| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Three Letters Re: Why Civilian Disarmament in the U.S. is Just a Statist Fantasy
Mr. Rawles,
I love the SurvivalBlog site and what you do. Many thanks to you and all contributors! I have some remarks on the letter: A Call to Action: The Impending Weapons Ban, by James M.
I agree on the fundamental points made regarding firearms, but it does sound like a re-hash of the red-herring debate from ’91 with the only “Call to Action” being that Congress should ban something else. Maybe they should ban Murder. Oh, wait that’s been done…
I personally don’t think our Congressional leaders should really be banning anything at all, and when the subject of mental capacity & banning comes up together (within the context of forced medication or incarceration), my main question/concern becomes,…. who gets to determine which of us is mentally ill or unstable? I already know that everyone is somebody else’s weirdo, and apparently we preppers are all completely nuts. But, on the serious side I have a problem with limiting anyone’s rights based on thought crime or any interpretive means where there is no victim (especially where the result would be forced medication or detainment for “potential” criminal activity).
So, an interesting scenario to consider based on my perspective described above. Let’s say some Psychologist/government agent convinces city council or some judge that Christianity is a mental illness. You are now required by law to take powerful medication that most likely would ruin your quality of life. That kind of control over anyone’s life is a terribly bad idea, because we all know that it is unethical and wouldn’t stop there.
I also am getting frustrated with people saying our rights are granted by the Constitution. That is completely wrong. Our rights are God given and don’t change regardless of what the Constitution says (The document may still fail to list them all in some cases). It was simply written to generally explain and provide a reminder to elected officials of what the people already have and what cannot be infringed upon. In the case of slavery and women’s rights, I believe it was errant of the original crafters of the Constitution to have not recognized these as inherent rights for all people at that time. So again, the “document” is just an imperfect representation of what God has already provisioned.
“There are certain principles that are inherent in man, that belong to man, and that were enunciated in an early day, before the United States government was formed, and they are principles that rightfully belong to all men everywhere. They are described in the Declaration of Independence as inalienable rights, one of which is that men have a right to live; another is that they have a right to pursue happiness; and another is that they have a right to be free and no man has authority to deprive them of those God-given rights, and none but tyrants would do it. These principles, I say, are inalienable in man; they belong to him; they existed before any constitutions were framed or any laws made.
Source:
