Tuesday, March 02, 2010

2010 and the Right to Bear Arms

Lee Ross wrote for Foxnews, that the Supreme Court will make a ruling on whether or not individual liberties afforded under the Heller Decision, the right to keep and bear arms, a ruling which up until now many believe only covered citizens living in Washington D.C. or other federal protectorates, was and is intended to include the right to bear arms as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment for all citizens living in the United States of America .

I must be living in an alternate reality, believing that basic individual rights, reserved in the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms, exist for all citizens of the United States of America; or for that matter, for anyone regardless of his/her nation of origin. Our government’s acknowledgment or failure to acknowledge its responsibility to protect all individual God given rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights shows its willingness or rejection to be obedient to that God whose protective hands formed this nation and preserved it from those who would destroy this most desirable of all nations.

I should add my thoughts at this time, that there is a uniform acceptance of an individual’s right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government which carries across all state boundaries. Add to that the right not to be forced to speak as a witness against his/herself in any criminal trial, the right to a speedy trial or any other rights provided under the all encompassing Bill of Rights. Why would we, as individuals or a group of individuals expect the right to keep and bear arms be an exception, reserved only for folks living in Washington D.C.? Only a corrupted government would grant such perversions the time of day; but that is exactly what is being taken to the Supreme Court in our times.

If you think I’ll bend at this point to the injection of any argument in favor of the so called separation of church and state; don’t hold your breath. The Declaration of Independence boldly stated, “…assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them…” These folks understood the nature of God given rights; but every falling away from these principles through successive attacks, each generation having lost a piece here and a piece there, has been a collective effort to rob individuals of these very same rights.

Rights, as mentioned above, existed before the world was made, before governments were created or instituted of men and will continue to exist long after because they are eternal in nature.

Governments, which are simply groups of individuals assembled with or without the intent to provide safety for those under their care or control, while exhibiting power and the ability to trample upon individual rights, do not escape the eternal consequences associated with the laws of God. We will be held accountable for our obedience or refusal to obey God’s laws and for all other interaction with our fellow citizens.

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who dissented in the 2008 ruling, wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states.”


“If the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms,” she said.”


“There’s a good chance Tuesday’s case will result in a 5-4 outcome similar to the 2008 ruling. All of the members of that majority are still on the court and at least one of them would have to rule against extending the Second Amendment protection in order for the opposing side to prevail.”

I’ll address Justice Ginsburg’s faulty thought process. This is the United States of America; it is not any of the other free or semi free nations in the world. Our nation was set up to accommodate a higher order, divinely inspired, different in many ways from all the other nations on earth and, in its founding document, the Declaration of Independence, assigns our loyalties to our Creator for all rights bestowed on each and every individual. We are, by design, subjects only to God as our ruler; elected representatives and citizen are alike in all ways, responsible for their obedience to God’s laws.

Rights are not the result of government generosity or desire to be fair in its treatment or handling of civil matters; no indeed, rights do not require the federal government’s extending of them to states or, in any way granting such to individuals because rights exist at the individual level with the stipulation that our federal government protect each individual’s right. Rights are not to be confused with entitlements which may be granted to one person or denied another based on the frail and imperfect reasoning of men. Rights come from God, the Author of Liberty .

How in Sam Hill did Ruth Bader Ginsburg get appointed to sit on the Supreme Court? I’d like to know because, by her statements, she hasn’t got the slightest grasp of America or what is involved in our divinely inspired government’s responsibility to maintain each individual’s God given rights.

I don’t give a rat’s patootie that Judge Ginsburg considers, as if it were part of her oath to uphold the Constitution; that other nations, governments or free societies have rejected an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The fact that Judge Ginsburg looks for answers outside the divinely inspired documents of our own nation should be cause for concern to anyone who values the sovereignty of the United States of America.

History has shown that individuals who keep and bear arms are free to use them, within limits of reason, and have power, power which makes them more difficult to enslave. They are citizens, not slaves or subjects, capable of fending off either common criminals or tyrannical governments; perhaps I’ve repeated myself with such a remark.

Most governments, to include our own of late, seem to have rejected the notion that God gave these basic rights to all his children, regardless of which nation they happen to belong to; God being no respecter of persons.

I’m grateful to live in the United States of America where, at least in theory and upon our foundations as forged by divinely inspired men, individual freedoms were recognized as coming from God with government being instructed to defend those rights, limits being placed upon government with a knowledge of history and how governments will enlarge and usurp powers never intended over time.

It would be a welcome step toward restoring America to that which our founders envisioned if the Supreme Court were to favorably word their ruling, to acknowledge once and for all times, the nature of rights, that they apply uniformly across state boundaries, to include and spotlight the predominant idea that such rights are not granted from government at any level; but exist because of the eternal nature of rights.

The Supreme Court should specifically articulate the right to keep and bear arms as an individual God given right; but on a more general level, to unite the idea that our nation derived its inception and continued protection from God, who is the source of individual rights, along with a strong reminder that one of the duties of government is maintaining the necessary protection of those rights from usurpation at any level of government.

Edited: March 3, 2010


This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”. Please take a moment to add them to your list of favorites or include them in your side-bar.

3 comments:

The probligo said...

Hey, TF, when you going to join the Texas Tea-party and support Debra Medina?

MK said...

"....a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms,” she said.”

It's a dumb statement i know, after all a lot of societies also rejected freedom and liberty in favor of evil like communism and islam, does that mean Americans should also do the same.

I hope the court rules in favor of good people to defend themselves. That it's up to a court is a travesty in my opinion, but that's another story for another day.

T. F. Stern said...

Probligo,

I'm working to get the Republican Party back to being representative of true conservatives and believe the Tea Party movement should be Republicans. As far as Medina...I just didn't think too much of her; but that is no longer an issue; Perry took it hands down.

MK,

You hit it on both counts; why look down when you are on top and it is a travesty for this to be in any court.