Our Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms and its Implications to Society

by Thomas Mick

This article is not meant to provide statistical analysis or attempt to convince people to lobby Congress to remove restrictions on firearms; Congress was prohibited by the Bill of Rights, Article IV to infringe on that right and there is a volume of material already available to provide favorable statistical information. The focus here is to paint a picture of what a free society exercising their right to keep and bear arms will look like and the benefits to society of being armed, as well as the economic benefit to arms manufacturers in a free economy. I will be exploring a very brief observation of the historic reason for weapons, the utility of firearms over other inferior weapons, as well as their contribution to American life in history without passing ethical judgment on the men who wielded them; my focus in this article is on firearms and our inherent, God-given right of self-defense, which by necessity when you consider what we’re defending against, requires firearms.

This article will deal with what I consider to be the most important right we possess, which if we’re denied the ability to exercise it will make exercising the rest problematic to say the least; the natural right of self-defense, specifically our right to keep and bear arms.

Our Creator endowed us with intellect and reason; substantially setting us apart from the other beasts we share this world with. It is through that ability that we’ve learned to make fire and fashion weapons to hunt food and protect us from others that attack either our life or property. The natural right to keep and bear arms of any type is mankind’s resource to protect his other rights from other men, as well as the beasts of the earth, such as lions, bears, poisonous snakes, etc. Without our ability to successfully defend the most basic of rights, life, we would soon find ourselves extinct as a species or subjects of the most despicable of tyrants.

Our ancestors in America survived primarily through the use of firearms. Yes they used other implements of war, as well as snares, traps, and other means; but firearms, since their invention, has always been the premier weapon of choice to anyone who could obtain one, since a lead projectile fired at high velocity was more effective than any of the others for removing a threat or putting meat on the table. While primarily thought of as an implement of war, firearms were primarily used to put meat on the table and repel threats in defense of their rights, more than to impose their will on others; since most people possessed arms in early America it was much more difficult to attack them. Many, if not most people today, owe their existence to the use of firearms by one or more of their ancestors in the defense of life; had they been unsuccessful by using an inferior weapon they would have died and their line, which includes you would have never existed.

Today most governments Americans live under wish to remove our arms and are openly attacking our natural right of self-defense in contravention of their oath to support the Constitution, by seeking to regulate away our ability to exercise that right. This assault against our arms has been ongoing since shortly after the Civil War, when organizations, such as the KKK, and political parties such as the Democrat Party, sought to keep arms out of the hands of freed slaves; specifically blacks. The problem with denying one group of people the peaceable enjoyment of their natural rights is that the effort ends up denying all of us in the end. What is done out of fear and ignorance more often than not comes back to harm everyone but is always a benefit to government, especially when it regards our ability to repel their attacks against our rights as individuals.

This is what all government officers are sworn to support and defend with relationship to the right to keep and bear arms:

“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.” – Bill of Rights, Article IV

The rights of the people to arm, organize, and defend their natural rights, which include life, liberty, and property, requires the availability of the arms necessary for that purpose. All governments, both state and Federal, have sworn an oath to abide by the terms of the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a vital part. By that one sentence in the Bill of Rights, it is clear that government is prohibited from infringing in any manner on our pre-existing right to keep and bear arms of any type or configuration we require whatsoever; the first Congress slammed the door on any debate on the matter.

An armed society is a polite society

Now let us explore what a free armed society of people might look like. For some of you, that is not a problem since not all states have made gun ownership as difficult as the Federal Government would like. Criminals flee armed communities because their victims can and will fight back, resulting in a particularly unsafe work environment for their chosen professions. Clerks can shoot armed robbers, women can shoot rapists, everyone can shoot muggers, as well as anyone else that attacks us; peace officers, after it is established that a murder has not been committed, can merely call the coroner to clean up the mess, fill out some paperwork, and rest easy knowing that the people removed another pest from society by defending themselves. If there is any question regarding motive an inquest can be called to determine the facts.

Since Congress is prohibited from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, it exempts the arms industry from many Federal regulatory powers internal as well as external, since those regulations would infringe on the American people’s right. We should have access to any arms required for Militia use to repel any threat, including threats from arbitrary and criminal government. As government becomes more sophisticated in their arms the Militia must have the freedom to keep pace, in fact, Congress is required under Article I, Section 8, and clause 16:

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

Arms are an integral part of a free society; free men are armed, slaves are not. In an armed society, most people will never have to fire a weapon except to practice and remain proficient. Most ammunition would be expended into targets or wild game, not the body of another human being. Government wouldn’t dare attack the natural rights of the people since every council meeting or courtroom would be attended by armed spectators jealous of their rights. Members of Congress wouldn’t be passing or even supporting unconstitutional legislation against our natural rights if they had to face armed people at their next town hall meeting. In short, the freedom to exercise our rights, all of them, would be much more secure.

Today we live under a dictatorship in Washington, D.C. The Office of President has been usurped, with the aid and comfort of all three branches of the Federal Government and with the tacit approval of the states who continue to comply with the Federal government and impose its usurpation and taxation on the people of America. Barack Obama is attempting to use any device he can conceive to deny us the power to exercise our natural right to defend ourselves from the Islamic and international forces he is bringing into our communities in order to subjugate us and destroy the republic. I can see no question as to his intent or doubt of the complicity of so many today in government to his criminal and treasonous activity. There is one thing distressing Obama and his loyal subjects though; armed Americans who have refused to comply with his demands and have been building their inventories of arms and ammunition in preparation of the conflict to come. Our natural right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Bill of Rights, is the only thing holding off a much greater tyranny than we already have.

When Americans once again exercise their right to not only own but bear arms throughout their day, government will be much less inclined to reach the state we see today… arm up America.

©2015 by Thomas Mick, All Rights Reserved.Permission to distribute for non-commercial purposes is hereby granted, in whole or part, provided attribution and a link to this article is included. Commercial distribution without the written permission of the author is prohibited.

http://lessonsofthepast.com/2015/03/07/our-natural-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-and-its-implications-to-society/

Blog: http://lessonsofthepast.com/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=475645Minds: https://minds.com/ThomasMick/MeWe: https://mewe.com/profile/56c4d8064b4d173442eb17dc/Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thomas.mick/PayPal: https://paypal.me/ThomasMick/GAB: @publius87

At this time, I survive primarily on the free will contributions of my audience; please consider supporting my efforts to restore the freedom under Natural Law, by sending contributions via the Donate button at http://lessonsofthepast.com, becoming a patron through Patreon, https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=475645, for a dollar or more a month, or send cash or a postal money order to:

Thomas Mick
c/o General Delivery
Libby, Montana 59923

Right to Keep and Bear in Public Upheld - Liberal Fed Court of Appeals Landmark Decision

Young v. Hawaii, a Ninth Circuit panel holds by a 2-to-1 vote (Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, joined by Judge Sandra Ikuta, with Judge Robert Clifton dissenting) that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry guns openly in public places. Though the Ninth Circuit had earlier resolved in Peruta v. County of San Diego (en banc) that the Second Amendment doesn't secure a right to concealed carry -- as D.C. v. Heller had earlier suggested, in reliance on 19th-century cases that had generally rejected a right to concealed carry -- the panel concludes (also citing Heller and 19th-century sources) that there is a right to open carry, so as to be able to defend oneself in public places as well.

The Supreme Court has stated that carrying can be banned in some "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," so any right to carry would not be unlimited; but it would apply to carrying a gun in one's car, on most streets, and the like. The court also leaves open the possibility that the underlying right is just a right to some form of carry, so that a state may choose whether to allow open carry or concealed carry (or both, of course), but may not ban both and thus makes guns available to most citizens for self-defense in public places.

It is of course quite possible that the case will be reheard en banc, which is what happened with Peruta (where the panel decision came out in favor of protecting a right to carry). But if the case isn't reheard en banc, or the panel decision is affirmed on en banc rehearing, then the case may well go up to the Supreme Court, since this decision reinforces a split among the circuits on the subject.

Excerpt from Reason

RTR TRUTH MEDIA -

As we see in the video above, the main stream media has little to no Constitutional understanding. They report on the recent case that upholds the restriction upon the government not to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, but misreports the essence of the 2nd Amendment. The court can not determine that the 2nd Amendment gives us anything but the restriction upon government as to where they may not tread on a free people. There is no such thing as 2nd Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment only secures this right the Founders said was inherent, which means these rights existed prior to the Constitution's ratification. To say otherwise is disinformation. That being said this decision appears to "respect" the 2nd Amendment.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision - Upholding the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Public - Young v. Hawa... by Tom Lacovara-Stewart RTR TruthMedia on Scribd

FOX NEWS -

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public in a ruling Tuesday, striking down a lower court argument that the Constitution only protects that right at home.

“Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the county’s and the state’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home,” the ruling states.

The case resulted from Hawaii resident George Young being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Two of the three judges -- who were both appointed by Republican presidents -- ruled against a lower court upholding the restriction.

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his opinion that “for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,” the order said.

9TH CIRCUIT SURPRISES WITH PRO-2ND AMENDMENT DECISION BLOCKING CALIFORNIA AMMO BAN

"We are disappointed in the decision that would undermine Hawaii’s strong gun control law and our commitment to protect the public,” Hawaii Attorney General Russell Suzuki said in a statement. “But we note that Judge Clifton filed a well-reasoned dissent supporting the constitutionality of this law. We intend to consult with Hawai‘i County and work with them on further action."

It’s the second time this month that the three-judge panel issued a pro-Second Amendment decision, after backing a lower court’s decision last week to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.

This is how Fox News publishes the 2nd Amendment incorrectly: The Second Amendment states: “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.”

James Madison, was not such a person as to abuse grammar rules and, like his predecessors in Jefferson and Franklin, he was rather specific and exercised practiced intent in how he phrased his statements — especially for documents of such import.

The actual text that was was read and approved and signed into law by the House of Representatives and the Senate, only included a single comma:

This is the correct version of the 2nd Amendment: 

“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 commas mean something.... and accuracy is essential. So why does Fox News and nearly all other main stream media corporations get it consistently wrong? You be the judge. 

- RTR Truth Media 

Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state's ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction last week.

Based in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being one of the nation's most liberal courts. Critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes an infamous 2002 ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “under God.”

Republicans have been working to fill vacancies with conservatives, but suffered a setback last week when the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit after realizing it did not have the necessary support in the Senate. He faced criticism over past college writings.

Fox News' Bill Mears, Adam Shaw, Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.

Disclaimer: We share articles on a piece by piece basis and stand behind the reports of what we share. This in no way means that we support all content by writers or pundits for any main stream source but that of which we share.