The Decision of Property Remains in the Individual, not the Government - Part I
Deciding what I can own (in relation to firearms) is a clear violation of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments. Which in turn means, that it is violates the 9th and the 10th amendments.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This means that, in the broadest sense, that the Federal Government is specifically limited to acting on things that can not be associated to systems of belief. In the ancient world, before the enlightenment, such systems of belief (religions) were centered around unseen gods. After the enlightenment, the nature of belief changed, and new forms of religion became prevalent. For example, John Locke's notion of Life, Liberty, and Estate is in fact a system of belief. Those people that read his work and call it 'gospel' would on some level be considered members of a church. Although, freemen following natural ideals hardly ever congregated into churches, but the notion still remains. I for example, subscribe to John Locke's functioning belief system. Therefore to me, my Life, Liberty, and Estate stand equal to what others would call god and by the 1st amendment, my right to express and respect my established religion is fully in my own control and the Federal Government has zero authority to even begin to infringe upon it. When the government says I can't own a particular type of weapon based on the options of the weapon or it says I can't own modern tools that make the weapon more efficient or that I can't own tools that keep ammunition organized (by the way, these are all things the Federal Government allows itself to have, Jefferson said this is the definition of Tyranny) , it is effectively saying that I do not have the right to self governance, which denies me my core belief, that is: Locke, Jefferson, Madison's idea of self sovereignty, therefore the government denies me my religion. And since I no longer have legal redress against the government (especially since the system at this point is unfairly taxing me in direct opposition to my opinions, meaning I am no longer represented for my taxation), then it becomes clear that such laws directly violate the 1st amendment's right to freedom of religion, my exercise of, as well as my right to petition the government for redress of the assault against my religion.
Now before I move on, there will be those that say, even religion should be constrained, because what if churches wanted to do human scarifies. A human sacrifice is a violation of that person's Life, Liberty, and Estate and since those things are owned by the individual and not the church, the church has committed an act of war against the individual and the individual has the right to call on his allies to exact a price on this crime against them. One must remember, that Life, Liberty, and Estate are personally 'owned' by the individual and only they (the individual) have the authority to decide the value of these three properties. Outside institutions, from other individuals, groups, states, countries or planets, have zero authority to make those determinations.
Instead let's look at the real idea of tyranny and the purpose of the 2nd amendment. As I stated just above, each individual person is his (or her) own property. This property is composed of many faucets, for me the three chief pieces are: Life, Liberty, and Estate. These three things are knitted into my very being, indistinguishable from the whole but also unique onto themselves. Since the individual owns these principled ideas, then it is the individual whom judges the value of these objects. Society, other people, have no right to make that judgement for the individual. Societies that force all babies to be right handed, for example, are in clear violation of the Right to Liberty and Estate, because they've enforced an idea on the individual's body (Estate) that may have been in opposition to the individuals core ideals (Liberty) and thus altered the value and direction of Life as well. This goes for any infringed upon individualism. These infractions that attack, Life, Liberty, and Estate are the very definition of tyranny. Tyrants are not always out of control governments, but are simply any notion that violates an individuals Natural Rights to self governance.
So, when people talk about the 2nd protecting against tyrants, they really mean, against any infraction of personal Liberty, attacks on Life or theft of Estate.
What about the idea of limiting the ability to own devices or instruments and tools called weapons? Does the government even have the authority to limit or designate limits on the technology? The only answer of course is no. This needs to be reminded: The 2nd amendment does not establish this right for men, it simply reminds government that it has no authority to infringe on this Natural Right, and is the very reason why the flag shows a rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike, for the snake represents Natural Rights reacting to invasion and intrusion. The reasons why we have this right should be obvious. The tool itself (in this case a firearm) is an extension of my property. It is part of my Estate. Now, Estate is not transitory. It has no a fixed location in time. It is not my 'present' Estate only, but Estate is what I have been, what I am and what I am trying to achieve with my whole being (with my work). Therefore Estate is composed of all the past that I am, the present that I am, and all those things in the future I wish to include. Our Estate encompasses all possible inclusions that may or may not actually be in our property. For example, you may be newly married and not in a place where you can afford to purchase a home or afford children. Imagine then, if a government agency suddenly outlawed the purchasing of homes or required all humans to be on contraceptives. We would all be upset, not about the effects of the law today, but by the effects the law would have on our future (and those things we put in our Estates to enrich our lives) and thus, we would feel that all the work and time we've put into our lives up this point were in vain, and frankly, that feeling would only partially correct, for in reality, such laws would really mean, that the work was done for the sake of the government's position, in other words, you'd have basically been slave labor. The same is true for firearms, because the property is still just as individually protected as any other kind of property. When the government says no more new 30 round magazines, they are effectively saying that your work to that point is invalid and owned, therefore, by the actions of the government, and your future actions are therefore property of the government. This is the real tyranny we have to fight and the very reason why the second amendment was included. But of course, no government has ever been open to the idea of Life, Liberty and Estate, because individual sovereignty lies in opposition to its power (and its whole purpose for existing), so even the most benevolent governments still put limits on the 2nd, which is a tragedy of unbelievable misfortune, for it steals Life, Liberty, and Estate from those people it thinks it's helping.
Part I
The First and the Second Amendments -- Violated
1st A
Religion is not the idea of believing in a god. It is the idea of having a belief. This belief can be anything that does not require the necessity of science to be validated. Those things that would require scientific peer review are, well, science and require a rigid set of values and processes to follow, whereby the theory becomes fact or falsified. A belief is anything that one can say and hold onto without the need for this review process. To say "I believe in God" is to be religious, but it is just as religious to say, "I believe in humanity" The attributes of the belief may differ but the underlying notion, that is, believing in something that others may disagree with based on their own views, regardless of evidence, remains constant. There in, the 1st amendment so states:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This means that, in the broadest sense, that the Federal Government is specifically limited to acting on things that can not be associated to systems of belief. In the ancient world, before the enlightenment, such systems of belief (religions) were centered around unseen gods. After the enlightenment, the nature of belief changed, and new forms of religion became prevalent. For example, John Locke's notion of Life, Liberty, and Estate is in fact a system of belief. Those people that read his work and call it 'gospel' would on some level be considered members of a church. Although, freemen following natural ideals hardly ever congregated into churches, but the notion still remains. I for example, subscribe to John Locke's functioning belief system. Therefore to me, my Life, Liberty, and Estate stand equal to what others would call god and by the 1st amendment, my right to express and respect my established religion is fully in my own control and the Federal Government has zero authority to even begin to infringe upon it. When the government says I can't own a particular type of weapon based on the options of the weapon or it says I can't own modern tools that make the weapon more efficient or that I can't own tools that keep ammunition organized (by the way, these are all things the Federal Government allows itself to have, Jefferson said this is the definition of Tyranny) , it is effectively saying that I do not have the right to self governance, which denies me my core belief, that is: Locke, Jefferson, Madison's idea of self sovereignty, therefore the government denies me my religion. And since I no longer have legal redress against the government (especially since the system at this point is unfairly taxing me in direct opposition to my opinions, meaning I am no longer represented for my taxation), then it becomes clear that such laws directly violate the 1st amendment's right to freedom of religion, my exercise of, as well as my right to petition the government for redress of the assault against my religion.
Now before I move on, there will be those that say, even religion should be constrained, because what if churches wanted to do human scarifies. A human sacrifice is a violation of that person's Life, Liberty, and Estate and since those things are owned by the individual and not the church, the church has committed an act of war against the individual and the individual has the right to call on his allies to exact a price on this crime against them. One must remember, that Life, Liberty, and Estate are personally 'owned' by the individual and only they (the individual) have the authority to decide the value of these three properties. Outside institutions, from other individuals, groups, states, countries or planets, have zero authority to make those determinations.
2nd A
The 2nd amendment has often been touted as protecting against tyranny. This is generally a good statement, but it lacks the connective tissues of a really deep ideal, something that even those on the other side of the fence can understand, even against a president that says tyranny is a fraud invented by fear mongers.Instead let's look at the real idea of tyranny and the purpose of the 2nd amendment. As I stated just above, each individual person is his (or her) own property. This property is composed of many faucets, for me the three chief pieces are: Life, Liberty, and Estate. These three things are knitted into my very being, indistinguishable from the whole but also unique onto themselves. Since the individual owns these principled ideas, then it is the individual whom judges the value of these objects. Society, other people, have no right to make that judgement for the individual. Societies that force all babies to be right handed, for example, are in clear violation of the Right to Liberty and Estate, because they've enforced an idea on the individual's body (Estate) that may have been in opposition to the individuals core ideals (Liberty) and thus altered the value and direction of Life as well. This goes for any infringed upon individualism. These infractions that attack, Life, Liberty, and Estate are the very definition of tyranny. Tyrants are not always out of control governments, but are simply any notion that violates an individuals Natural Rights to self governance.
So, when people talk about the 2nd protecting against tyrants, they really mean, against any infraction of personal Liberty, attacks on Life or theft of Estate.
What about the idea of limiting the ability to own devices or instruments and tools called weapons? Does the government even have the authority to limit or designate limits on the technology? The only answer of course is no. This needs to be reminded: The 2nd amendment does not establish this right for men, it simply reminds government that it has no authority to infringe on this Natural Right, and is the very reason why the flag shows a rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike, for the snake represents Natural Rights reacting to invasion and intrusion. The reasons why we have this right should be obvious. The tool itself (in this case a firearm) is an extension of my property. It is part of my Estate. Now, Estate is not transitory. It has no a fixed location in time. It is not my 'present' Estate only, but Estate is what I have been, what I am and what I am trying to achieve with my whole being (with my work). Therefore Estate is composed of all the past that I am, the present that I am, and all those things in the future I wish to include. Our Estate encompasses all possible inclusions that may or may not actually be in our property. For example, you may be newly married and not in a place where you can afford to purchase a home or afford children. Imagine then, if a government agency suddenly outlawed the purchasing of homes or required all humans to be on contraceptives. We would all be upset, not about the effects of the law today, but by the effects the law would have on our future (and those things we put in our Estates to enrich our lives) and thus, we would feel that all the work and time we've put into our lives up this point were in vain, and frankly, that feeling would only partially correct, for in reality, such laws would really mean, that the work was done for the sake of the government's position, in other words, you'd have basically been slave labor. The same is true for firearms, because the property is still just as individually protected as any other kind of property. When the government says no more new 30 round magazines, they are effectively saying that your work to that point is invalid and owned, therefore, by the actions of the government, and your future actions are therefore property of the government. This is the real tyranny we have to fight and the very reason why the second amendment was included. But of course, no government has ever been open to the idea of Life, Liberty and Estate, because individual sovereignty lies in opposition to its power (and its whole purpose for existing), so even the most benevolent governments still put limits on the 2nd, which is a tragedy of unbelievable misfortune, for it steals Life, Liberty, and Estate from those people it thinks it's helping.
Comments
Post a Comment