Gun Control is Terror

 

Society is always infested with politicians, lobbyists, and special interests who wish to disarm the citizenry in the name of “gun control”. Every time some maniac murders innocent people it is a tragedy. It cannot be denied that maniacs do indeed exist and that they should be closely monitored and kept away from guns, but neither is allowed to happen because it might hurt someone’s PC feelings or put a social worker out of business.  However, the urge to control gun ownership is not the drive of a democratically-minded individual. It is instead the agenda of people who, for ulterior motives, desire that Citizens be unarmed and vulnerable.  The irrational and uncontrolled exercise of power is not possible under any scenario where a responsibly-armed citizenry exists.

Gun control laws do nothing to keep guns away from dangerous criminals, such as homicidal maniacs or gangbangers.  Neither of these types purchase firearms through appropriate channels, first ensuring that they have taken a gun safety course and legally procured a federal ID.  They get their guns from the black market or they steal them outright.  Ten million gun control laws will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of those who do not respect the Law.

Gun control laws certainly do not apply to the Government. If the government suddenly decided to begin endangering the lives and property of Citizens, they would think nothing of arming themselves against their own populace.  History has shown us that governments who crave and exercise absolute power care little for the rule of law or the decency intended to accompany it.  Gun control laws would not apply as far as the State is concerned. We must also consider the large number of illegal weapons sales transacted by governments since the dawn of the 20^th century. 

Gun control laws function only to keep firearms away from responsible Citizens.  It is not that firearms do not need to be controlled. They do.  There is something inherently wrong with the situation when the family of a youngster with severe mental difficulties is allowed to keep guns in their home, unlocked and unchecked.  There is something inherently wrong with the situation when an individual, licensed and tested, is allowed to make the argument that he or she absolutely needs a high-powered assault rifle or a bazooka to go duck hunting.

However, it cannot be denied by any sane and rational person that a responsible Citizen has the right to self-defense or the defense of their legitimately-gained and owned property.  This idea always has its opponents.  It is opposed by politicians who crave the possession and exercise of absolute power.  It is opposed by those who spout off about the rights of rapists and murderers.  It is also opposed by those who have as their agenda the “redistribution” of wealth, which regardless of any fancy label applied to it shall always and forever be nothing but plunder.

 No decent, rational person can logically or justifiably deny that citizens have the right to defend their lives, liberty, and property.  Certainly, there will always be those who do not want citizens to engage in this defense, but that is because their motives are the wholesale rape and plunder of legitimate society and civilization.  No other motive for the wholesale curbing of the right to bear arms is even remotely possible.

Rights and Responsibilities, Part 1

The people assume a multitude of rights without question.  They seldom, if ever, ask what responsibilities accompany their rights.  This is one manifestation of entitlement.  In order to prevent this shameful state from becoming the norm, we must examine our Rights to discover what responsibilities they imply. 

We begin our examination with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"First Amendment -  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This amendment outlines several points:

1. "...no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This means that the government cannot pass laws declaring a new or state-favored religion.
2.  "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."  This means that the government does not have the right to prevent any citizen from exercising their religious preference or lack thereof.
3. "...or of the press..."  This means that the government does not have the right to interfere with lawful publishing in any form.
4. "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."  This means that the people have the right to assemble for peaceful purposes.
5. "...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  This means that the people have the right to assemble peacefully in order to make their wishes for change known to the Government.

Since every right is inextricably joined to an equivalent responsibility, we shall now outline these according to their respective points:

1. If citizens have the right to expect the Government not to form a state religion, they have a responsibility not to expect the Government to prohibit any religion. 
2. If citizens have a right to practice the religion or lack of religion of their choice, they also have a responsibility to respect the religious or non-religious choice of others. This means that citizens cannot forcibly convert others, harass those not of their faith, or in any way threaten or cajole other citizens of different faiths. This also means that atheists do not have the right to persecute religious believers in any way or vice versa.
3. The government cannot interfere with a free press. However, the Press (and media in general) have a responsibility, in the case of news publishing, to present the facts devoid of "spin" or bias, without trying to use the news to push a political agenda or to create division among the people or to manipulate their opinions.
4. The people have a right to assemble peacefully.  They also have a responsibility to apply for a permit to do so, to ensure that the Flag of the Nation is present at their gathering (preferably undamaged), and that they do not interfere with the legitimate comings and goings of the general public.  They have a responsibility to actually be peaceful and to disperse when ordered to do so without resorting to violence.  As soon as the people degenerate into a rioting, looting, murdering, raping mob they forfeit their right to peaceable assembly.
5. The people have a right to make their wishes for change known to the government. They have a responsibility to do so in a fair, calm, and professional manner, devoid of hysterics and hostility.  They also have a responsibility to realize that the Government does not have an obligation to grant every petition put to it, particularly if such petition represents aims that are unlawful, harmful to the public good, or that would cause a breach of the peace.

It has been said before, and will no doubt be repeated; that Freedom is a two-edged sword. One edge of that sword is liberty and the other is responsibility.  So long as the people demand their rights and never inquire as to their responsibilities, the resultant state is that of mob rule and totally unacceptable.

Citizenship and Nationalism (Part 2)

The Nation is composed of citizens. Those who are not citizens are non-citizens.  Citizens possess full rights under the constitution, whether such rights are held to be afforded them by birth or naturalization.  Non-citizens do not possess these rights, but they may earn them under certain conditions, provided they have committed no crimes against the Nation or its people. The distinction is social and political. 

The question of race has entered into public discourse concerning citizenship from time to time, and it is not absolutely assured that race has no role in the discussion.  However, it is held that any member of any race can potentially and theoretically become one who has a positive stake in the preservation of the body politic and that Nation it embodies.  In order for this to be true, one must understand and embrace the objectives and values of the greater Nation. The Nation must become his race, and while he may hold to his racial values at home, his life as a Citizen demands that he transcend the petty concerns and idiosyncracies of race.

It is purely absurd to suppose that Citizenship is conferred by means of paperwork and that this counterfeit citizenship entitles one to an immediate and full share of that socio-political and economic well-being that is the prerogative of those who have labored on behalf of the Nation and its people.  The process of acquiring civic rights has been reduced to a process less complex than applying for a library card, and this reductio ad absurdum is a dire insult to the millions who have labored, served and sacrificed for the greater glory of the Nation.  Although any person, whether black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and regardless of religious preference may become a citizen, true citizenship comes of embracing the Nation, its values and its goal as one's own. The quirks and pecadilloes of one's race must be rejected in favor of these greater, transcendent values.

Provided one is not an alien to the Nation, one who has not yet earned the distinction of citizenship is held to be subject to the State.  Before attaining the age of majority, such a person is its ward and, upon the age of majority, a subject.  Certain basic rights are still assured, such as Free Speech, Free Expression, Freedom of the Press, of Assembly, and other basic rights. However, suffrage, the Right to Bear Arms, the privilege of holding public office, and the privilege of commanding those who serve the Nation must be distinguished as the unique prerogatives of the Citizenry.

Thus, Citizenship cannot and must not be a mere rubber stamp as it has become in recent times.  It must be the exclusive right of those who have demonstrated their worthiness by means of National Service.  A subject may be loyal and patriotic, but they are not vested in the body politic to the same degree as one who has sacrificed two years of their life to meet the needs of the greater Nation.

Citizenship and Nationalism (Part 1)

Citizenship must include social responsibility. Social responsibility means individual sacrifice.  The sacrifice of two years in the service of the Nation is a just and reasonable requirement for participation in the body politic. The State must find a place for those who serve, regardless of skill or aptitude.  Not all service needs be military.  Education, maintenance, clerical or administrative work can be an option for those not physically or mentally fit for military service. 

Why service? Every right is conjoined to an equivalent responsibility.  A two-year service requirement will ensure the rise of a citizenry whose vested interests in the well-being of the body politic are not merely economic. A citizen's interest in the future of the Nation must be expanded to include a sturdy political understanding and a healthy interest in social harmony.  Service to the Nation ensures the rise of citizens who take the National life seriously. In short, it will give rise to citizens who are Nationalists.

Nationalism is patriotic, in that it grows out of love of the Nation. However, a Nationalist places the well-being of the Nation above globalism.  The Nation is the primary concern of the Citizen, but this Nationalism does not and must not seek to supplant love of the Supreme Being and love of the family.  The Nation is the primary concern of the Citizen as a political and economic being.  As a person participating in elections, a citizen has shown himself to be responsible, loyal, and informed concerning the issues of the day rather than determined by party loyalties. He demonstrates this, in part, through his term of National Service.  As a being of economic interests, a Citizen has come to appreciate that the best and only real valid social program is work. He or she rejects social welfare for all except the truly invalid. All others must work.

Citizenship must be the prerogative of those who have served the Nation. All others will have basic human rights, but they shall not participate in the body politic, for they have shown themselves to have no concern for its well-being and prosperity.  Citizens serve the Nation.

Free Speech is Responsible Speech

In the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States we read, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” This straightforward text mark America's recognition of one of the lynchpins of a free and (presumably) democratic society.  However, because the concept embodied in these words is not understood properly, they are susceptible to abuse by individuals and groups seeking to manipulate the tenets of the Constitution to their own ends.

Young people abuse this text often when behaving disrespectfully, entitled or inappropriate, defending themselves with their basic misunderstanding of U.S. history by saying, “I have free speech, I can say what I want.” This becomes a habit when unchecked, and the habit has come to be confused with a prerogative free of consequence. From whence does this bad habit receive its ongoing impetus? From the people, presumed to be adults, charged with the responsibility of raising their children properly.  Thus, what should simply be a colloquial bad habit becomes an epidemic abuse and misunderstanding of what was intended to be a safeguard against the tyranny of absolute power.

Most people think that their free speech is absolute. However, every right is balanced by an equivalent responsibility.   The right to question those in power stops at sedition. The right to express religious or political points of view becomes detrimental when a religious believer or political proponent begins suggesting that those at variance with their tenets should be eliminated.  The right to say what you want in public does not give anyone the right to intentionally create panic through a false alarm.  Free speech must be responsible speech or else it no longer embodies liberty but chaos and anarchy.

The irony at work here is that, over the last 30 years, free speech has been used to silence critics and to oppress more than any change or overt government abuse to the amendment could. The heart of the irony is that most of the groups advocating free speech are doing the most to repress it.  One identifies the opponents of the party's ideology, invokes the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and uses that guarantee to advocate the silencing of the opposition.

Perhaps the time is drawing close when we must drop our democratic pretentions. We do not advocate free speech for anyone but ourselves.  The absurdity of the position should not escape us, but it does.

In a society where you can say anything you want, however, why is there no admonition to be prepared for the consequences? There was a time when it was accepted that you could walk up to a man and call him a simpering coward to his face.  That was also a time when it was accepted that you would be punched in the face for saying that.  If you want freedom, you have to accept its consequences. Every liberty is balanced, in reality, by an equivalent responsibility and if you do not accept that responsibility, your activity can hardly be said to be protected by rights.

If the rule of Law protects human liberty, then it does so by enforcing the concept of human responsibility. To take this further, we can only be truly free to the extent to which we are responsible.  There is no way around this.  If you would be free, then you must embrace the Law's prerogatives and society's prerogatives as ardently as you advocate for your own.  Otherwise, you are unworthy to be free.

Citizenship and Nationalism - Introduction

For centuries, the People have been burdened with the shameful counterfeit known as democracy.  The practice has its roots in antiquity, when land-holders and those who had a legitimate stake in the affairs of the body politic were granted suffrage.  The practice has undergone countless modifications since its first appearance in this world until the present, where it is equated with majority rule.

In granting universal suffrage, democracy castrates itself by equating the Nation with the majority, lowering it to the level of the lowest common denominator. As a result, even those with no stake in the Nation's prosperity, i.e. its professional victims, law-breakers, malcontents, and other assorted low-lives, are given a voice in the Nation's future.  How does an unconvicted rapist vote concerning matters of safety and privacy? How does an unconvicted drug peddler vote on narcotics laws? How does an unconvicted welfare scam artist vote when it comes time to decide how much cash will be poured into the welfare state? How does a murderer who has never been caught vote on the death penalty? Do you intend that such as these should have a voice in the future of the Nation? Are you truly that irresponsible? You would build a wooden galleon, fill its hold with gun powder, and allow a pyromaniac aboard? For shame!

The Nation must be considered from the point of view of quality rather than quantity.  We do not ensure a brighter future for the Nation by granting suffrage to those who have a stake in its downfall, nor those who have no clear idea what the Nation is, nor those who wish to live off the labor and sweat of other people when they themselves are perfectly capable of working.  The Nation must find the expression of its political will in its principles, not its personalities.  The People must be forged from a mob into a Nation by means of instilling pride in what they do in their various professions, by the enactment of laws that will not tolerate a breach of the peace or any harm to life, liberty, and property.

Of course, this begs the concept of Nationhood and Citizenship. Only a true and genuine citizen can be said to care for the overall health and welfare of the body politic. Only a citizen has a stake in the well-being of the Nation. It therefore becomes necessary to define a citizen not only in terms of his rights, but his responsibilities as well. It cannot be denied that liberty must go hand-in-hand with responsibility if the Nation is to steer its way out the present age of decadence and chaos.

I propose to examine the rights and responsibilities of human beings as citizens and their relationship to the Nation. This is merely the preface to those investigations.