<$BlogRSDUrl$>

The World According to Imal


Musings on Life, the Universe and Everything.


"Imal is a warrior poet, a modern day Nostradamus without all the annoying quatrains."
-Greg Packer

"Heed the need to read my screed."
-Imal


Published Wheneverly. A Proud American and Citizen of the Free Republic.

"Come for the coffee, stay for the pie."

Atom Site Feed


Thursday, December 11, 2003


The "Assault Weapons" Ban 


Article [II.] 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.

In constitutional matters, it is crucial to stay close to the source, and consider it carefully. Sometimes even a single word found in this amazing document can convey, by its usage and context, more than an entire stack of position papers or congressional findings, or articles driven by a spectrum of agendas both overt and subtle.

With respect to the "assault weapons" ban, the significance of the word "security" in the context of the article of our constitution which is devoted to asserting our right to keep and bear arms is, in my opinion, very great.

While it is easy to quibble about what constitutes a "Militia", the meaning of "the people" is consistent throughout the Constitution and never refers to anything but the people of the United States -- its citizens -- and never the government or any organization under the control of the government.

Arguments to the contrary are mendacious and utterly without merit. This right is reserved for the people, and no one else. Even the government has no such right. It also has no right to deny its citizens their inalienable rights.

Under the U.S. Constitution, government has no rights whatsoever, and none are defined for government anywhere within this legally binding document. Instead, powers are granted to the government by the people.

The Constitution never even remotely suggests that any body of government has "rights". The very idea of such a thing was abhorrent to and was violently rejected by the founders of this nation, who rebelled against the "divine right" of King George III to rule them as his subjects, spilled a great amount of blood in the process, and wrote eloquently and at great length about their reasons for doing so.

So why does the word "security" come to my mind when I evaluate the legality of the federal "assault weapons" ban? Consider this word's various definitions and their nuances in the context of a document intended to establish and maintain a free state for its people. From Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: se·cu·ri·ty
Pronunciation: si-'kyur-&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 15th century
1 : the quality or state of being secure : as a : freedom from danger : SAFETY b : freedom from fear or anxiety c : freedom from the prospect of being laid off <job security>
2 a : something given, deposited, or pledged to make certain the fulfillment of an obligation b : SURETY
3 : an evidence of debt or of ownership (as a stock certificate or bond)
4 a : something that secures : PROTECTION b (1) : measures taken to guard against espionage or sabotage, crime, attack, or escape (2) : an organization or department whose task is security

As both the Constitution and Merriam's dictionary make clear enough, security has nothing to do with "sporting purpose". Federal and state militias have never been chartered as sporting clubs, nor is any condition or restriction placed upon the kinds of arms protected under this binding provision of national law. If "assault weapons" truly are suited only for military use, then so much the better, if we are to respect and honor the clear statement and intent of the supreme law of the land in this matter.

The law is clear: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state. The word "optional" was not chosen with respect to an armed citizenry. The logical corollary is that a disarmed people cannot secure a free state, and will suffer the abuse and tyranny of the government that would otherwise exist as their servant. It is this very thing that the Second Amendment was written to prevent; it has no other reason for being.

Thus, the federal "assault weapons" ban is an illegal infringement in opposition to and violation of the United States Constitution, and an offense against the citizens of the United States. Not only should it be permitted to expire, but it should have been repealed, and ideally never made into law in the first place.

Congress, the President and the Supreme Court were never meant to be above the law, despite their strident and contemptible assertions to the contrary. When all three branches of government fail to act within the law, it falls upon us, the people, to take steps to bring it back into compliance.

For this, we have the vote, but should our government ever escape the power of the vote to control it, then active resistance -- and as a last resort, armed rebellion -- may be our only means to restore the supremacy of our rule.

It is our duty as a people to ensure that our government remains under our control, acts within the law at all times, and never again becomes our master. If we fail, we will forfeit our freedom


Truth is a balm to the righteous, and a poison to the wicked.



posted by Imal  # 5:20 PM


Want More? Check Out the Archives!

07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003   08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003   09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003   10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003   11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003   12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004   01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004   02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004   03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004   04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004   05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004   06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004   07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004   09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004  


Copyright © 2003, 2004 Imal. Contents may be freely used and distributed provided attribution to the author is included.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?