Judged by 12 or Carried by 6
January 21st, 2009 by Terence Gillespie
Email this article to a friend
Would you comply with a law if it killed you?
Killed your family?
There are things worth dying for. Laws that end life for no reason are not among them.
The question means judged by a jury of 12 peers or carried by 6 pallbearers. It’s mostly asked in regards to your right to carry a gun, although the question could apply to more than gun control.
All people have the right to preserve their own lives. We’re born with that right. It’s not a privilege given to us by a country, county, city or territory. It’s a human right granted to us by our creator. Any man-made law that limits our ability to preserve and defend our own lives is immoral.
We may be penalized if we violate laws in our attempt to survive. However, we will have done nothing morally wrong. In extreme cases this could mean breaking the law just to survive long enough to suffer the penalty of laws whose compliance would have led to our death.
Absurd? Sure. Ridiculous ‘trade offs’ like this are all too normal as papa government pretends to ‘protect us’ from ourselves while obliterating our constitutional rights, one by one.
2nd Amendment Describes Personal Rights
“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.“
The 2nd amendment cannot and does not grant what they do not possess: The right of people to defend themselves. We were born with that right. The 2nd amendment only limits the government from infringing on the right of individual people to keep and bear arms. Any limitation on the ‘keeping’ or the ‘bearing’ of arms is an infringement and is unconstitutional.
The use for arms described in the 2nd amendment is the security of a free State (On the scale of the original 13 states). The amendment says that armed citizens would be necessary to maintain the security of a free state. The three most likely threats are from 1) The federal government, 2) Another state and 3) Another nation.
Of these three only the federal government has ever violated the security and freedom of an individual state. The most often quoted death toll of the American civil war is 620,000 dead as the federal government (The North) squelched the confederation of individual states (The South) as they attempted to exercise their right to seceed from the united states.
Armed citizens would need to become individual members of a Militia (A non-government army of ordinary people) to defend themselves. Such an army would need more than just guns to protect the freedom and security of their state. They would need to be well regulated, or, organized in some intelligent structure to use their arms to maximum advantage against their foe. Their foe would most likely be the one and only enemy that has ever violated the freedom and security of an individual state: The federal government.
Its Not About Duck Hunting
The 2nd amendment protects an individual persons right to use a gun to protect themselves from the federal government. Its not about duck hunting or even preventing a common criminal from robbing you. Those are fine uses of a gun though merely secondary in the eyes of the 2nd amendment.
All studies show that more gun ownership decreases crime. That’s because criminals already have them. The increase goes into the hands of the innocent. More innocent citizens with a gun prevents a criminal advantage. If you find that a sad commentary on human nature, I sympathize with you. It’s also sad we have to lock house doors and use master locks on gym lockers, but, there it is.
Anti-gun laws are not designed to protect you from criminals. They are meant to disarm you against government control or tyranny. Lawmakers don’t care that increased gun ownership leads to decreased crime. Fighting crime is not their goal. Our ability to defend ourselves against criminals is not important or relavent to them, either. They’re not threatened by criminals. They’re threatened by how ordinary citizens would react to tyranny. Judging by history, that is a wise assessment.
There’s a saying by Thomas Edison that “Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls, and looks like work.” For the sake of argument, when tyranny comes knocking at your door what uniform do you think it will be wearing?
Tags: constitution, defense, freedom, government, guns, Health, independence, Law, liberty, Personal, tyranny, US
[...] you have to purchase a permit to exercise a right you were born with is explained in my article, Judged by 12 or Carride by 6. But, California takes it a step further by denying the right to carry, [...]