Tag Archives: tyranny

Watching and Waiting

03 Tuesday May 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

In a free society people closely watch their government. In an unfree society the government closely watches the people. In a smart society people watch what is happening around them. In a dumb society people watch television. If you just stepped out of a time machine or a spaceship, welcome to America. Things are just fine.

Puerto Rico is not about to default on its debt payments, but is defaulting (has [past tense] defaulted) on them. All things being equal this would not concern me much. What got my attention in the Wall Street Journal’s article last night was the smug arrogance of the Empire’s chief henchman, Jack Lew. He’s the creep who is kicking Old Hickory off the Twenty. Well, he’s been chosen to make that suggestion to the Fed puppet-masters.

In a letter to Congress, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew warned on Monday that a U.S. “taxpayer-funded bailout may become the only legislative course available” if the proposed restructuring legislation isn’t approved.

The island’s debt is held by mutual funds, hedge funds, bond insurers and individual investors, who were attracted in part by tax benefits and high yields. The default Monday casts serious doubt on the commonwealth’s ability to make other future payments, which “means that other defaults are very likely on other Puerto Rico credits,” said Paul Mansour…

-WSJ, May 2, 2016.

Well, of course. Let one government and its supporters screw up and the other government and all its supporters (willing or no) will foot the bill. Its the only course available.  Letting nature take its course is not an option – that would be bad for the hedge funds, banks, and insurance companies. They pay a lot of money for their (their, like the own it and it belongs to them) government. They have to get their money’s worth. The bulk of the people remain blissfully unaware. (For giggles, grab a map or globe and ask random passers-by to find Puerto Rico!).

The sheep are also unaware of the wolves’ plan to tax their vehicle travel by the mile (in addition to the other taxes). This scheme is marching along (openly and loudly) and will serve two purposes. One, it will provide more money for bailing out hedge funds, banks, and insurance companies. Two, it will allow 24/7 tracking of your movements.

If the people become aware, then they will surely approve of this measure. Tracking means safety which is far superior to freedom. Freedom might, just might, interfere with the watching of basketball, baseball, racing, listening to drug addict, tattoo country pop, attending to the slave overseer selection (election) madness, french fry eating, and so forth.

Google.

The Satanic Verses: American Political Style

19 Tuesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes, Other Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Satanic Verses: American Political Style

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Government and religion go together like whiskey and water: they don’t really go together but one finds them paired frequently nonetheless. In 1988-89 Salman Rushdie found out in extreme fashion how the two strange bedfellows behave. His novel The Satanic Verses earned him critical acclaim along with a death sentence from the Ayatollah of Iran. Rushdie resumed normal life after years and years of living as a shadow under heavy police protection.

Iran is and was a theocracy where Shia Islamic law is the basis for the organized state. There are other nations of a similar composition. Rushdie’s England is a mix-up writ large – the Queen is the head of state and head of the state church though Parliament passes most laws in an otherwise secular society. America had, via the First Amendment, and by its history and constituency, a separation of church and state (so said Thomas Jefferson). Of course, 200 years before Rushdie’s troubles began, almost all Americans were Christians. Because the government was so very small it did not really matter who believed what. It was a Christian society with a small and separate governing group. As far as it goes or went, the arrangement worked rather well. Things change.

Gradually the people abandoned God while the government grew in power and influence. Today one finds the polar opposite of that scene of 1789. It is a government society with a small and dwindling Christian group. My hypothesis (still only that because I have not declared it law) is that the people have replaced, or have allowed the replacement of, God with government. This was not a wise decision. The consequences manifest far and wide. God, for the most part, has left the building. With Him He took morality, decency, common sense, curiosity, courage, the family unit, good television, and most of the Blessings of the Holy Spirit. Those who remain faithful are like oases in a bleak, barren and dismal landscape. Many remain also who are positive in their thinking that things can be repaired, that the government (so different today) can still be restored and that decent civilization will then resume. Their struggle is born both of true optimistic faith and of delusional confusion, sometimes blended together.

In no other realm of American life is this struggle more prominently displayed than in politics. Political activity today, be it Republican, Democratic, or of third-party nature, is a study in obsessive self defeat. One may choose to shovel water into the canoe with the big red bucket on the starboard or the big blue bucket on the port side. One may choose the small paper cup of Libertarianism back aft. Whatever the choice, the result is still the same – the boat is sinking. What amazes this author is the zeal with which people these days participate in the flooding even as they know where the vessel is headed.

Recently I wrote several pieces on the sham democracy and fake electoral practices attendant to the Republican presidential nomination process. GOP voters in Colorado, Wyoming, Georgia, New York and elsewhere are discovering the rude truth, that they do not matter – not to their party and not in the grand scheme of politics. I tire of these stories both because they serve little epistemological purpose and because there are just too many of them to track. The Democrats have a similar level of disdain for their voters and of crooked processes.

A few years ago Jimmy Carter (my remembrance grows fonder every time I think of him) proposed that the U.N. or some other neutral outside party step in to monitor American elections as those of third world countries are policed. His suggestion came in response to the staggering fact that, like, just like those “lesser” nations, America and its elections have fallen into a pit of fraud, deception and criminality. I applaud his honesty though I see the point as futile. The government and its gangster parties know they are debased, criminal; they will not accept possible interference with their game (and no one has either the power or the interest to force compliance). And, even if the pleas for help were heard, I do not relish what might come of it. I see it as running to Br’er Bear to complain about Br’er Wolf. Come what may, Br’er Rabbit and friends had still better watch their backs. A safer alternative would be to get rid of the underlying corruption of the state, that is to say, get rid of the state itself. That also will not happen, not yet. It’s not quite time.

And it seems time is relative to the problem. Government has, since its inception, been corrupt. It is eternally dangerous. The American experience does not defy the universal trend. Those in and around the government are generally corrupt themselves. Consider this example: there is and has been for some time a literal cult of Abraham Lincoln worshipers in this county. Lincoln is revered as nearly the second coming of Jesus Christ though, in truth, Lincoln was one of the vilest, most destructive, and tyrannical men to ever occupy the Presidency. It was he who set into motion that transformation which gave us today’s superstate under which we labor daily. Lincoln was a destroyer of freedom and civility like few others in history.

In 1862 he murdered 38 or 39 Sioux Indians in Minnesota. The next year he kicked the entire tribe out of the state, off of their ancestral lands under threat of death. The real story, of total war, fanatical racism, cronyism and kickbacks, and a complete absence of due process, may be read here. The sanitized, Lincoln-as-hero, version may be read here. Evil grows like a cancer, even after 150 years. And, remember, in 1862 America was much more of a “Christian” nation than what passes today.

As we begin the final act of our Platonic (not in the friendly sense) play, enter a new and ultimate character – long hinted at but not seen outright until now – actual in the open Satanism. On their respective islands in the great sea of decadence and pollution the Faithful now face their enemy. The enemy is demanding and getting equal time, more than equal to be honest. There sad and dangerous story is found here: Can a burgeoning satanic movement actually effect political change?, The Conversation, April 19, 2016. The story centers on the efforts of The Satanic Temple to compass the ruin of our people under the guise of “equality”. I do not directly link to the Temple nor to their Sabbat Cycle and I suggest you, dear reader, refrain from clicking those links from my citation story. This group is pure and utter filth, worse than filth.

The Temple and its Cycle are touring America promoting Lucifer alongside some lame horror movie. Garbage and flies, you know. It is little wonder these pathetic beings seek to join the political fray. They are already come too late unless their true purpose is to clearly advertise what has been forging for decades.

America has fallen or is falling now. Our government, state and federal, our financial system, nearly the whole economy, our political parties, our military, and our buraeucracy is under the sway of Satanic control. It is, all of it, firmly under the power of a small oligarchy of very evil people who serve only themselves and the Devil. Larger society is besieged as well. The pop trash one listens to, the violent, thoughtless movies one sees, the mindless television drug one ingests are all in the service of darkness. Our wars are fought and contrived based on lies alone. What passes for education is largely mere systemic propaganda. Families are falling apart. The people are crude, rude, and at each other’s throats for no reason. Civilization teeters on the brink of annihilation, The individual body, a temple of the Lord, is disrespected, desecrated with blubber, tattoos, intoxication and all manner of uncleanliness. The mind is debased with willful idiocy.

I fear there is no reforming this too-far-gone system. The Faithful must free themselves from its Hellish shackles. They must resist until they are either delivered or they outlast the corruption and destruction. As they are faithful, so they should be free. Freedom starts with knowledge. Know that there is no hope within the camp of one’s enemies, only without. Leave the false god and its Dark Master behind. Be free. Be Faithful.

Google.

Cry Me To The Moon: Obama’s Weak, Insidious Gun Grab

06 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As predicted here President Obama yesterday rolled out his “common sense” gun control edict. Edict it was, without any representative pretense. I saw a teary-eyed man surrounded by myrmidons issue a royal proclamation. Since the earliest days of the Old Republic chief executives have crafted executive orders needed to carry out the laws enacted by Congress. But, then, there was a distinction. Laws were debated and passed by the legislature nominally accountable to the people. Presidents issued orders concerning either compliance with those laws or with the very few duties existing in Article Two of the Constitution.

Today Congress rams through secret spending boondoggles that no one has read and no one outside of Washington and New York needs or wants. Members of the House and Senate live in their own little world far removed from reality. The current crop of pitiful presidents, of whom Barry is merely the latest, fill in the governing gaps with a series of orders which are in effect law. As with the actual legislation from Congress the executive orders are occasionally reviewed by the corrupt, incompetent courts. More often than not the black-robed sorcerers give deference to the political branches by allowing these fascist decrees to stand.

The Constitution slowly rots under glass. The people slowly rot amid their televisions, sports, fast food, and disability applications. Nothing remains of the old America except for old John Wayne movies and the proliferation of private firearms. At any other time in history this latter relic would be of utmost concern to the hellish legions of political scum.

The Second Amendment has been firmly if inexplicably cemented into the legal and political fabric of the nation. And everyone is armed – heavily. Not that it really matters. The most heavily armed people in the world have proven themselves unwilling or incapable of using their vast potential to fight tyranny. Disarmament is the final plank of the Communist manifesto needed to complete the conquest of the United States. However, by dumbing themselves down and by being fervently preoccupied with perpetual nonsense the people have rendered obsolete this otherwise crucial step. It’s as bizarre as any plot from The Twilight Zone.

Bizarre too was Hussein Obama’s Tuesday performance. I’m confident Barry and his clan of leeches and roaches would love to confiscate all private arms. But, again, he doesn’t have to. The people obviously are madly in love with the government and are willing, nay demanding, of any manner of deprivation.

So it was that the Whitehouse debuted some of the weakest gun control every seen. It was introduced in as weak a fashion possible too.

160105122318-obama-crying-gun-executive-action-sot-00004809-large-169

Obama channeled his inner John Boo-Hoo Boenher while a host of unemployable sycophants looked on in vacuous approval. CNN.

All of this was scripted and predictable. A corrupt politician seizes on a non-issue (gun violence). Grown men and women who should otherwise be at work gather in solemn support. The political rodent cries about the deaths of a few children (tragic, yes) but his tears are hypocritical. The same man uses his military to murder other children while signing legislation funding an industry that murders a million more babies each year. The loyal opposition is neither. The comatose people remain unconcerned and uneducated.

And he cried. Tears. A man cried on television while breaking the law. Cried. George Washington never cried that we know of. Putin does not resort to tears. ISIS must have laughed at this pathetic spectacle. The delivery is one reason I say this program is weak. Another is the minimalist, chipping-away nature of the plan.

Some of Obama’s garbage may be dismissed by the courts or over-ridden by Congress. It all should be. It’s all unconstitutional and illegal. However, I imagine some will remain intact and what survives will serve as precedent and a building block for further incremental infringement. This is the insidious side of the fiat decree. What the rats cannot accomplish by a serious ban of guns they will attempt through a series of small reforms.

The Whitehouse claims: “President Obama has a responsibility to do everything in his power to reduce gun violence.” The Constitution gives the President no such power. No mind. This claim is a lie; none of Obama’s proposals will hinder violence – only freedom.

As part of the lie the President uses some numerical smoke and mirrors:

Gun Violence in America: By the Numbers

MORE THAN 4 MILLION
Number of American victims of assaults, robberies, and other crimes involving a gun in the last decade

MORE THAN 30,000
Number of gun deaths in America each year

MORE THAN 20,000
Number of children under 18 killed by firearms over the last decade

MORE THAN 20,000
Number of Americans who commit suicide with a firearm each year

466
Number of law enforcement officers shot and killed by felons over the last decade

3
Number of days after which a gun dealer can sell a gun to an individual if a background check is not yet complete

         Whitehouse lies.

So, based on these one-sided figures, Emperor Obama is taking action! Notice the use of numbers over a decade rather than by the year? Notice the lack of data on lives saved by guns? It’s over a million a year or 10 million each decade. These numbers are equivalent to the number of children killed in abortion clinics or the number of violent jihadis Obama would like to import. Of course presenting all sides of the equation wouldn’t help the agenda. All lies, remember, in order to curtail freedom. Gun control does nothing to stop gun crimes. The government wants more crime so as to justify its continued existence.

If they wanted less crime and less violence they would concentrate on enforcing laws against real crimes (murder, rape, etc.) and not on plants, tax form irregularities and speed limits. They would stop stirring up terrorists only to ship as many as possible to America. They would stop murdering babies. That’s not the plan. The plan is to further burden innocent people.

Here’s how it may work out for us. Currently all gun sales by federally licensed dealers are subject to regulation and background checks. All of this violates the Second Amendment but more on that another day. Private gun sales are subject to nothing. That’s about to change. Obama is intent on unilaterally redefining what or who constitutes a dealer requiring a license and copious red tape. Want to sell or give a gun to your son, friend, or the dude on Craigslist? Just one gun? Congratulations! You are now a gun dealer! Ready your checkbook. The licensing process ain’t cheap.

Obama will also dramatically expand the ranks of those prohibited from owning guns via two steps. First, Obama and his cronies will order doctors to violate federal law (HIPPA) by reporting “mentally ill” patients to the FBI. The definition of mental illness will be left to unelected and unaccountable beaurocrats. Abuse will be rank. The FBI and the ATF will swoop in to seize weapons from those deemed mentally defective.

Certain Social Security recipients will also be stripped of their rights and their guns. The theory is that those deemed incapable of making certain financial decisions should also be deemed too dangerous to own guns. Who does the deeming and under what circumstances remains to be seen. This will address the epidemic of nursing home shootings you’ve heard nothing about.

Current illegal law restricts those convicted of felonies or adjudicated by a court to be psychotic. These restrictions are based on laws passed by the legislature not by one sick, crying man’s order. I say they are illegal because they are. They came about in the 20th Century in violation of the Second Amendment. If someone is so dangerous due to illness, defect, or criminal predilection, then they should be locked away somewhere. If released into free society, they should be free.

As problematic as the current law is at least it was passed through the legal process. It also requires Due Process. A felon must be convicted. The deranged must be legally declared so. It requires a trial or a hearing. It depends on legal representation, confrontation of witnesses, evidence, and an appeals process. Law and order stuff. The coming program will be based on whim.

Some pencil pusher will decide who is unfit to bear arms based on whatever factors the pusher sees as appropriate. Stormtroopers will be dispatched to forcibly disarm the victims or kill them if they “resist.” Should a victim survive it will be incumbent upon him to appeal the beaurocrat’s decision. He will bear all the costs and burdens of proof in this uphill battle. He, presumed innocent until proven guilty, will have to prove his innocence to a degenerate system.

This will all start small and slow. Tyranny usually does so begin. Some provisions may fall in court. However, if these reforms are tolerated, more and more will follow. Beaurocratic expansion is a constant.

Will this be tolerated? The NRA and the State of Texas have already murmured against the plan. Yet, I suspect the majority of our citizens will do nothing because they know nothing. Legal reality interferes with the fun of reality television and other trappings of modern stupidity.

The government and political establishment are counting on you to be complacent. The control freaks on the left will expect your appreciation for being shielded from nothing. The charlatans on the right will expect your votes so they can “fix” things. If placated, both will get what they want and collectively do nothing except more of the same.

A brave few will resist. A few more will cheer what they wrongly perceive as protection from the violent. Most will remain blissfully ignorant. Where do you fall?

New Year, Same Government

01 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Alabama and Clemson are on a collision course for the College Football Championship. That’s good. The administration is on a collision course with the Second Amendment. That’s bad. Sorry, no Archie Campbell funnies to follow.

Hussein Obama has a list of new years resolutions at the top of which is banning guns. He can’t do it outright: the law and 100 million armed Americans are against him. But he will try to sneak in a few executive orders in an attempt to abridge your rights.

His efforts, coming next week, are aimed at closing loopholes (aka the law) by placing more innocent people under the government’s microscope. The government is nothing more than a giant series of lies.

Hussein Obama claims he wants to combat gun violence, that he will preserve the right to bear arms while keeping arms out of the hands of an “irresponsible, dangerous few.” Lies. Smoke and mirrors. He wants more state control over guns, your life and everything else.

If he wanted to stop the irresponsible and dangerous he would disband the standing army and disarm federal agents. Better yet he would start to dismantle the government entirely. It serves no honest, legitimate purpose. If he wanted to combat gun violence he would try to get more people to carry guns in more places. An armed society is more polite and far safer than the alternative.

The people are justifiably concerned about terrorists. If Obama cared he would round up and deport, imprison or execute the terrorists. He dies not care. At all. He wants more jihadi savages in America so he will import more, many more.

He wants more foreigners period. He wants more visas for them and less jobs for you – no jobs, really.

If the foreigners can’t come here, then he will ship the jobs and money to them, i.e. ObamaTrade.

And, what will the beloved Republicans do about all this? Not nothing. No. They will go right along with the plan. Paul “Blackbeard” Ryan and company have consistently supported Obama’s health care tax, his budgets, his wars, his spying, his job-destroying trade programs, his immigrant, terrorism invasion, and anything else he wants. It is what they want. More power, less freedom.

The gun rules and the visa swarm may end up in court. The black-robed Sayers will be thrilled to have something to do. The problem is that, as with any bi-polar person or group, there’s just no telling what they will do once the mess hits the bench.

No money, no jobs, no guns, no liberty: Happy new year from your psychotic friends in D.C.

200xNxguncontrol.jpg.pagespeed.ic.XNtXdANPK7

Yep.

The Guns of Obama

29 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on The Guns of Obama

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A song:

Now they’re tryin to take my guns away;
And that would be just fine.
If you take em away from the criminals first,
I’ll gladly give ya mine.

Charlie Daniels, A Few More Rednecks, 1989

An analogy:

A house is burning down. The occupants are concerned for their safety, their lives. Their leader, the owner of the house, is oblivious to the conflagration. Suddenly, as the flames reach new heights of intensity, he stops and decries a picture which hangs crooked upon the wall. He doesn’t fix it. He just lectures the terrified people about the picture – while the house burns. This story can’t end well.

As for Daniels’s lyrics, even if government were included among the criminals, I would still require serious consideration before going along with his premise. However, his melodious intent is clear. First things first. Deal with the problems – the trouble-makers – before bothering the civil and the decent.

The analogized burning house is America. She is besieged by a host of problems – abortion, terrorism, debt, government tyranny – which may well reduce her to smouldering ruins. The fool fixated on the small issue while ignoring the rest is dear leader Obama.

In his twisted thinking, because the economy has not already collapsed, there is no trouble brewing. Just because angry primitives haven’t killed every American yet doesn’t mean we could not do without a few more, or many more, of them amongst us. No thought needs be given to a million babies brutally murdered every year by a government-funded industry of blood.

The problem he sees, his crooked picture on the wall, is us. We, the people, and our arms are his concern. The fact of the purely anecdotal nature of the crookedness is no deterrent. An isolated incident here and there is all the evidence the lackadaisical dictator needs.

In Colorado a deranged, bearded, babbling wild man killed three people at a Planned Parenthood killing clinic. No estimate is provided as to how many unborn (and perhaps birthed) children have met a grizzly fate there. No mention of the failed mental health system and its relationship (or lack thereof) with demented, cabin-dwelling nut jobs. ISIS? Who’s that? The problem Obama sees is guns, guns in our hands. All of us. Even that majority of us who do not drift the countryside shooting as we mutter. Especially us, for the armed and the sane are a constant threat to the trivially obsessed and the criminally governing.

After the shooting Obama declared, “enough is enough.”

Reacting to the shooting, Obama made an impassioned call for tighter controls on military-style weapons.

“This is not normal. We can’t let it become normal,” a frustrated Obama said.

“If we truly care about this … then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them.”

He and I would be in agreement if by “people who have no business” he meant the mentally ill and the potentially dangerous. He doesn’t. He means me … and you. Agree we do not.

Cartoon-Gun-Control-for-Dummies-600

Google.

The killing in Colorado was terrible. All of it, not just the loss of lives and the injuries. That the shooter’s illness went untreated amidst the world of modern medicine and resources was terrible. That a place of such evil exists to give him demented focus is terrible. The President’s political exploitation is terrible.

A million dead babies a year is not hyperbole; it is a tragic fact. More tragic is that most abortions are committed for sake of convenience. All the while, a million American families wish they had a baby to adopt.

Obama and his party enjoy a cozy relationship with the industry. The loyal opposition, the gutless Republicans, do nothing. The people largely live on unconcerned.

In such circumstances it is often the crazy who alone will act. Being crazy their attempts usually miss the mark, they are self-defeating. Miguel de Cervantes’s titular Don Quixote was a madman, albeit heroic. His understanding of his wooden monsters was askew but, nevertheless, he attacked with righteous zeal. His loyal Sancho looked on. Few others took any notice of his quest or any reason (real or fanciful) behind it. So it is in America.

All the West is under invasion by jihadis. Their crimes Obama glosses over. He tells us it is only American to give them aid and comfort, to bring them home. Suicide has never been a lauded American trait.

Ever a politician and a contradiction Obama tells us, on the one hand, we must suffer more and more unvetted “refugees.” Just because. Self-presevation against their terrorist elements does not stem the flow. However, when a lunatic invades Obama’s sanctuary, jumps the Whitehouse fence, Obama permits his legion of guards and attack dogs to protect him. Live as he says, not as he lives.

For the liberal left the root of any problem is our guns. Crime, our guns. Terrorism, our guns. Our guns, our guns. The useless “conservatives” only maintain nominal opposition as it provides them an excuse to hold power. Otherwise, as with most things, they really don’t care.

Don-Quixote-Windmill

Google.

The good news for the free is the fact of the guns themselves. Of old rifles and shotguns were the province of white men in the country. Now everyone is armed. Blacks, whites, women, men, city folks, bumpkins – everyone sees the value of prepared defense. For all the clamour of the hand-wringing left, even the law has settled behind the people. And, there are just too many of us now. They, unless they would risk a real war, have lost this one. For now, at least, we have beaten this windbag’s windmill.

Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

01 Sunday Nov 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Freedom: Waiving or Waving?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Living in Georgia and having practiced law here a while I know something more about the legal and political environment of the State. In general, it is a broken mess. Yet, every once in a while, something good emerges from the murk of Peach State mediocrity. Recently, a federal judge held Georgia’s unconstitutional garnishment statute a violation of due process. Now, the State Supreme Court has aimed the same barrels at Georgia’s DUI law.

DUI laws, like drug laws (and most laws), are a failure. They do not deter dangerous driving. The continually high numbers of DUI arrests attest to this fact. The true intent should be to punish or prevent harm to the innocent. Other, ancient laws, grounded in Natural Law, can already do that.

The real purposes of modern DUI laws are three-fold:

One, they generate revenue for the useless government.

Two, they allow that government a degree of control over the people. In a free society it should be the other way around.

Third, these laws placate the ignorant, the state-worshipping, and those aggrieved few desperate for corrective action.

Failure aside, some hold dear to DUI enforcement (and not just the MADD moms).  Part of this is reasonable.  Most people drive and are potentially at risk of encountering an intoxicated motorist. Drunk drivers can afflict harm or death on others which is a bad thing. Other crimes are far worse but are much harder to understand or relate to – treason, currency debasement, suicidal immigration, toxic foreign policy, etc. Those evils are not quite so “in your face.” Still, if any crime is to be prosecuted, the enforcement must be carried out with respect for natural rights. The balancing is precarious but necessary if arbitrary tyranny is not a thing desired.

Georgia law states that by possessing a driver’s license and operating an automobile one automatically and impliedly consents to roadside sobriety and other tests in the case of a suspected DUI. An officer will read a driver an implied consent warning (they all carry little script cards) which, ultimately, gives the driver two choices. One, consent and forgo the rights against unwarranted searches and against self-incrimination. Two, refuse and suffer a suspension of the driver’s license – to the detriment of the right to freely travel.

The right to travel being universal, no state should issue permits for the same. States should also never place a person in a position of choosing which of his freedoms to sacrifice for the expediency of the government. There are proper investigative methods to solve crimes but usually the lazy state is dependent on the suspect’s cooperation or acquiescence. A man from a large metro-Atlanta county put an unusual spin on these concepts as part of his DUI defense.

John Williams was stopped in Gwinnett County for suspicion of driving under the influence. The officer read Williams his consent warning. Williams allegedly consented to a blood test which showed he was, in fact, legally intoxicated. The test would be the State’s primary evidence. Accordingly, Williams filed a motion to suppress the test results. He argued he was too intoxicated at the time, as demonstrated by the test results, to give his consent knowingly. “The defendant wasn’t actually capable of an informed waiver of his constitutional rights,” William’s attorney argued.

The trial court denied the motion but the Supreme Court held such argument must be considered given the importance of a suspect’s intelligent interaction with the legal system.

Catch twenty-two! Prosecutors are now in the position of arguing a DUI defendant was sober – sober enough to waive his critical Constitutional rights in a situation with serious (jail) consequences. If a man is so sober concerning important legal decisions why would he not also be sober enough to operate an automobile?

Caution Sign Isolated On White - Political Corruption Ahead

Thinkstock, Getty Images.

As a freedom advocate I do not hold much hope this ruling will have any lasting effects.  Trial judges and prosecutors could question the State’s witness as to whether he was satisfied, at the time, the defendant truly understood what he was doing. The General Assembly, ever eager to maintain control over its minions while providing them with the appearance of safety, could similarly change the wording of the implied consent warning.

I’ve seen such catches fall out in the government’s favor before.  I’ve heard a state psychologist testify a defendant was utterly insane.  So crazed he was a threat to society and himself and, thus, should be held without bond. So psychotic he lives in his own world, detached from ours. But, just for a brief second, while allegedly committing a crime, he knew and understood what he was doing. This happens all the time in America, a place from which honest reasoning has departed.

If the government maintains its war on intoxicated drivers (and it will), then it should rely on independently gathered evidence – evidence which does not involve the suspect’s compromised cooperation. Even better the state could concern itself with real crimes and the victims thereof.  If a drunk driver causes property damage or physical harm to another, there are many ways to address the malfeasance. Best of all, government being as failed as any of its laws, it could merely go away.

The best scenario will not happen anytime soon. Government’s hate to admit their failure just as much as they hate you and your rights.

Murder Inequality

04 Sunday Oct 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Murder Inequality

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are all murders equal?  The short answer is, “yes.”  All human killing in general is bad enough.  Premeditated and unjustifiable killing is utterly deplorable whenever and wherever it happens.  Most people understand the concept.  Most, that is, except for the rodent political class.

The shooter in the Oregon community college rampage last week, Christopher Harper Mercer (an anti-Christian lunatic and loser), had barely been identified before President Obama embarked on a twelve-minute oration as much against American guns laws as against the tragedy itself:

“I would ask the American people to think about how they can get our government to change these laws and to save lives, and to let young people grow up. That will require a change of politics on this issue,” he said. “If you think this is a problem then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views.”

Shut up, Barry.  Pay attention to the beam in your eye first.  How about first condemning your hospital bombing in Kundez, Afghanistan this weekend.  You know, the bombing so many are saying amounts to a war crime.

Nineteen are dead and 37 or more injured in the bombing (don’t forget the Afghan war ended last year…) and all the Whitehouse can do is issue a short statement:  “‘The Department of Defense has launched a full investigation, and we will await the results of that inquiry before making a definitive judgment as to the circumstances of this tragedy,’ the President said.”

When it is politically expedient to exploit a domestic terror the political class immediately demands action.  However, when they are responsible for the deaths, they want to wait before making any judgments.  When some idiot murders another, they want to take away all of our guns.  When they are the idiots who murder others, it’s just collateral damage.  “Oops!  Sorry we burned your kids alive.  Won’t happen again.”

Again, most people see this glaring difference and inequity.  Again, the pols just can’t.  Their cover-up artists in the popular press can’t either.  The best CNN can do combining the issues of gun violence and war/terrorism is to release a graph showing a disparity between the number of Americans killed between 2001 and 2013 by guns (406,496) and by terrorism (3,380).  Their slant is obviously towards the Obama-ite view of changing gun laws and further restricting the freedoms of normal Americans.

Four hundred thousand deaths (taking their numbers for granted) in twelve years is terrible – that’s roughly 33,333 deaths per year.  But, statistically speaking and with an eye towards liberty, what about the net effect?  The government criminals and their media lackeys never talk about lives saved by guns.  In America every year that number approaches somewhere close to 2.5 Million.  That’s 30 Million lives saved by guns over twelve years!  That’s 75 times as many lives saved as lost due to firearms.

Little of this matters to those degenerates who bomb hospitals full of helpless people.  The rest of us are painfully aware that (although imperfect) an armed society is much safer than the alternative (see also the experiences of disarmed citizens faced with the likes of Hitler and Stalin).  Least safe of all is an armed government.  Yes, Barry, we need policy changes.  We need common sense government control.  Many lives depend on it.

Gunning For Votes: A Look At Candidate Positions On The Second Amendment

20 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last week Donald Trump added a white paper to his presidential election campaign materials: PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.  Until then The Donald had been a one note Donny – his note was all immigration reform.  I decided to make a professional examination of his paper.  Then I decided to review the positions of major candidates from all parties on the subject of the Second Amendment.  Not all of them, of course; there is something like 170 Republicans seeking the party’s nomination.  I don’t have that kind of time.  Trump gets the spotlight.  Not because he’s Trump but because he published a white paper.

Now, this examination draws together two concepts which, for me, are diametrically opposed: I love and cherish firearms rights and all individual freedom; I detest electoral politics and government in general.  Herein, though, I attempt to keep a neutral attitude towards the subject.  You will soon realize my failure.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).  I have expounded, in great detail, on the Second Amendment.  While a part of the Federal Constitution, establishing another government to plague mankind, the Second Amendment is the part that embodies the spirit of natural self-preservation, a branch of Natural Law.  It embodies protecting oneself from small-scale, “ordinary” predation as well as from the tyranny brought about by politics.

Politics involves the people setting themselves up for disaster one election at a time.  It’s usually a contest to see who is the biggest and worst rat – the rats usually win.  “The most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”  J.R.R. Tolkien, 1943 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Let’s get started with…

The Republican Field

Donald Trump

Trump begins his dissertation: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”  He soon forgets the infringement and the period and explains why some abridgment is okay.

trump

donaldjtrump.com.

Well, he doesn’t throw The 2A under the bus immediately:

The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

That’s his way of kinda sorta acknowledging Natural Law.  I might add, here, that it’s not just about self-defense.  It’s also about tyranny prevention and resolution – through armed and extreme measures if necessary.  The Founding Father knew about that too; The Supreme Court wouldn’t exist without it either.

Trump then moves on to enforcing “the laws on the books.”  That’s great so long as those laws are valid – most are not.  “We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals,” Trump says.  He gives examples of local violent crimes.  The man is not running for any local office but for President of the United States.  There are only two (potentially) violent federal crimes mentioned in that Constitution nobody reads: piracy and treason.  And, those are almost exclusively committed (alone with counterfeiting), these days, by the federal government itself.

States and localities should enforce laws that prevent violence against the innocent or which punish such violence.  My view is if a man commits a violent crime, then he should be prevented from further interaction with society, either via a prison sentence or a well placed shot.  This approach would necessarily remove him from the pool of persons capable of bearing arms.  Otherwise, the issue of crime is as completely removed from the Second Amendment discussion as violent crimes are removed from federal jurisdiction.

Speaking of well placed shots … Trump advocates self-defense.  That’s good!  He boasts, “that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well.”  That’s bad!  Who needs a “permit” from anyone (least of all from political and bureaucratic rodentia) to exercise a right??  Free people must be free to arm themselves if they like, without any government involvement – infringement if you will.

Trump wants to fix our broken mental health system.  Again, that’s great.  It’s also not part of his desired employment as set forth in Article Two of the Constitution (I keep coming back to that thing…).  I assume he means using his personal financial and celebrity status to help the mentally ill.  For that I commend him.  Otherwise, like crime mental health is irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

He gets back to guns: “Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”  By itself this is his piece de resistance! However, he immediately murkifies the white right out of his paper by praising federal background checks (infringement) and by advocating a national carry permit (we have that now, it’s called the Second Amendment).  He also says driving a car is a privilege, not a right but that is another can of white papers.

The Donald ends by praising the military (yes, he’s running as a Republican) and proclaiming the rights of servicemen to carry arms.  I wonder if he caught the word “militia” in the text of The 2A?  The militia is the people. The people have the right to arms.  Trump’s military is the national standing army, known bane of freedom and limited to a two-year duration by that Constitution (am I dreaming all this????).

If pressed I don’t think trump would stand he forceful claim about people owning the firearm of their choice.  Suppose my choice is belt-fed and electrically operated.  Who Donald permit that or would he fire me? I don’t care to find out.

Carly Fiorina

Carly doesn’t have a white paper though she has much better looks that Trump (sure he would agree).  Her Second Amendment views may be found on her website, including a video from Fox News!

She notes that her husband has a government permission slip to carry a gun and she thinks that is fine and Constitutional.  I don’t think she’s read the document nor does she grasp the concept of a right.

Rand Paul

Dr. Paul is the son of Dr. Ron Paul, the man who should be President now. Outside of the Libertarians (see below), Rand has the best stance of The 2A.

As President, I vow to uphold our entire Bill of Rights, but specifically our right to bear arms.

Those who support the second amendment must also vehemently protect the Fourth Amendment. If we are not free from unreasonable and warrantless searches, no one’s guns are safe.

I will not support any proposed gun control law which would limit the right to gun ownership by those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens.

In the White House, I will remain vigilant in the fight against infringements on our Second Amendment rights.

Excellent!  However, to be true to his word, Rand would have to seek to repeal numerous federal laws in place now (NFA, ATF, 1986 “tax” act, etc.).  He’s also right about protecting rights in tandem.  That’s really the only valid reason to have a government.  He must also know that, sadly, every government in human history has immediately departed from this objective.  This trend will not abate anytime soon, Rand or no.

Jeb Bush

Yeah.  Another Bush.  Bush number three.  Not to worry, there’s a Clinton down below (not like that, Bill…).

I could not find an issue statement from George…er…Jeb’s website.  I did find an interesting exchange between the former governor and Stephen Colbert on The Late Show:

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t that also be applied national…

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily…There’s a 10th amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a 10th amendment that says powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

Once again the comedian gets it right, the politician wrong.  Bush is aware of the tenth but not the second? Firearms and defense are universal rights not just national rights.  The right to self-preservation exists even in the absence of any government (imagine that for a minute..aaahh).  Bush didn’t even get number 10 quite right; “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.”  Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1791)(entirety).

This means the federal government is strictly limited to those very few powers specifically written in the Constitution.  The States have some power outside the scope of the federal leviathan – concerning violent crime for example.  And, The People themselves retain political power.  By the way, government is a mix of powers and rights. The body politic is empowered only insofar as it may preserve the rights of the individual.  None of this power, federal, state or personal may (legitimately) infringe the freedoms of the people.  Illegitimately, it happens all the time.  Use your personal power – save us from another Bush presidency.

The Democrats

The days of Zell Miller and Sam Nunn being behind us, many write off the donkey party as wholly anti-gun.  Anti-freedom is more accurate.  They are generally a mirrored image of their anti-freedom elephant counterparts. Losing my objectivity, yes.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton.  Yes, one married to that other Clinton.  Like so many leftists, Hillary couches firearms issues in backwards thinking and words.  To her guns in private hands are bad and result in bad things.  Instead of “firearms rights” she talks about “gun violence prevention.”

“I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”  Hillary, August 27, 2015.  Part of her something would be reinstating the assault weapons ban.  That would be infringement as prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Like Hillary I too deplore violence.  That’s why I support a ban on government.

Bernie Sanders

Bernie’s list of issues is devoid of anything for or against the Second Amendment.  I glanced over it and it rather reminded me of Karl Marx, maybe with a friendly Vermont bent.  Moving on…

Joe Biden

Crazy Joe is apparently just about to get into the race.  He has no papers or issue statements yet.  However, some of his positions on guns may be found here and here.  Mind you, should he enter the race, his positions are subject to magically change depending on who he’s talking to.  Buyer beware.

Despite having voted against gun rights in the past, at a press conference in 2013 Biden enthusiastically demonstrated his prize, imaginary shotgun for reporters.  Trump has a point about mental illness.

Libertarians

Americans love their “two-party” system despite its none-existence.  We all tend to forget about the lovable, pot-loving Libertarians.  In addition to legalizing (decriminalizing, geesh) whacky tobacky, the LP is pretty decent on gun rights as far as it goes…

Darryl Perry

Darryl Perry is running for President.  He has a list of issues in his platform among which is “Self Defense.”  “As a Life Member of the Second Amendment Foundation, I support the right to privately own and possess firearms or any other weapon deemed appropriate for self-defense.”  Perry.

Deemed appropriate by whom, Mr. Perry?  “Deemed appropriate” sounds like the talk of the permit set.  What about offensive weapons designed to rid the people of a tyrant.  Ah.  That would go against the LP’s pledge, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

That’s fine and dandy during civilized times.  But, suppose there’s a government on the loose?  What then?  Defense?  Defense against government is best accomplished by government prevention, which may require a little initiation of force – see the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, New Hampshire Constitution, etc.

Gary Johnson

Mr. Johnson was the LP candidate during the 2012 election.  No word on whether he’s in for this bout.  Nonetheless I have included his position.

“I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.” Johnson, April 20, 2011, Slate Magazine.  If he means firearms for the people, then that’s the best Second Amendment support statement of the 21st Century.

The only way to improve on a position like that is to declare there should be no government.  None.  But that would deprive us of white paper analysis and fun articles like this one.  Cheers!

***Note*** Nothing in the preceding article should be construed in any way as supporting any candidate for any office.  Perrin Lovett does not support government (outside of theoretical discussion and fun poking).

Right of Rebellion

25 Sunday Jan 2015

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I have an affection for New Hampshire.  The air is clean.  The people are friendly.  They have mountains and beaches relatively close together.  There’s no income tax.  It’s close to Boston.  It’s far enough away from Boston.  The Granite State is just a beautiful place and bears a beautiful motto – Live Free or Die.

The State Constitution is also unique among written political charters.  While generally resembling other such State documents as well as that of the United States this New England version has a stark difference.  It’s something I am not aware of, in writing, anywhere else in the world.  It contains a “Right of Revolution,” which I, here, call a Right of Rebellion (semantics).

“Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”  N. H. Const., Sect. I, Art 10 (entirety, as amended, 2007).

old_man

(The Old Man of the Mountain [NH natural wonder], Google Images)

Re-read the above and let the meaning sink in.  The free people not only have a natural right but a duty to reform a corrupted government.  When all other usual and peaceful methods of redress fail, the people are authorized to resist evil.  Otherwise the people become subjects – slaves.  That’s what “slavish” means: “of or characteristic of a slave; especially : basely or abjectly servile…”  Webster’s English Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com.

Further, such acquiescence is “absurd,” being illogical and futile.  This is the literary embodiment of that spirit which lead early Americans to cast off the yoke of King George III.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”  U.S. Declaration of Independence, Para. 1, July 4, 1776.

The Declaration proceeds with a long list of oppressive grievances committed by the King. A recount of usual redress follows: “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Then, the Declaration: “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved…”

Mind you, this is the spirit of the former America.  Today such sentiment is almost sacrosanct.  Look into the heart of nearly any purported American and one finds either a zealous appreciation for total government or, at the least, a complete resolve to do nothing conducive to the ends of liberty.  Worse than the loss of freedom in Columbia is the veneration of the forces which have brought forth the doom of tyranny.  There exists in America today a cult of statism.

The New Hampshire Constitution provides an outline for the heretics who would still be free.  The entire document is worth reviewing – please click here and read.

Article one artfully defines the sole legitimate reason for government: “All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.”

Article two evokes the Natural Law: “All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. ”  Made-man law is or is supposed to be an expression of the natural law. David Miller, et al., eds, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of political Thought (Oxford 1987).

Plato asserted that freedom from and doubt of human law is the “indispensable” beginning of the search for natural law.  Strauss, Natural Right and History, pg. 84, U. Chicago Press, 1953.

St. Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine posit that any law “which is not just seems to be no law at all.  Hence a law has as much force as it has justice.”  St. Thomas, Treatise on Law, R.J. Henle, S.J., editor, pg. 287, U. Notre Dame Press, 1993.  St. Thomas goes on to say that a civil or earthly law with conflicts with natural law is a perversion rather than a law.  Again, once an entire government loses its claim to justice the people have a duty to reform or disband said non-government.

Article two-a, mimics the Second Amendment and puts teeth behind the other declarations: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”  New Hampshire, with some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation, has an on-again, off-again habit of allowing carry even inside the State Capital building.  N.H. lawmakers allow concealed weapons in House chambers, Boston Globe, Jan. 7, 2015.  Note that NH consistently ranks as one of the safest, crime free states in the Union.  101 Reasons to Move to New Hampshire, Free State Project.

Those aiming to reform government or create anew must be able and willing to forcefully defend their cause.

The question arises as to when, exactly, does new for such cause becomes necessary and proper.  People acting out individually whenever they are personally slighted does not seem just cause.  Such action would inevitably lead to anarchy in the lowest sense of the word.

Article three notes, to this end: “When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.”  However, Article four affirms that “Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them.”

So, while individuals may not personally rebel without great need, they must retain the means to do so should collective need present itself.

How do or how will we know when this time comes?  I do not pretend to be an expert nor arbiter of this process.  For now I offer only mental food for thought.  I do, however, reserve the right to expand on this theme in the future.

PS: the forgoing is not a paid endorsement of New Hampshire.

The Second Amendment: English Common Law Pre-History

02 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In my last column in this series I ended by reviewing some of the ancient British customs regarding arms and defense.  This article concerns those more readily available but still usually uncited English legal traditions dating to several hundred years before the American Revolution.  Again, as with purely ancient intellectuals, those who preserved and lived this period of history regarded the rights of defense, self-preservation, and, necessarily, arms to be the stuff of natural law.  They regarded these rights as to defense from criminals, defense against foreign threats, and, particularly, as to thwarting domestic tyranny.

This common law tradition was already set in writing in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries with the Assize of Arms (1181) and the Magna Carta (Great Charter, 1215).  In 1285 the Statute of Winchester mandates that all citizens provide arms, according to their respective abilities, for militia usage.  Through this period and until the seventeenth century, England had little in the way of a professional military or police force.  Citizens were expected to do their part in order to fulfill both roles.  This meant that the people were expected (required even) to keep and, at times, bears their own arms. 

Two calamitous events during the seventeenth century dramatically effected the legal tradition: the Civil War of 1642 and the Glorious Revolution in 1688.  While the former is often painted as a power struggle and the latter a religious conflict, both were concerned foremost with who would control the power of the Crown.  In 1689, these and other events, lead to the English Bill of Rights.  The Bill was fully known as “An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown;” in light of the recent religious (power) struggles it was riddled with references to Protestants and Catholics, which I will disregard here as unnecessary.

Very similar in nature to the American Declaration of Independence, the Bill lists a litany of charges against the late King James, II.  Among these were the following: “[R]aising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;” and “[C]ausing several good subjects … to be disarmed … contrary to law.”

Accordingly, the Lords assembled at Westminster declared certain rights and liberties as inviolable.  Two of these addressed the above problems: “That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;” and “That the subjects … may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 

English_Bill_of_Rights_of_1689_(middle)

(English Bill of Rights.  Google.)

The Reader will recall that standing armies were a feared tool of tyranny during and after the American Revolution and also as far back as the days of the Roman Republic.  The presumed method for national defense (against all agents of evil) was a heavily armed citizenry which could assemble as needed in the form of a militia.  The seventeenth century also saw increased professionalism and modernization within the English militia.  This, in turn, partly gave way to the ensuing establishment of a permanent “Redcoat” army as the Kingdom gradually assumed the role of a major world Empire.

As we well know, part of that Empire was based here, in North America, in the territory which eventually became the United States.  Those earliest parts (colonies) were first established at Jamestown in 1607 and at Plymouth in 1620.  These had been preceded by the lost/abandoned colonies of Popham (Maine) in 1607 and Roanoke in 1585. 

Jamestown was the site of numerous battles and all out wars fought between the English and the native indians (Chesapeake).  It was the birthplace of the modern state of Virginia.  In 1691 Plymouth Colony merged with The Massachusetts Bay Colony in what is now modern Massachusetts, all being part of the greater Dominion of New England. 

Plymouth, from the very start was a model citizen militia society.  While a few students today are still aware of the Pilgrims and their Atlantic crossing aboard the Mayflower, fewer still are knowledgable as to the martial force necessary to carve out the new world.  The Mayflower’s first stop was at Provincetown Harbor in November of 1620.  Desiring a better location, and to take advantage of the hospitable New England winter, they later removed to Plymouth at the end of December.  Most remained aboard ship while a team of men worked during the day to raise a village from the ground.  Twenty armed men were left ashore every night to prevent marauding.  These men were average citizens who provided their own weapons; 911 was not an available option.

Early relations with the local indians were mixed at best.  As more and more colonists arrived the indians perceived the impending loss of their lands and many became hostile.  Myles Standish was a trained military officer and was placed in charge of security in the new colony.  Many view him as somewhat of a hot head.  At any rate he was forced to organize militias from among Englishmen in order to repel attacks by natives.  “Major” wars erupted in 1637 and 1675.  Each time the militia was sent forth to battle, not any group of regular troops.  It was by the force of common people bearing arms that America was crafted from the central-eastern part of the continent. 

militia

(Early Militia.  Google.)

Regular military units were called in during the next century first to assist and bolster the militias against common enemies (the French) and, later, to do battle with the militia.  This latter action contributed greatly to the Founders’ desire for a continued militia force instead of a full-time army in young America.  The early Americans were also governed in their views by the pre-existing English law and several legal commentators.

Perhaps the greatest commentator of his time regarding natural defense, along with natural law and the civil laws of England in general was Sir. William Blackstone (1723 -1780).  Blackstone was an attorney and politician who published from 1765 – 1769 the Commentaries on the Laws of England, a classic still refered to and cited by the law. 

Blackstone’s commentary on defense and other matters, generally, has resonance even today.  He famously wrote: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.”  In modern, fading America, the forces of anti-self-defense gun control stupidly prefer to disarm any and all persons, leaving them to suffer whatever fate criminals have in store for them, than to see a tiny minority of deranged persons have the possibility of committing crimes.  All the more stupid is the abundant evidence that such an approach leads only to suffering innocents concurrent with rampant criminal behavior.  Defiance of natural law is as successful as defiance of gravity or physics.

Chapter One, Book One of Blackstone’s treatise is entitled: On the ABSOLUTE Rights of Individuals (emphasis added).  The final absolute right of individuals set forth therein is “that of having arms for their defense.”  Blackstone called this right “a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

Blackstone went into further detail, describing the various remedies available to the people in cases of tyranny: first, use of the courts; second, petitions to the King and to Parliament; and finally, when all else fails, having and using their arms to repel tyranny.

At last we draw near to that time when the American colonists repelled the tyranny of the mother country.  In my next segment I will discuss the traditions regarding defense and arms in America before the introduction of the Second Amendment.  As with their ancient predecessors, these traditions echoe still in our modern world.