Let me draw an analogy for you, if I may. Lets say robbers beset your town. They are becoming more and more brazen in their theft of money and personal property. They have even taken to kidnapping your children and using them to help with their foul deeds. A group of citizens think they have finally found the solution to this mayhem. They go to see some of the people they know to be robbers. They ask, even beg these robbers for permission to protect themselves from the very actions perpetrated on them. After the negotiations are over, the citizens are most pleased with the agreement they have struck with the thieves.
First, anyone wishing to protect themselves must pay a fee to the robbers for permission to install fences, barred windows and even security systems. The robbers hold total control over who may or may not install these devises. Secondly, all citizens who are accepted to provide security devises for themselves must then provide the robbers with keys to all doors, windows and gates. They must also provide all codes to security and alarm systems and even allow the robbers to install the systems or teach them how to do so.
How totally absurd you say? But, is this not exactly what has happened with the massive rush by gun owners to secure concealed carry permits from the state?
The Bill of Rights to our Constitution is a set of negative protections. It was designed and passed solely to protect the citizens of this country from a runaway, despotic government. Are we not now begging and paying for permission to protect ourselves from the government itself? Do we not beg from those who steal our money and our rights for permission to protect ourselves from the very theft they are inflicting on us?
By doing so, are we not acknowledging the government to be more powerful than our Constitution? Do we not say by these very actions: I know there is a Second Amendment and foremost a divine right that provides me with the permission I need, but seeing as the government is more powerful than that little old piece of parchment, or the Creator, I will beg and pay it for this permission. By these very actions have we not destroyed the Constitution ourselves? I sure would like to see some of the gun groups and gun owners who are so proud of their accomplishments in obtaining this "permission" explain to our forefathers how they managed to trade away all they accomplished. Remember if you will, their pledge.
"For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor".
How can we ignore their sacrifice? How can we ignore the court decisions listed below?
1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90 at 92 and 93, 13 Am. Dec 251
For in principal, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only that it secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order at the time at which it is done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.
1846: Nunn vs State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 at 251
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void which contravenes this right
1876: U.S. v Cruikshank 92 US 542
In this decision the Supreme Court stated, the right to arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent on that instrument for its existence.
1921: State vs. Kerner 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222 at 224
The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.
Notice that in all the cases listed above it is the State that is trying to take away rights and has been taken to task by the individual. Obviously, we have failed to keep vigilance over our freedoms and now beg the government for what is already ours.
Most importantly, the State has been able to co-opt the very group of citizens that should be those standing in the front lines of the battle for our liberty: gun owners.
By the actions of these gun owners, the State has been provided with a list of a great number of so-called patriots, especially those who would carry guns for self-protection.
What is to stop the State from rescinding this "permission" at its whim?
What would you, who have disavowed the freedoms of your Creator and the Constitution in favor of the State, have as your defense? Have you not already acknowledged the State to be greater than both? Have you not also provided the State with another database to use when total confiscation becomes necessary to the continuance of state control and domination?
How would you answer a judge who asked you, Did you not acknowledge the right of the state to control firearms when you petitioned the state for the "right" to carry and paid them for it?
(Quotes thanks to Colonel Dan)