Government Approved Defense

Waking up in America each morning must be close to having Alzheimer’s; not really sure what memories are working and which are figments of imagination.  Take for example an article by Doug Ireland posted to the Eagle Tribune, Veto override expand NH deadly force law.  

 

“Local police are concerned public safety could be at risk after lawmakers voted yesterday to override the governor’s veto of a bill that allows people to use deadly force in public places.

The New Hampshire House voted, 251-111, to overturn the veto of Senate Bill 88 a week after the state Senate did the same.

Members of the Republican-dominated House praised the move, saying it gives New Hampshire residents the right to adequately protect themselves.

The previous law only allowed people to use a gun or other weapon to defend themselves in their own homes. The new law, which takes effect in 60 days, allows deadly force anywhere.”

Plenty of legislators vote on bills they haven’t read, have no clue as to the content and yet will stand in front of their constituents and claim to have represented them.  I guess the same is true about other important documents; they hold their arm to the square and pledge to uphold the Constitution without having read it.  These same folks want to protect our God given rights as found in the Bill of Rights; but only when it suits their agenda.

The Governor of New Hampshire vetoed a piece of legislation which need not have been written in the first place; individuals already have a God given right to defend themselves and it applies anywhere that individual might be attacked, it’s found in the 2^nd 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.”

A less controversial term would be “natural rights”, those which exist prior to the organization of government; perhaps the distinction between God given individual rights and natural rights is indeed relevant as “natural” marginalizes mankind’s relationship with God; we are, after all, made in His image.  (I’ll discount non-believers and their protestations regarding America’s dependence upon God without blinking.  When they’ve spent their last breathe and find themselves in the Spirit world somebody can explain it to them.)
.

There are many scriptures which testify of our being children of our Heavenly Father; however one which best applies to the discussion of self defense is found in Genesis 9:6.

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” 

Think about that short verse; the acknowledgment of violent acts between men is explained along with the authorization to retaliate or prevent violence.  It doesn’t say the authority or responsibility rests with the police or justice department; individuals have the right to shed blood in response to violence.
.

There’s a short explanation of the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller at FindLaw.com which covered the essentials; or does it?

“Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an “individual rights” approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals’ rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a “states’ rights” approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units. Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.


However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.”

Not wishing to appear obtuse; but where in the 2^nd Amendment does it say an individual’s God given right to keep and bear Arms is limited to his/her home?  I’ll save you the trouble, it doesn’t.  Government is limited, an individuals right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights outline the Proper Role of Government and were intended to prevent government from infringing on those rights.  Many laws are poorly written, intentionally complicated and unnecessary; beyond that, a goodly portion have been passed in direct conflict with our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Come Election Day wouldn’t it be important to elect representatives who’ve read and understand these documents?  We don’t need approval from government to defend ourselves; not in our homes or anywhere else, we already have that right!

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”.