Feb 23rd, 2013 - letter to the President

The Constitution requires that rights, being of inalienable destiny (absolutes, guarantees, without prejudice, fees, fines, holds, attachments, conditions.  Things not requiring qualification.)  have a sense of mutual equality.  Being that no single right be of lesser value than the others.  This equanimity ensures that the solidarity inherent in one be stabilized, behind the safety of all the others.  I’ve said it before, the whole is both shield and swords, an impenetrable wall of intellect and logic.

The question of gun control then becomes a question of equality or its opposite; a question of prejudice.

For example, an individual whom is openly walking down the street with a firearm in many states is likely to have the police approach him at some point during his travel from point A to point B.  It is likely that some ‘concerned’ citizen has dialed 911 and sent law enforcement to investigate the individual.  When approached what is the proper response of the officer? Not what they actually do, instead the current response is always the same: verify that the firearm be rendered unusable while the officer is standing there (to ensure his own safety and violate the individuals rights) and then begin to grill the person about where they are going, why they are carrying, and eventually, to demand ID verification from the person.  All in the name of “Public Safety”.

As far as I know the only place “Public Safety” is mentioned in the Constitution is in Article I section 9.  It says, 

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Public safety, in the case of invasion or rebellion.  Not as an all encompassing tool by which to lord over others.

Now, that said.  Let’s pretend “public safety” is a legal way of violating an individual’s rights.  Let us also pretend that there really is something called “Hate speech” and that people can violate the freedom of the first amendment by inciting riots or calling people terrible names (I disagree in principle, because people behave according to their own desires, someone screaming that others should harm some other persons do not need that person’s words to achieve it, they were merely waiting for a reason to do it.  They, those that actually commit the injustice, are the criminals.)  Let us also, then recognize, that if hate speech is true and exists in and of itself as a way of inciting others to act.  Then every war, every riot, every action, spoken of by a leader to get his people or his troops to act on his behalf and by doing, cause harm to others, is qualified as hate speech.  If hate speech is real, then the number of dead whom had ‘hate’ inflicted upon them by the actions of world leaders and ideologist’s staggers the imagination.  One could not even begin to compare the sheer number of people murdered under hate speech compared to the number of people murdered in schools by mad men.  Those dead by the speech of ideals far outweigh even the worst of individual atrocities.

 If this is indeed the case, then one must question, why law enforcement does not randomly stop individuals for simply having a mouth.  After all, the notion of just having a mouth implies that it could be used at some point to create hate and cause immeasurable damage.

Of course, the notion of stopping people on the street and asking them for ID and what they intend to do with their mouth is absurd.  Only a blithering idiot would even think to pass such a law and ask law enforcement to enforce it.

Then, it seems, according to your ideals, the 1^st amendment has a greater value than the 2^nd.  You allow more freedom of the first than you do of the second, because you recognize the absurdity of stopping people for the possibility that they might in the future say something that could cause harm, but you assume, through prejudice, that a firearm in the hands of a legal individual, is already a danger, even though, statistically, the person with the gun would require the consumption of ammunition and at some point run out, therefore his ability to create damage is limited, while, the person with a mouth has an unlimited capacity to create hate.    

“The pen is mightier than the sword,” Edward Bulwer-Lytton

You see, the real reason is that you are prejudice against firearms.  You are not treating the issue fairly and by the logically approach I use above, it is obvious that you are not using logic to arrive at a conclusion, therefore, you are either using the opinions of others (their emotional position) or you are using emotion to judge, unequally, the value of one inalienable right without the responsibility of comparing to the others.  This is catastrophe. 

The duty of government is to ensure that equal law is enforced to the civilization that it is asked to participate in.  This equal law applies not just to the people, but to the laws themselves.   Yes, that is correct, the law itself must be valid within the framework of the law.  Our system requires that certain types of laws that seem to infringe on personal rights, be compared to the language of the Constitution.  If the language of the Constitution deems that the law is illegal, then the law is illegal.  There is no debate.   Enacting an illegal law is no better than any other act of crime, it is a selfish, cruelty, enforced on the unwilling, by insensitive and arrogant mankind.

The whole approach you have chosen is not to ensure, protect, and keep equal the values of the Constitution, but is instead a prejudice disregard of equal rights and laws for not only the people, but also for the government.  The only reason a government would want inequality would be to ensure that when the Liberty is put to the scale, that it, the government, has the lion’s share.

The Democratic party claims Jefferson as their founder.  Perhaps you should take out more of his work and examine it more closely:

In matters of style, swim with the current; In matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. ~ Thomas Jefferson