…not As Long As Government Exists!

You may have noticed that I occasionally ask people to imagine what life was like during the period of history I am writing about; to put themselves in their shoes, so to speak. I think, that by doing so, we can glean a better understanding of the historical event, I am discussing. We will never truly know what life was like for them, or how these historical events affected their lives, but it may aid in preventing us from viewing those events with our modern-day perspectives and biases.

Although Hollywood totally botched the movie adaptation, author Michael Crichton wrote a book that hints at that in the story. The book is called Timeline, and it centers around a group of history students who must travel back in time to 14th Century France to rescue their college professor; who had become stranded in the past. The students all felt that they were prepared for their jaunt back in time; however, once they arrive in 14th Century France, they soon realize that reading about history, and living it, are two completely different things altogether.

Maybe a quick example is in order. Can you imagine what it must have been like to have been a member of the Second Continental Congress on July 2, 1776; as you were called upon to vote on the issue of independence; knowing full well that if you did, you would be marked for death, and that it would entail all the horrors of war for your country? You can read about that day in history books, but words fall short of conveying what it must have felt like to be called upon to make such a monumental decision.

Benjamin Rush spoke of what it was like that day when he reminisced about it in a letter to John Adams years later, “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?” The HBO miniseries, John Adams, does a pretty good job of showing us what it must have been like; panning across the solemn faces of the delegates after they had all cast their votes for independence.

As time travel is, for the time being, beyond the realm of scientific possibility, that excludes any of us from traveling back in time to experience firsthand the events I discuss in my essays. Yet there is something that we can do that will aid us in our pursuit of understanding that which we are reading about; we can seek out the meaning of the words they used in their correspondence, speeches, and official documents. The study of words, and their origin, is known as Etymology, and, by knowing what a word means, we can glean a clearer understanding of what a document actually says.

I do not want people to think that the subject of this essay is gun control, or the Second Amendment for that matter, but let us examine the word ‘arms’ as it is used in that amendment; do people understand what it means, and the context in which it is used? I think not; particularly those who continue to push for ever stricter gun control laws to be passed.

One of the arguments I have heard used to justify these gun control measures is that the type of weapons that are available today did not exist back in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution; that those who wrote it could never have foreseen the kind of advancements that have been made in weapons manufacturing. Those who say that are of the belief that, since those guns did not exist back then, the Second Amendment does not apply to their right to keep and bear them today.

Although that is a load of hogwash, for the sake of argument, I will play along with that belief; just to show people how ridiculous that belief is, and how hypocritical they are. Can people give me examples of other things that were not in existence back in 1791; things that they take for granted today? How about your cell phones, your personal computers, your credit cards, and your various forms of identification; such as your drivers license?

Since the drafters of the Bill of Rights could not possibly have conceived of any of those things, then you cannot expect/demand that you have any privacy regarding them. So, unless you want to start communicating the old-fashioned way, (writing letters with pen and paper), the right to privacy mentioned in the Fourth Amendment does not apply to electronic communication; or your digital identity, for that matter.

Sorry folks, you cannot have it both ways; what is good for the goose is also good for the gander; as the old saying goes. To deny that would expose your hypocrisy, and you do not want people to call you a hypocrite, do you?

Yet, there is more to the use of the word ‘arms’ than that one ridiculous argument. I have also heard people say that the right to keep and bear ‘arms’ does not apply to certain categories of weapons; those used by soldiers and law enforcement. This too is, how to say it politely, a load of tripe! This is where etymology comes into play; how it can help us to better understand what the Second Amendment says/means.

The word ‘arms’ dates back to the 11th Century Latin word, ‘arma’, which means: ‘the tools, or implements, of war.’ What that boils down to is, if you see a soldier on the battlefield carrying a weapon, then the Second Amendment applies to my right to keep and bear that weapon as well. Now, I am not saying that one should park an F-16 or an M1A1 Abrams battle tank in their driveway, or store nuclear weapons in their tool shed; but if a soldier can carry into battle fully automatic weapons, with large capacity magazines, then I have the right to own that same type of weaponry…end of story, game over, you lose! Those who believe that only the military and law enforcement should be allowed to carry those weapons, obviously do not know the reason why the right to keep and bear arms is so vitally important.

I have heard the argument that you do not need an ‘assault rifle’ to hunt deer, or defend your home, so many times that I want to slap those who repeat that. Any weapon, even a hammer, can be an ‘assault’ weapon if it is used to bring harm to another; so stop using that idiotic term; it only exposes how deeply you have been indoctrinated by the system.

Besides, hunting deer or defending your home are not the reasons we retain the right to keep and bear arms; they are secondary benefits of that right. The reason we retain the right to keep and bear arms, and I know some of you are not going to like this, is so that we can raise up a force that is as well equipped as any army our government can raise up to oppress and subjugate us.

If you look at the morning of April 19, 1775, when the Minutemen mustered to meet the British at Lexington and Concord, they arrived carrying weapons that were commonly found in the home of every Colonist; weapons that were basically the same as those being carried by the army of King George III. The same was true throughout the Revolution; both sides carried the same type weapons to use against one another. Imagine how lopsided the Revolution would have been if the British had been equipped with automatic weapons that had ranges that far exceeded those of the flint lock muskets being used by the Colonists; the war would have ended as quickly as it started!

The people of this country used to understand that; until they were brainwashed into fearing guns by the Ministry of Truth and Indoctrination. Hell, even the courts used to understand that. In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court held, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” (Nunn vs. State)

Although I do not care for their use of the term ‘privilege’, in 1878, the Arkansas Supreme Court 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. ” (Wilson v. State)

There is one final aspect of this that I would like to address; the belief people have that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to those in the militia; which people mistakenly believe is the National Guard; that the Second Amendment does not protect the average citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.

I doubt that the majority of those who support increasingly stricter gun control laws have ever read, or even heard about, the United States Code. The following definition of what the United States Code is, was taken off the website for the United States House of Representatives, “The United States Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States. It is prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives.”

I want people to firmly affix their thinking caps to their heads; what I am about to say is going to test your ability to apply logic and reasoning rather than emotions and conditioned responses.

Point Number 1; Article 6 of the Constitution states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”, does it not?

Point Number 2; The United States Code is the permanent record of every law passed by the U.S. government; making them ‘…the supreme Law of the Land …’, correct?

Therefore, if you were to look at Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 246, you would find the following:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

That is the law people, the ‘supreme’ law of the land, according to those who worship the Constitution! Therefore, according to the ‘law’ there are two categories of the militia; the National Guard, and every adult male; the unorganized militia.

Therefore, if you believe that the Second Amendment only applies to the militia, you MUST accept that it applies to every adult male living in this country; that every law that prohibits the right of every citizen to own the same type weapons as those that may be used by the military, or law enforcement, is a violation of the Second Amendment…end of story, shut up, you are wrong; regardless of what those black robed tyrants in the Supreme Court say about it.

I do not know what ailment of the mind people are suffering from today, but I do have something to say to all those who would see me left defenseless against tyrants; ‘Fuck you, and the horse your rode in on!’

I am sorry if I got rather long-winded there, but there are two subjects I am very passionate about; my right to keep and bear arms, and my freedom of speech; both of which are under constant attack by a society that seems to be incapable of realizing that they are the cornerstones of their freedom.

Now that I have gotten all that out of my system, let us return our discussion back to etymology for a bit. While etymology refers to the history and origin of words, certain phrases we use today also have unique, and interesting histories. Take, for instance, the term ‘basket case’; which got its origin when soldiers would often show up carrying their severed limb in a basket.

However, it is the term ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ that I wish to discuss. Although that term is not used as frequently as others, I still hear it from time to time, and the history behind it is pretty interesting; if you are a student of history, that is.

In the first part of the First Century, B.C., Rome was still a Republic which consisted of Italy proper, and various Roman Provinces. Each province had a Roman governor who was granted with imperium; that being the right to command and lead troops. However, no commander could lead their troops into Italy proper; to do so was punishable by death; both for the commander and the troops that followed him.

In 49 B.C. Julius Caesar sparked the Roman Civil War when he led his troops across the Rubicon River in Northern Italy. The moment he, and his troops, crossed that river, they became men marked for death; there was no going back for them. Of course, Caesar was victorious over Pompey in 48 B.C., which established a dictatorship, and heralded in the birth of the Roman Empire.

At least, now you know the origin of the term ‘Crossing the Rubicon.’ There is another term that is pretty close in nature, that being the term, ‘the point of no return.’ The point of no return is an aviation term; used to describe the point at which a pilot has used up so much fuel that they cannot safely return to their point of origin. Both terms basically mean the same thing though; they describe a point at which there is no going back.

I realize that I have taken a long time to get to the point of this essay, but there was a lot of groundwork I felt I had to lay out before I got here. However, now that we have arrived, there is a two-part question that I would like to ask of people; ‘Do you believe that there is a point in a country’s history that they have reached a point of no return, and, do you think we have reached that point in this country’s history?’

While I am not saying that it is beyond the realm of possibility, I think the odds are against America ever returning to the point where the rights and liberty of the citizens are secure against invasion; either by society in general, or by their systems of government; state and federal. There are a multitude of reasons I say that, and they are all interconnected with one another; meaning they are beyond the understanding of your run of the mill parchment worshipper who thinks that government is the solution to every problem this country faces.

I wonder if people are familiar with who Billings Learned Hand was. Mr. Hand served as both a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. With those credentials, one might say that Judge Hand knew the law, wouldn’t you say?

In 1944, on I Am an American Day, Judge Hand addressed a crowd of over a million people in New York’s Central Park. During his speech Judge Hand stated, “I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

How many people think that the Bill of Rights grants, or protects their rights? How many people think that we need to pass a law that either protects, or restricts, the exercise of certain rights? If you fall into either category, you do not understand the nature, or origin, of your rights; and you will never have any as long as you continue to believe that rubbish.

Your rights do not come from your government, from a document, or from society in general; they come from your status as a human being; derived from your Creator. If you believe that government, or mankind in general, can take away or restrict those Creator given rights, then you are admitting that man is superior to God. Sorry, I do not buy into that belief; which is why I do not accept that the will of society, or my government, can infringe upon my rights. If, on the other hand, you believe you need permission from society, or government, to enjoy the rights that are yours as gifts from your Creator, then you will NEVER see freedom; for government has become your god. If you claim to be Christian, then you should go back and read the book of Exodus, for in it you will find the following, “Thou shalt not have any other gods before me.”

I know I am going to offend quite a few people with this, but I honestly do not care anymore; if I offend you, so be it. Why is it that we are told to be tolerant of abhorrent behavior, yet it is okay to criticize those who only seek to regain a bit of the freedom that society, and government, has taken from them? We are criticized as being intolerant when we call abortion what it really is; the murder of unborn children. We are criticized as being intolerant when we disapprove of the gay lifestyle; citing the Bible are justification for our beliefs. We are criticized when we say there are but two genders; male and female.

Yet, if someone chooses to buy a plot of land, build a home upon that land that is totally energy independent, and become totally self-sufficient and self-reliant, society considers that kind of behavior to be intolerable. What in God’s name has happened to this country when becoming free is considered evil; that it poses a threat to society?

Listen, I am not saying that people should be prevented from living a gay lifestyle, or calling themselves ‘it’ or ‘them’ rather than ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am.’ Liberty means that we are free to live our lives as we choose; so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others. However, if you want people to respect the choices you make, you need to reciprocate and respect the choices others make. Liberty is a two-way street; if you want people to respect your liberty, you have to return the favor and respect theirs.

We have strayed so far from the Golden Rule, which states, ‘Do unto others as you would have others do unto you’ that we have Crossed the Rubicon in that regard. Society believes that it is okay to infringe upon the rights and liberty of others, as long as it is their political party that is doing the infringing; they only get mad when the other party returns the favor and does it to them. There is no way on God’s green Earth that anyone who claims to love liberty could justify voting for any of those seeking office today; not without proving themselves a hypocrite.

Yet that is the vicious cycle people find themselves in; voting for this party, or the other, hoping that things get better with this new batch of puppets they elect. You heard me, I said puppets; for while you may elect them, they serve others; your true masters upon this Earth. If you want to know whom your government serves, look at the names of the CEO’s of those listed in the Fortune 500. If you want to know who your government serves, look at the names of the shareholders in the big banking houses, like Chase Morgan and Goldman Sachs. If you want to know whom your government serves, look at the directorship of the United Nations, the World Bank, the World Monetary Fund, and the World Health Organization.

Since our government’s inception over 200 years ago, these special interests, these outside forces, have wormed their way into our system; gaining control over it through their control of our monetary system, and by inserting their operatives from organizations such as the Counsel on Foreign Relations, into key positions; not only in government, but in the media and academia.

I find it funny that Trump supporters accepted his claim that the swamp needed to be drained, but they never stopped to ask themselves who, and what the swamp was; they just accepted that he had their own best interests in mind; all while he appointed swamp critters to his own administration.

There is absolutely no way to return to a country in which we are not enslaved to the moneyed interests as long as this system of government continues to exist. People think that by passing a few laws here and there is going to change things? Maybe, but it will not change the fact that your government does not belong to, nor does it serve, you; it belongs to the rich, the powerful; or as the Anti-Federalists so long ago warned, the elite and well born who think they have a right to rule and lord over the masses.

If you want to fix what is wrong with this country today, you have to break your dependency upon a system that serves others; as their intermediary to impose the chains that bind you. If you want to free yourself, you have to abolish the system that stands between you and your freedom. There is no fixing it; it is too corrupt, too evil, to be repaired…it must be burnt down if you want your freedom back.

I’m sorry, the truth is a real bitch sometimes; but there you have it. That is why I feel we have, in fact, crossed the Rubicon; there is no going back; not when people willingly shut down their lives over a virus; simply because they were ordered to by their government. There is no hope for the future as long as people look to, and depend upon, government to provide them with things that it is their responsibility to provide for themselves.

If you want to be free, you have to act like a freeman, or woman; meaning take care of yourself and leave others alone to do the same. Government is the first link in the chains that enslave you, and as long as it exist, those chains will bind you to the masters who sit in the shadows and rule over your lives.

I grow weary of trying to convince people that their government is bad; that it is not serving the function governments are supposed to serve. That is why I hit y’all with a full dose of the truth you do not want to hear, or accept. So please, you will have to forgive me if I am a bit disappointed in the American people; not to mention, a bit pissed off at them. As Thomas Paine said so many years ago;

“When I contemplate the natural dignity of man, when I feel (for Nature has not been kind enough to me to blunt my feelings) for the honour and happiness of its character, I become irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves and fools, and can scarcely avoid disgust at those who are thus imposed upon.”

February 4, 2023

~ The Author ~
Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: [email protected].

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.