Feb 10, 2013 - On Comparing Voting to Firearms

To the President, Congress, the State of California and all Political ideologists,

I heard someone yesterday say, “The States, although they may not ban all firearms, can decide the types of arms that are available”.

This is patently false.  First it isolates one Right from the others and by doing forces that Right to be weighed against the social merit of the contemporary politician instead of staying firmly planted between the lines of the rest of the constitution to be weighed as a fundamental approach to thinking and by doing so a process under which all free citizens are balanced by the whole fabric of the constitution.  A single right could easily be lost in the noise of an angry mob.  But put back into its rightful place, no mob can even din against the well versed and volumes of texts about the notions and thoughts of the founding fathers.

For example, nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee that every single adult has the right to vote.  Article 1 establishes how Representatives are elected, Article 2 establishes how the President is elected.  The 15^th prohibits the exception  of ONLY race, color, or previous condition of servitude (slavery).  The 17^th re-establishes how Senators are elected. The 19^th gives women the right to vote.  And finally, the 26^th says that one needs to be eighteen years old to vote.  Nowhere does it stop the same state that can limit an Arm based on its type from limiting a vote by its type.  

The State could, if it wished, define morbidly obese people in-eligible for the vote.  It could say all Republicans.  It could say people in specific geographic areas have no right to vote.    The state could say people with certain professions can not vote.

But of course, no one would ever do such a thing.  It would be political suicide to suggest inner city citizens not have the right to vote or that those without an income cannot vote.    The outrage and disgust would be immediate.   Because, even though it is not expressly defined it is assumed, by the nature of the whole fabric of the Constitution, that all men (mankind) are created equal, and therefore have the same rights, (eight of which are established therein as the bill of rights).
 

Yet, since we are talking about an object that is vilified it becomes easier for government to simply ignore the rest of the Constitution.  To simply forget that there is a full continuity to the whole work that sets each person in exact equality to the government he allows to exist.  

One cannot isolate amendments.  This is a great folly on your part.  The whole work, the definitive ideology that inhabits each line must be taken in as whole, not in pieces.  

This requirement of looking at the whole Constitution at once is the very reason We The People allow government to exist.  We have asked that you be the caretakers, those that can actively respect and keep those that would destroy our rights away from the gate.

But judging from the fact that very little protection is being proposed and more of our rights are being subverted or just plain ignored by traitorous individuals bent on their personal crusades to enforce their ideals on the rest of us, it has become apparent that you are no longer the government we demand and required to protect our constitution.

The second amendment, specifically identifies that the right to Keep, that is own, or possess, an Arm cannot be infringed.  There is not a single note included where the expectation of an ‘except’ should be included in the 2^nd amendment.  If the founding fathers had felt that an exception would have been necessary, they would have included it.

Any law that limits any type of arm (knives, guns, swords, etc.) is in fact unconstitutional as would be any law that limits any type of voting.

It is time that the established agencies recognize that We The People have these rights and that we demand that they be respected and protected.