If my memory serves me correctly, I believe it was sometime back in February when Darth Cheeto, (Donald Trump), was caught on camera making the statement that he believed we should grab the guns first and then give people due process later. Trump made those comments following another mass shooting while he was lending his support to the idea that the federal government should get involved in passing some kind of national Red Flag legislation which would give government the authority to confiscate a person’s weapons BEFORE they had actually committed a crime with them.
Recently I saw something on Facebook that said something along the lines of, “If gun confiscation comes to America it will come from the Republicans.” I can almost hear the stuttering and stammering from those on the political right, “But, but, but we support the 2nd Amendment, we wouldn’t do that!” Is that so? Well why is it then that a Republican, George W. Bush, made the ban on the importation of semi automatic weapons permanent in 1989 and you said nothing? Why is it then that your current leader, Darth Cheeto, has infringed upon the 2nd Amendment more times than Obama did in his two terms as president…yet again you said nothing?
Government knows that if the Democrats were to attempt to confiscate guns it would be met with fierce opposition by those on the right. Unfortunately the 2nd Amendment would only be used as justification for opposing the policies of the Democrats and not due to any real love for the idea that the general public be allowed to keep and bear whatever arms they may choose. Yet if the Republicans were to suggest such measures, the die-hard followers would support it without question; after all isn’t Trump trying to Make America Great Again? Therefore, if Trump suggests it, it must be GOOD for America.
Yeah I know, once you read the logic being used it does sound pretty stupid; but that’s partisan politics in America at its finest. All that being said and done, my point here is not to criticize either party, for I think both are equally corrupt and evil in their own special ways. My point here is to try and get people to think about how brazen infringement upon our rights these Red Flag Laws are.
If your mind worked the way mine does you would think, “Hey didn’t the government try gun confiscation once before, back in 1775? That went over real well for them as it ignited the American Revolution.”
I think there is a fine line of distinction between thinking one has the authority, or right to do something, and actually doing it. I might think that it would be a good idea to put a serious case of whoop-ass on someone, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to actually punch them in the face. The King of England, or his agent General Thomas Gage, felt it was a good idea to disarm the rabble rousers in Boston by sending his troops to confiscate their arms at Lexington and Concord. It was the principle that their government felt they needed to confiscate their arms that offended them so much that they picked up those arms and resisted the actual attempt to confiscate them.
It was the principle that the people have the right to keep and bear arms to allow them to defend their rights against tyrants that they were defending, not the guns themselves. If you can’t see that then there is no hope for you. It was that belief that led to the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and it is because people have forgotten why we have the 2nd Amendment that we have seen so many infringements upon it.
It is due to that misunderstanding that people today now support the idea that guns be confiscated from those who might, (and I emphasize MIGHT), use them to commit a horrific crime with them. If you were to think about it, it is not the first time this pre-emptive logic has been seen in this country. What about these no-fly lists the government maintains, which deprive innocent people of the right to travel by air simply because they have been identified as meeting certain criteria that might lend them to commit acts of terror against others. Yet we have seen how those who create these lists can be wrong. Children as young as 4 yrs old, like Edward Allen, found out the hard way that they were on a no-fly list when they were hassled or denied the right to board a plane. I believe that former Senator Edward ‘Teddy’ Kennedy also mistakenly ended up on a no-fly list as well. So there is plenty of room for error there, and now they want to expand this pre-emptive mindset to include who can own guns? It seems to me that the government said, “Gee, we sure made a bloody mess of this whole no-fly list thing, so let’s try it again for the right to keep and bear arms and see if we can get it right this time.”
Well Uncle Sam, I have the same message for you that the patriots at Lexington and Concord had, FUCK YOU!!! And I may as well include a hearty FUCK YOU to all the people in this country who believe that a fundamental right can be denied simply because you think it might prevent an individual from abusing that right by committing a crime. As Steve Rogers said in the first Captain America movie, “I can do this all day long”, I have plenty of Fuck You’s to go around when it comes to confiscating my guns, or the guns of anyone who has not yet committed a crime with them.
You see, that’s the thing people don’t seem to understand about how our system of justice is supposed, (and I emphasize SUPPOSED), to function. In America we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. In America we are supposed to have due process of law before they can take our lives, our property, or our liberty.
All this comes as a result of people not knowing their rights, or from whence they derive them. I hear people say that they know their civil rights. Possibly, but do they know the difference between civil rights and natural rights; or do they even know that there are more than one kind of rights?
Civil Rights are those rights which are granted men by society, or by law. Think of it this way, if you are a parent and you give your child permission to stay up late on Saturday night to watch TV, as the governing authority for your child you have granted them permission to do something. In this way, Civil Rights are similar to the government, as a kind and benevolent parent, giving the people the privilege to do certain things under the protection of law. But those privileges can be revoked if the government deems it serves the overall public good, or the general welfare of the nation.
Natural Rights predate our Constitution and Bill of Rights, they predate the Declaration of Independence, (although they are mentioned therein), and they date back to when man first made his appearance on planet Earth. Natural Rights are rooted in and defended by the Declaration of Independence, while Civil Rights are rooted in and granted by the Constitution. So you see, there is a HUGE difference between the two classes of rights, and it is the total ignorance regarding that difference that lies at the root of why people allow government to violate their Natural Rights.
If you were to find yourself the sole occupant of an island, or a country for that matter, you would be free to do whatever you pleased, as there would be no one else to stop you from doing whatever you wanted. That is Natural Law in its simplest state, and our Natural Rights flow as a result of Natural Law. Now if you were to introduce another human being into that scenario, then you would have two people who both are endowed with the right to do as they please, correct? Now what if one of them decides to do something that denies the other the right to do as they please; that’s when conflict comes into the picture. But, there is a rule of nature which would govern all men if they would just adhere to it. That rule of nature is something John Locke spoke of in his Second Treatise on Civil Governments, “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…“
That, in a nutshell, is justice; the right of every man to govern their own lives as they see fit, with the only boundary being the equal rights of others. As Jefferson said in 1819, “Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
If I, or anyone else for that matter, have not deprived another of their life, their property, or their liberty I cannot have my liberty or my property taken from me simply because someone FEARS I might do something bad with it. I must have committed a crime, or attempted to commit a crime before my rights can be taken from me. But a crime only exists when I attempt to deprive another of their life, liberty or property; not the random little things that our government has deemed we shall not be allowed to do without punishment. That’s why Jefferson included the caveat that the law is often but the tyrants will, because it often deprives people of the liberty government is supposed to secure for them.
That is the entire premise behind the maxim of innocent until proven guilty, and if we abandon that then we admit that others know better than we do what is in our own best interests, and we accept the yoke of bondage to the will of those who make those decisions for us. If we abandon that, then we admit that we are incapable of making our own decisions and we need a MASTER, (government), to rule over us…we admit that we’re nothing but a stupid herd of sheep who need to live in bondage to someone who makes all our decisions for us.
CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT???
So how does all that apply to these Red Flag Laws? Well when one of these laws are put into effect it gives the State, (someone in a position of authority), the ability to set criteria that gives the State the authority to deny a person their rights simply because they fall into a specific category. There is another word for that, it’s called stereotyping; and we sure get upset when the cops do it to blacks, and when Muslims are stereotyped as all being terrorists. Yet we seem to have no qualms about stereotyping gun owners because they exhibit certain traits or characteristics.
Once again, let me hand out another healthy FUCK YOU!!!
I’d be willing to bet that the courts across America would uphold these Red Flag Laws, seeing as how they too seem to have no understanding of what our Natural Rights are. Yet does not the Declaration of Independence state that our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from our Creator, and that it is the function of government to secure those rights…not abridge and restrict them? So if the courts enforce a law whose underlying principle is that you might commit a crime in the future your rights can be denied you, then aren’t they acting destructively towards the entire purpose government is supposed to serve? Couldn’t that also be said about those who enact such laws; whether they do it of their own volition or at the behest of their constituents?
In 1772 Samuel Adams wrote, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”
Did you read that, and I mean REALLY read it? Mr. Adams states that it is my right to defend my right to Life, Liberty, and Property in the best manner I can, and my guns are my property are they not? So if I’m reading Sam Adams correctly then he is saying that if you attempt to take my guns I can use them to defend them against whoever comes for them?
As King Leonidas told the Persians when they told him to surrender his weapons, “Come and take them.” Leonidas knew that if he surrendered his weapons he, and his people, would fall under the yoke of a tyrant; so he chose to fight to the death for the right to keep those weapons. It was that same spirit that led the patriots at Lexington and Concord to stand against the Red Coats who came for their guns, and it is that same spirit that will fight any effort by our current government to disarm the American people; under whatever pretext it may come. We may be outnumbered, we might be slaughtered, but we will die before we surrender that right.
It both saddens and frightens me how readily people would disarm themselves just for the promise that maybe, just maybe, doing so would prevent some nut case from going on a shooting spree and killing scores of innocent victims. Sure, all lives matter, but if you surrender your guns then your biggest enemy does not become those who roam our streets in search of victims, it becomes those who sit in the halls of power who will then have free reign to impose whatever tyranny they want upon you without your ability to resist.
The 2nd Amendment is a shield wielded by the people to prevent their government from doing anything that violated their right to keep and bear arms, and form a militia for the security of a free state. I don’t need a background check to exercise a right. I don’t need a permit to do so. I can’t be told what type of arm I may purchase; how many rounds the magazine may carry, or whether or not that weapon is capable of firing in fully automatic mode.
In 1859 the Texas Courts issued a ruling that holds the most powerful defense of the right to keep and bear arms that I’ve ever heard. In the case of Cockrum v. State the court held, “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”
Furthermore, the whole idea of confiscatory laws such as these proposed Red Flag Laws would have been repulsive to those who preceded us…our ancestors. In 1878 the Arkansas courts held, “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” (Source: Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54)
Yet here we are in 2019 with the people clamoring for the government to enact a law that deprives an individual of their inherent and unalienable right to own the weapons they need to defend themselves, against both criminals and tyrants. You know, Patrick Henry spoke about people like that way back in 1788, saying, “Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”
But you see, it’s not just the 2nd Amendment that is coming under attack by these Red Flag Laws, it is the 5th Amendment as well. I wonder, how much to people know about the 5th Amendment other than the fact that they might jokingly say, “I plead the 5th” when asked an embarrassing question?
The 5th Amendment states, “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” What does that mean, due process of law? Well for one thing, before your rights can be denied you then you must have been charged, tried, and found guilty of a crime. It means that you have the right to face your accuser and to provide evidence in your defense.
How can we do that when we don’t even know who it is that places our name upon a no-fly list, or identifies us as having the characteristics that justify our guns be taken from us under these Red Flag laws?
Believe me, I’ve seen this up close and personal when I was told that someone had identified me as being the kind of person who might bring a gun to work and engage in a workplace shooting.
After a workplace shooting somewhere else in the country the company I work for decided to have a seminar where law enforcement came in and talked about what to do in case of a workplace shooting. Various ‘expert’s talked about the things to do in case that happened, and the symptoms to look for in individuals that might lead them to commit such a crime.
It was during the morning seminar that someone at work spoke out about how I’m always talking about guns, and that this person feared that I MIGHT be one who committed such a crime. When I arrived for work a friend told me about this, so after I attended the seminar for the afternoon shift I went over to the ‘experts’ and said that I’d heard that someone had been identified as a possible workplace shooter. They said something like, “That’s correct, and we’re taking this tip very seriously.” So I said, “Let me save you the trouble of an investigation by introducing myself.”
I then went on to tell them that, yes I own guns, that yes, I write and speak a lot about my right to keep and bear arms, but I also told them that I am just someone who fears that the government, and general public for that matter, want to see that right taken away from me; I pose no threat to anyone at work.
Once it was clarified why the person had identified me as a potential threat, I was relieved to hear that they were no longer going to pursue any kind of investigation, and that I was no longer considered a threat.
BUT, I never got to confront my accuser, and I was lucky that I had a chance to explain myself before I saw my life ruined by someone else’s irrational fears. That is not the case with these Red Flag Laws; you get put on a list and then they come for your guns…end of story. Your only recourse lies in appealing the crime committed against your rights AFTER THE FACT; denying entirely your right to due process before your rights can be denied you.
So not only do these Red Flag Laws seek to deprive certain people of their right to keep and bear arms, but by the very principle they are founded upon, they are shattering what remains of the 5th Amendment.
We’ve already seen how those who question certain policies of their government have been placed on lists that identify them as possible domestic terrorists. Those who oppose the FED and want to see it audited or abolished are among those the government has placed on these lists, as are those who don’t believe in all these pre-emptive wars, the 9/11 truth movement, and a whole list of other characteristics our government has decreed makes us possible terrorist threats to America.
What’s to say that these Red Flag Laws won’t be used to come after OUR guns simply because it is feared we may use them to restore our liberty; which is ironic as hell because that’s the entire purpose behind the 2nd Amendment.
Historian Charles Austin Beard once wrote, “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.”
It’s truly sad that those who live their lives adhering to the principles that led the Colonies to seek their independence from the tyranny of King George III are now labeled as terrorists and dangers to society. If that truly is the belief among the majority of the people in this country; if they believe that the government could, and should deprive those same people of their rights simply because they fear what those people stand for, then America has already died and there’s nothing left but the dead carcass of its former glory.
And, if Trump and his fellow Republicans are successful in passing some kind of federal Red Flag Law, then THEY will have pounded the final nail into America’s coffin…not the Democrats.
And to them, and their supporters, I leave my final FUCK YOU…
June 15, 2019
~ The Author ~
Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: bonsai@syix.com.
If you liked Neal’s latest column, maybe you’ll like his latest booklet: The Civil War: (The Truth You Have Not Been Told). Life continues to expand for this prolific writer and guardian of TRUE American history.