Liberty, by Peter Mancus
96. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights is currently vehemently maligned by all champions of Statism, which is consistent with the previously described Tyrant's Pattern. This is because tyrant wannabees know that before they can impose their will they must first disarm citizens who can use privately owned firearms to oppose their will.
97. The Second Amendment codified the inalienable right of U.S. citizens to retain the pragmatic means to preserve Life and Liberty—privately owned, unregistered, arms.
98. A logical corollary to the right to Life and Liberty is the right to preserve Life and Liberty with all available means possible. One of the most effective means to preserve Life and Liberty is to use a firearm.
99. Lawful self-defense with a firearm is not barbaric, immoral, unchristian, unethical, unconstitutional. Lawful self-defense, by whatever means necessary to preserve life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, is not only moral, ethical, Christian, spiritual and constitutional, it is an essential duty a good citizen owes to him- or herself and to the community.
100. Martin Luther King, Jr. was an ordained minister and a champion of non-violence who implemented non-violent tactics developed by Ghandi. Today, it is fashionable, and politically correct, for champions of victim disarmament laws to quote Martin Luther King, Jr. on the virtues of non-violence and the horrors of violence breeding more violence. MLK, Jr., however, in his autobiography, wrote that after he received death threats and after his house was firebombed, he applied for a CCW [concealed carry weapon] permit. Civil authority denied him the right to defend his life, with a gun, against criminals. Think about this carefully. By applying for a CCW permit, MLK, Jr. telegraphed that he saw no conflict among being an ordained minister, being a champion of non-violence and carrying a gun for lawful self-defense. His application for a CCW permit implies that he was willing to use deadly force to preserve his right to Life and Liberty. Think also about the despicable callousness of the police chief who denied MLK, Jr. that chief's permission to use deadly force in a public place for MLK, Jr. to preserve his own life against a criminal.
101. Per the Bible, the historical Jesus Christ railed against bloodlust but never championed sword control. The Bible is replete with references that the Apostles carried swords, in plain view, in Jesus' presence and with the consent of the Roman authorities.
102. Jesus Christ did not rail against homicide. He railed against murder.
103. Even the Romans allowed their subjects, at the lowest rungs on the social-economic-political ladder, to be armed in public, as long as they pledged allegiance to Rome and refrained from overt acts against Roman control.
104. That Roman policy helped to bond newly conquered peoples to Roman control. Think about that. The Romans risked allowing newly conquered subjects to retain personal arms as long as they pledged allegiance to Rome and acted accordingly. By doing so, the Romans judged people by what they did, not by what they could do nor might do nor by what others did. By doing so, they sowed trust and always had at their disposal an enormous supply of manpower for their legions, made up of ordinary citizens familiar with arms. Reformulated, the Romans judged people by their behavior, not by what they believed, and not by a piece of paper issued by them. The Romans realized something that modern day Statist control freaks refuse to acknowledge: There is no correlation between paper [permits/licenses] and behavior, and, what is important, is a person's behavior, not whether they applied for and were issued a permit or a license to do something.
105. Statist control freaks are permit and license happy. The presence or absence of a government issued permit or license is not a reliable guarantee of behavior. A marriage license does not guarantee that the bearer of same will be a good spouse or a good parent or both. A driver's license does not guarantee that the bearer of same will drive safely. A building permit does not guarantee that the bearer of same will build a structure that is sound and complies with the building code. A hunting or fishing license does not guarantee that the bearer of same will comply with the game laws. A CCW permit does not guarantee that the bearer of same will not misuse a firearm. One can be an excellent spouse, parent, driver, and builder, etc., without having a piece of government issued paper. The key is behavior, not paper, stupid!
106. Government-required permits and licenses reduce rights to privileges. To permit is to control. To permit is to regulate. To regulate is to infringe. Permits and licenses are the anathema of Liberty.
107. Government uses money raised by government-issued paper to defray the cost of government, to increase the size of government, and to fund government employees' retirement plans. Liberty, however, should never be abused by control freaks who raise money in a manner that is Constitutionally infirmed.
108. The Second Amendment exists as a life preserver to preserve all rights when civil authority attempts to turn tyrannical. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting Bambi. It has everything to do with preserving Life, Liberty and the Constitutional Rule of Law.
109. In some ways, the Roman Empire system, which did not have an equivalent of the Second Amendment, was closer to what the Framers envisioned than what exists in the United States today, especially in such constitutionally-infirmed states as Kalifornia which inexplicably champions more victim disarmament laws.
110. Kalifornia has a draconian CCW [concealed carry weapon] permit law. This law is unconstitutional because it conflicts with the Second Amendment, which is part of the supreme law of the land. Per Kalifornia's CCW law, police chiefs and sheriffs are supposed to issue CCW permits to those citizens who can prove that "good cause" exist for those permits. But many police chiefs and sheriffs arbitrarily believe that "good cause" never exists to warrant them issuing a CCW permit.
111. Want "good cause" to justify issuing CCW permits? Consider the following:
- Do criminals obey the law?
- Can civil authority control criminals?
- How good is civil authority's track record in controlling criminals?
- Do cops have a legal duty to protect you?
- Can cops protect you?
- Since cops cannot protect you, is it prudent to do nothing to protect yourself?
- If cops and you will not protect you, are you just prey?
- Is anyone counting on your paycheck? What about them?
- Are you comforted by the fact that a cop will draw a chalk line around your body?
- Do cops circulate in public without firearms? Even when off duty, in civilian dress?
- Is a quarter in a pay phone for a 911 call a smart investment? A realistic first line of defense of your person and property?
- What if there is no pay phone available? Will the assailant cooperate and let you get to the phone? Deposit a quarter? Talk to a dispatcher? And wait for the cops to arrive?
- Since when did men become angels?
- Since when did civil authority assume liability for failing to protect you? For reimbursing your medical bills? Your lost income? Paying your mortgage? Putting food on your table?
- Since when can civil authority repair your body? Make your pain go away? Remove a scar? Return you to a "pre-criminal assault" state with no residual injury?
- Since when is the right to life not fundamental or inalienable?
- Since when has civil authority really given a damn about you...except when it comes time to pay taxes? Or you violate one its rules?
112. Kalifornia's CCW laws are seriously Constitutionally infirmed. [I have written a 50 page article on this topic which is heavily laced with legalese.] Briefly, a few of the Constitutional or pragmatic infirmities associated with Kalifornia's CCW laws, and how they are implemented, follow.
- To permit is to control.
- A right cannot be regulated without being infringed.
- Such control is a prior restraint infringement contrary to the Second Amendment's unequivocally clear Constitutional bright line—"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
- "Such control reduces a Constitutional right to a statutory privilege, which a police chief or sheriff can arbitrarily withhold."
- [R]ight of the people" is not "privilege of the people" nor "right of civil authority".
- We are talking about a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Privileges.
- "Shall" is a clear, mandatory command with no exceptions as to time nor place;
- "Not" is a clear, absolute negative.
- "Infringed" means no preconditioning, no dilution, no pretext nor justification of any sort is Constitutionally permissible to infringe against the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
- All CCW permit systems of law are a form of registration of firearms and firearms owners, which is approximately one half of the way down the Tyrant's Pattern, which is not good for any registered individual nor for society.
- No criminal, nor anyone who aspires to be a criminal, has ever applied for a CCW permit, so what is the point of CCW permits? To control criminals? Or to control law-abiding citizens who do not need to be controlled? To register who has guns so they are identified and can later easily be rounded up and eliminated?
- Police chiefs and sheriffs are not well equipped, by training, experience or anything else to determine who can be trusted with the right to circulate in public armed.
- This law reverses the proper burden of proof. The burden should be on civil authority to prove that a citizen should be denied his right to be armed in public, not on the citizen to establish "good cause" to have a CCW permit.
- "Good cause" is too vague and too illusive, which is convenient for public serpents who want to make citizens more dependent on them to justify bigger budgets to build bigger law enforcement empires.
- The Second Amendment is your permit because it is your birthright, and your birthright as a U.S. citizen is the only true entitlement.
- No American needs a permit to preserve his or her life with a gun.
- Per Kalifornia's CCW laws, police chiefs and sheriffs have immunity if they issue CCW permits or if they do NOT issue CCW permits. They have NO legal duty to respond to a Dial 911 call for help. They are legally IMMUNE for failing to respond to a Dial 911 call. They have NO legal duty to protect anyone. Instead, they are deemed to be a general deterrent. Knowing all this, many police chiefs and sheriffs despicably and callously REFUSE to issue CCW permits to allow you to defend yourself. These public serpents have become a defacto ally of criminals. You, and I, pay for this insufferable perversion of the inalienable right to life and liberty and the Constitutional right to arms. [Specific legal documentation of these shocking facts is succinctly and clearly stated in attorney Richard W. Stevens' Dial 911 and Die: The Shocking Truth about the Police Protection Myth, ISBN 0- 9642304-4-5, published by Mazel Freedom Press, Inc.]
- All human beings have only one life. Each life is not like baby teeth nor a lizard's tail. No dead human can replicate his or her life. Each human being, therefore, has a vital interest—repeat, vital interest—in preserving his or her one and only earthly existence. Consequently, any civil authority, and any public serpent, who opines or declares that your right to defend yourself with a firearm in a public place is non-existent, that you must beg them for their permission, that they have a legitimate right to deny you such permission and to arrest you and to criminally prosecute you for defying their absurd perversion of the law, and, to exacerbate matters, they are legally immune for failing to protect you when they refuse to let you protect yourself, is your mortal enemy...unless, of course, you can rise from the dead.
- After being a goody-goody citizen, and after paying trillions of dollars in taxes to this beast we call civil authority, after this 6,000 year struggle to achieve civilization, is this what we end up with: having to beg our blue belly tin stars, our judicial despots, our law makers, our callous Constitutional illiterates, for their permission to defend our lives with a gun in a public place? And, when they refuse to honor that right, to be reduced to the status of prey?
113. I am disgusted with civil authority's callous double standard. By double standard, I mean this: When it is to civil authority's advantage, it harps that the Constitution is "the supreme law of the land."
Examples: when it comes time to pay income taxes, submit to the draft and let federal snipers come in and shoot a mother in the head while holding her infant while standing in the door jamb of her home, minding her own business, with no outstanding criminal warrants against her, then, and only then, is the Constitution the "supreme law of the land."
But, when it comes to ordinary citizens enjoying one of the blessings of liberty, such as the individual right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the Constitution is no longer [somehow] the "supreme law of the land."
Example: When a law-abiding citizen wants to carry a firearm in public for lawful self-defense so he or she can shove a gun barrel in a criminal's face to preserve his or her bodily integrity, civil authority says, in effect, "Not so fast here. This is one of those 'Yes, but . . . .' rights. To promote the general welfare, in our infinite wisdom, despite what the Constitution says, which is not really the 'supreme law of the land,' we have reduced that right to a privilege. We do not trust you with a gun. You might do something bad with it. Shut up. Stay in line. Do not complain. We cannot control criminals. But we can control you, and we can blame and punish you for what criminals do with guns. Circulate in public as prey. When attacked, it is your civic duty to die, peacefully. Do not make a fuss. You must be willing to assume the risks we deem reasonable, and to sacrifice yourself to promote the general welfare. Pay your taxes on time. Your vote is appreciated. We work hard for you."
114. A Constitutional bright line is a demarcation, a solid wall, made with words that spotlight a concept and set that concept apart, calling attention to the concept.
115. It is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of a more clear Constitutional bright line than this one:
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."