Welcome

Chapter 10-The 2nd Amendment

When it comes to the inalienable rights of American citizens, we normally do not try and establish proof that they have a particular right before they are allowed to exercise that right.  If a person is presumed, or has shown themselves, to be a citizen we should not mandate registration of that individual in order to use that right.  To do so, transforms a right into a privilege, and is an affront to the Constitution and to the citizen.  Do we require citizens to take a legalized reading class, and obtain a license before they are able to purchase a book?  Do we require a 12-hour class in organized religion, and then demand a $150.00 licensing fee in order to attend church?  Would we think it right and proper if we were required to take a speaking exam and to register all talks with the government before being allowed to offer an opinion?
   
Do the foregoing questions seem absurd and ridiculous? Of course they do.  Logically speaking, if something were a right then you would not be able to tax, license, register, or charge a fee to participate in that right.  As it makes no sense to require licensing, registration, or paying taxes and fees for any other right, why do we feel it is okay to do so with the right to keep and bare arms?  And as the Constitution does not require or give power to the government to restrict our rights, there is no requirement or power for them to do so with the Second amendment.
   
 ...The Constitution created a government established by “We the People.”  The government was granted power by the people.  If the people did not have the power to self defense it could not grant that power to the government to defend the nation.  If “We the People” are the creators of the government, and the government are authorized arms, then in order for the people to maintain their position, in relation to the government, they too must be armed.  If the servant government (servant of the people) has arms, and the people do not, then the roles are reversed for the people can not resist a government that has become tyrannical.
   
This same logic applies to self defense.  If the law abiding citizen does not have the means to resist a lawless adversary, then the adversary becomes the law.  Our Congress has formally passed an “assault weapon” ban.  The stated goal was to remove the arms used by gangs, drug smugglers, and extremists.  How many of us really believe that anyone in any of the aforementioned groups, who owned an “assault weapon”, would get rid of those weapons, just because the Congress passed a law?  However, many law abiding citizens did, in fact, give up their arms so as to remain “law abiding”.  The end result is no change for the criminal element and a disarming of the citizen.  This has happened, without exception, with EVERY gun law passed by Congress.  In this regard, every gun law, by definition, aids the criminal and penalizes the law abiding citizen.