, an invasion planned by the neoconservative Bush war-making cabal well before 9-11, and then using “terrorism” as justification to suspend the entire Bill of Rights via Bush’s USA Patriot Act, please tell me why the “gun issue” isn’t important for airing during the 2004 elections?!

Theodore E. Lang

© 2003 THEODORE E. LANG All rights reserved

Ted Lang is a political analyst and a freelance writer.

Archives

Another Champion for Ignorance! Bill O'Reilly

Saddam for Christmas – How Convenient!

Complete Archives for Ted Lang

Visit Etherzone for other articles by Ted Lang