The Christian Solution C   S  
Home Page   About TCS   Read the Book   Read the Book (pdf)   Contact Us  
June 29, 2008
Supreme Court rules that you do NOT have a right to Keep and Bear Arms

Source: World New Daily
July 10, 2008
Unloading the PC D.C. gun ban -- Larry Elder

Source: The New American
June 23, 2008 Edition
Government -- is not the Problem -- Edwin Vieira, Jr.

Source: The New American
June 27, 2008
Deadly Consequences -- But the Right Call -- Eugene Robinson

    The king has graciously allowed the peasants to retain their pitchforks; the question of whether their right to own a horse, a suit of armor and a steel-tipped lance still remains unanswered. -- Vox Day

The Ultimate "Checks and Balances" on power

There are horizontal checks and balances on governmental power between the legislative, executive and judicial. All school children are taught these. Then there are the checks and balances school children are never taught.

Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913, there used to be a vertical checks and balances on governmental power between the states and the federal branch. Each State legislature had the power to appoint 2 U.S. Senators. The U.S. Senate would insure that the federal government did not step on state authority, over matters such as the schooling of children, the definition of marriage, how much water flushes in their toilets, and many, many other local matters.

And then, there is the greatest checks and balances our Founders could ever have given us -- Our "individual" right as one of the 300 million people of the United States militia to check and balance the power of both the state and federal government.

Noah Webster fought for his country against the tyranny of King George and understood this principle very well.

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
First, there is the 1st Amendment

  • "Congress shall make no law ...respecting an establishment of religion."
  • "Congress shall make no law ...prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
  • "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech."
  • "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of the press."
  • "Congress shall make no law ...respecting the right of the people peacefully to assemble."
  • "Congress shall make no law ...respecting the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The exception is obvious -- EVERYONE else BUT Congress can deny these rights. State legislatures can establish a state religion -- The Boy Scouts can discriminate against gays and atheists -- Schools can censor the speech of their valedictorians -- Cities can refuse to allow gays to assemble in to a gay pride parade. States can arrest Jewish media-Scribes for making outlandish lies that harm the public good.

Of course, State constitutions can also prohibit the establishment of a state religion, guarantee free speech and such. But, the Federal Constitution does not command it.

But you argue, "I have been told that the Fourth Amendment brings the 10 amendments to the states level. The States are just as restrained now in not violating our rights as the federal government always has been."

OK, I wholeheartedly agree!

When I read the First Amendment, I can clearly see, acting through the 14th Amendment, that the states are required by the Constitution to insure that "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" on these subjects. And furthermore, the States are insured that they are free to have an absolute right to make laws restricting speech and restricting the press, so long as their own State Constitution permits it.

The States are certainly NOT required to allow a Jewish media-Scribe monopoly in all means of communications, as currently exists. There currently exists a Jewish monopoly in Hollywood, in broadcast journalism, in newsprint, in magazine content, and even in Broadway. A monopoly would never be allowed in the manufacture of cars, or even a monopoly of white managers in those car companies, for instance, but in the free expression of ideas to hundreds of millions of people, the Jewish media-Scribes have long held a monopoly. They have recently retaken the radio broadcasting spectrum in the formerly free "talk radio" segment, and are currently devising ways to limit competition from the newly invented Internet with "hate speech" laws, and other such means.

Yet Congress, with no authority whatsoever, has written laws that allow it the authority to "regulate" the airwaves and soon will be imprisoning Internet bloggers such as myself for so-called hate crimes.

The Supreme Court cannot find anything unconstitutional here, can it!

Again, with the 1st Amendment, there is a HUGE exemption to its application -- it only applies to the laws Congress writes and hence the laws the executive enforces. As we will see, the 2nd Amendment has no such exceptions. None. Zip. Nada.

A Collectivist right or an individual right?

One of our greatest "individual right" was in danger of being relabeled as a "collectivist right". Socialist collectivism had arrived at its apex, for it was argued by the socialists, communists and other collectivists that the Jewish media-Scribes cherish that: "individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms'; instead, it is the collective right of the government to organize and control a collective militia".

Once again, the Jewish media-Scribes were at work redefining our vocabulary where, up is really down, left is really right, bad is in actuality good, gay is not a sickness, and individuals only exist in one of two groups; either a government protected group or a government hit-list group like Mormons, Branch Davidians, or the entire group of employed white men.

To the rescue comes what would look like an unlikely calvary; the Supreme Court. As anti-gun advocate Eugene Robinson even admits to:
  • The D.C. law was a perfect law for the Supreme Court to rule unconstitutional, because it was on the leading edge of gun-controller's wet dreams of confiscating all guns, yet D.C. was everyone's nightmare city to live in, with one of the worst records of gun-related murders. Thenceforth, where was the government's proof that gun control in D.C. had any positive affect on the government's responsibility of reducing crime? (Contrary to Robinson's belief that striking down the law will not help at all, The Christian Solution will be reading on page F26 of the New York Times in the coming months and years to see the level of crime in D.C. plummet from today's horrible levels)
  • As Eugene admits, "I've never been able to understand why the Founders would stick a collective right into the middle of the greatest charter of individual rights and freedoms ever written -- and give it such pride of place -- the No. 2 position, right behind such bedrock freedoms as speech and religion."
  • Eugen further argues, "And even if the Second Amendment was meant to refer to state militias, where did the Founders intend for the militias' weapons to be stored? In the homes of the volunteers is my guess. (Correction: In Texas law today, the militia is defined to be ALL able-bodied men between certain ages and with certain political exceptions. It is neither a volunteer force nor a drafted force; meaning, the state cannot enlist only the people they arbitrarily wish to be in the militia, for all of "the people" are in the militia. For instance, the state could not define only Protestants to be members of the militia or only employees of the state to be the militia.)
  • Again, Eugene correctly argues that it is nonsensical to argue that "a bunch of radicals who had just overthrown their British oppressors would tolerate any arrangement in which government had a monopoly on the instruments of deadly force." All sensible people who believe in the laws of supply and demand instinctively knows that any monopoly is bad, especially a government monopoly on brutal force like guns.
  • Eugene believes that "I think the revolutionaries who founded this nation believed in guns." Don't know if he believes that the American revolutionaries were good or bad revolutionaries, but he does know their correct inclinations in regards to insuring that the government was not the only ones who could kill people.
  • As sensible as Eugene writes on the above topic, he breaks down when discussing the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade. In regards to guns, he correctly argues that "if the Constitution says yes, you can't pretend it says no"; yet, Eugene believes the Supreme Court can decide on the Constitutionality of abortion in light of a "right to privacy". This is a contradiction, as his belief in an "implicit Right to Privacy, even though no such thing is spelled out (in the Constitution)" does not square with his other belief that the Constitution has to say yes in order for it to be constitutional. In fact, the Constitution does say yes -- it says yes to "life" and to the "liberty" of that life to live and in regards to "the pursue of happiness" of that life in the womb and out of the womb.
Turning now to the article of The New American, we can easily rebuke the arguments of E.J. Dionne who states (see The Rogues in Robes):
  • Conservative justices claim that they defer to local authority. -- Not in this case.
    FACT: Local authorities have no more authority under the Constitution to regulate guns as the federal government does. Local authorities are not exempted from the power of the Constitution in the Second Amendment, as they are with the First Amendment. True conservative justices do defer to local authority -- when the Constitution allows.
  • They insist that political questions should be decided by elected officials. -- Not in this case.
    FACT: The 2nd Amendment is not a political question to be decided by elected officials (OR even to be decided by judicial officials like the Supreme Court). That is EXACTLY the reason for the Constitution - to lay down ground rules for the subsequent political questions of the elected officials. In other words, the Constitution has already decided the issue. If elected officials (or judicial officials) don't like it, the Constitution allows itself to be amended --- As the 2nd Amendment itself amended the Constitution.
  • They argue that they pay careful attention to the precise words of the Constitution. -- Not in this case.
    FACT: This is a indeed a fact. True conservatives do pay careful attention to the precise words of the Constitution. Others like the Jewish media-Scribes pay careful attention so that they can twist the words to suit their agenda.
In any careful reading of the precise words of the Constitution, one has to admit that while the Constitution was written to frame and outline the structure of a federal government, the ten "Bill of Rights" were submitted by the states to insure that this new federal government would not assume dictatorial powers by interfering with God-given rights". Among these most fundamental rights was one's ability to defend himself and to defend his family.

All life boils down to two basic needs 1) a need to live today and 2) a need to live tomorrow, by way of reproduction. Sex and violence are programmed into the genes of all life. Sex for reproduction and violence to position oneself for that sex and for that reproduction.

Even collectivists understand "The Law of the Jungle" -- actually, they revel in it. It is the only morality they understand. Christians on the other hand channel sex and violence into love within families and respect for authority.

And when one reads all the Bill of Rights, there is only one amendment which has no restrictions, no exceptions, and no clarifying elements. That one is the Second Amendment's right to self-defense. Especially, a self-defense from the most powerful element in most people's lives; their own government.

Need more proof that the Founders did not intend for there to be exceptions to the Second Amendment? Let's look at the exceptions the Founders insisted upon in the remaining 8 amendments, all having clear exceptions, clearly labeled:

The 3rd Amendment
No soldier shall be quartered in your home.

But there are exceptions. In peace, they have to have your consent. In war, they do not have to have your consent, but they have to be quartered in your home according to the due process of the law.

The 4th Amendment

We all have a right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

OK, but what if it is a reasonable search and seizure? And, if government gets a warrant, based upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized, then you have no right whatsoever to be secure in your person, house, papers or effects.

The 5th Amendment

No person shall be "held" (i.e. imprisoned) to answer for a capital, or other infamous crime. (we are all innocent until proven guilty)

OK, you cannot be put into jail, awaiting trial by a "petite" jury to prove if you are guilty or innocent of murder, treason, rape, etc, UNLESS, a "grand" jury issues a preliminary "guilty" verdict upon you. After the Grand Jury, you are no longer "innocent", but now presumed "guilty", and can be held to answer for a capital crime. Even then there are exceptions for war and militia service.

Pleading the "Fifth" is one of our most cherished rights. We believe we cannot be tried twice for the same offense. We believe we cannot be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against ourself, nor that we can be denied life, liberty or property. But then there is the huge exception of "due process of law. If the law allows it, then the Fifth Amendment does not exist at all.

All the "Fifth" does is prevent our public officials from making it up as they go. Our representatives in Congress have to have debated and voted on a law giving public officials any authority over us, before any public official can lay a hand on us.

This is a great example of the arguments made by Viera in the New American article. "The Law" is "The People". Our representatives write the law, so the law is the will of the people. "The Government" therefore is "The People." What the Founders wanted to prevent was for individuals working for the government to actually be working against the people and the people's government.

So let's say that a prison guard tortures a prisoner and obtains a confession. The law says that confessions obtained by torture is unreliable, as most tortured prisoners will tell a torturer anything they want to hear. The law says that such confessions cannot be used in a court of law. Therefore, the prison official is not performing his job in accordance with the will of the people who wrote the law. He is not doing the job the government hired him to do. He is a tyrant, but he is in no way the government. He cannot be the government, because his actions does not express the will of the people in their law. Hence, it is incorrect to say that, "The government violated my rights this way or that way". The government under the Constitution is absolutely incapable of violating any rights. Only criminals in places of authority in the government can be guilty of violating the law saying that torture is illegal.

The worst case of criminals violating laws while representing the law is when our very representatives writes laws against the wishes of the People, because of a bribe and not because the governmental Constitution required the opposite. That representative is also not the government. He also acts upon the "color of law", for he has no authority to do anything but represent the people who elected him.

The 6th Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...

The exception? You do not have a right to a speedy and public trial in "non-criminal" prosecutions, such as the "non-criminal" prosecution for child abuse where child protective services (CPS) officials snatch your child away from you. Nor it appears does a man have a right to a speedy and public trial in a "non-criminal" divorce proceeding where his "property" of children and wife are taken away from him under authority of the state.

The 7th Amendment

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy does not exceed twenty dollars, the right to a trial by jury shall be preserved.

Big exception! --Try to find a common law court anymore. Divorce court, administrative law judge courts, traffic courts, FISA courts, and CPS proceedings do not appear to be common law courts; otherwise, you could demand a jury trial to prove your guilt or innocence.

The 8th Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required.

Bail is allowed as long as it is not excessive. Who defines excessive? -- Government.

The 9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If there are any rights not specifically spelled out, we still have those rights for ourselves, but for those rights that are spelled out, the federal government has allowed itself the authority to "regulate" them through voting laws, anti-segregation laws, war on poverty laws, etc.

The 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved by the States respectively. or to the People.

This one does have a clear exception to the States. All governmental powers rests with the States, UNLESS the Constitution gives that power to the Federal government or if the Constitution restricts the States from a power.

Now, we return to our Second Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment is the only absolute one we have. There are no exceptions, whether it be at the federal level, the state level, at the county level, at the city level, inside a courtroom, inside an airplane, inside a school, or inside a pub.

To Viera, the 2nd Amendment can be read as"
  • "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the very foundation of "a well regulated militia".
  • "A well regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State".
  • Therefor, the continued existence of "a free State" --and its government -- depends upon "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
If the 14th Amendment brings the 2nd Amendment down to the state level, then it is further absolutely guaranteed that no state nor state agency can infringe upon "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." (Most times, this inconvenience is a mere technicality often over-looked by all collectivists controlled by the Pharisees.)

Impact of the Heller Case

On the positive side, the Supreme Court overruled the Jewish media-Scribe propaganda stating that the right to keep and bear arms is a collectivist right. They correctly stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

...And then, they invalidated the Second Amendment altogether as an individual right.

They stated that the District of Columbia has the authority to grant licenses to have a gun, with its corresponding authority to NOT grant a license to have a gun. Furthermore, the Supreme Court allowed to continue the registering and tracking of guns by governments at all levels, which has come in vogue as of late.

In doing so, the implicit ruling, once you get past the false moaning, groaning and gnashing of teeth of the Jewish media-Scribes, and the equally false jubilant celebrations of the NRA, is that government has a right to grant or deny their permission (license) to an "individual" to have a gun, so long as that grant or denial is not arbitrary or capricious and can track who has the guns. Hardly the UNALIENABLE right to not have our rights infringed which we all would expect our Supreme Court to uphold.

The Heller case has indeed infringed upon an individual's right to keep and bear arms, even as it defines the right as individual. It has more than fringed the edges of the Constitution; it has torn it into pieces.

Politicians of just two generations ago understood the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right. They did not need lawyers just finished genuflecting at the Supreme Court alter to tell them so. AND, they would not dreamed of asking their constituents to go to a government bureaucrat, so that the law-abiding, taxpaying voter could register himself as a gun owner by trying to prove himself a respectable citizen.

In striking down the harsher elements of the D.C. gun-control laws, the Supreme Court's real impact will be in affirming the un-Constitutional gun-control licensing requirement of government. We peasants can have our pitchforks for now. But, only as long as our masters know which of us have the pitchfork, so as to be able to come after them when the time arrives.

The Heller case never touched on the part stating "shall not be infringed", and so they allowed the 2nd Amendment to continue being infringed by the state.

Freedom in America indeed looks bleak. Constitutional government cannot long endure with America having so many anti-Constitution politicians in office.

Article located at:
Last Hope for America
Christian Libertarian: Harmonious Union
Church and State
Recent News
The Christian Solution © was released March 15, 2008
The Christian Solution ©         P.O. Box 530         Allen, TX   75013         First Release: March 15, 2008