Making Far Right Politics Sound Politically Correct ...
|The Free Galatian (OP)|
User ID: 31541650
01/12/2013 10:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
"Being Necessary For The Security of a Free State"Quoting: The Free Galatian
Success in opposing Obama's tyrannical agenda requires more than heroic individuals protecting their "castles" defensively under a State "castles doctrine." It requires a concerted and pre-emptive effort on the part of the free States of America. If, for example, a State passes a law that criminalizes federal agents who try to enforce federal firearms laws, then larger numbers of citizens, as well as police officers, will mobilize to the cause. And, if, during the course of enforcing State laws, as either a citizen or a Police Officer, an individual's life and property are directly threatened by federal agents, then he/she should be allowed to defend himself with violent, even lethal, force if necessary.
Of course, good conscience dictates that reasonable effort should be made to make the arrests peacefully, without loss of life, but the Security of a Free State (not the lives of federal agents) is clearly the overriding, moral imperative of the Second Amendment. With State law on your side, the use of force, pre-emptively, against federal agents, is justified. It is justified not only by the State Laws, but also by the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution which clearly and undeniably defines the purpose of firearms possession as "Necessary For The Security of a Free State".
Note that it doesn't say "of a free nation". It says "of a free State." And, by natural rights, the citizens and the legislature of a particular State, not the federal government, are the ones who have the right to define how to regulate firearms possession within their borders. In other words, the Second Amendment delegates the authority to regulate firearms possession to the State Legislatures. The only instruction to the federal government, which is embedded in the Second Amendment, is that the federal government "shall not infringe" on the rights of the People, as regulated by the States, to own firearms. This is not only the clear intention of the U.S. Constitution, but it is also intuitive common sense. After all, why should a body, like the U.S. Congress, 99% of whom do not reside in Utah, have anything whatsoever to say about how firearms are regulated within the borders of Utah?
The events at Waco, TX in 1993 illustrate that the enforcement of federal firearms laws by federal agents was clearly a threat to the "Security of a Free State," every bit as much as if a foreign army had invaded the State. Therefore, use of State Law and force against federal agents who enforce federal firearms laws IS JUSTIFIED BY THE 2nd Amendment, as long as the State Legislature is on board. Individual heroics, it seems to me, are neither permitted nor outlawed by the Second Amendment. Rather, it is up to the State Legislatures to define how firearms can be owned and used within the boundaries of each State, for the purpose of the security of the State.
Furthermore, with regard to the events at Waco, if the Clinton Administration had simply followed the very clear and precise logic of the Second Amendment in the first place, then they would've realized that ALL FEDERAL FIREARMS REGULATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, except for the regulation of the military. If the Clintonites had, as the founders intended, simply delegated that authority to the State of Texas, then the entire confrontation would have been avoided altogether. Many lives would've been saved, including innocent women and children, both at Waco and at the Oklahoma City bombing which occurred as a backlash against Waco.
The State of Wyoming is working on a slate of legislation that embraces this philosophy. It is now legal for Wyoming citizens to utilize 'citizens arrests' against federal agents who seek to enforce federal gun law, though some additional legislation would help to clarify and reinforce this doctrine. Embracing this approach to gun control can save a lot of money, for both the States and the federal government. If citizens can make arrests themselves, without financial charge to the State, then the issue can be defused, pre-emptively and at very low cost to the State Treasury. And, it is best for the security and safety of citizens, as well, because it allows citizens to act pre-emptively, before federal agents are able to mount an assault on a home or compound.
After all, the best defense is a good offense. If federal agents can be arrested and disarmed pre-emptively, before they mount their attacks on people's homes, then there is no chance that they will commit the kinds of atrocities against women and children that were committed by the Clinton Adminstration in Waco, TX during 1993. Instead of assaulting and torching innocent women and children, as they did at Waco, they will be sitting quietly in a State Prison cell, right where the Second Amendment says that they should be.
"The Truth Shall Set You Free."
|1||Heritage Foundation Benghazi Q&A Panelist Puts 'Politically Correct' Muslim Student In Her Place||07/07/14|
|2||Why is calling someone a dumb blond politically correct?||07/04/14|
|3||Political correctness has taken the form of control||05/29/14|
|4||I thought of a politically correct name for the Washington Redskins that the progressives will love||06/23/14|
|5||Gaywad here, sick of political correctness||06/18/14|
|Related Topic: Politics (Mainstream Media)|