On Joe’s blog today Joe posted another question from Mark Philip Alger to go along with the “Just One Question“.
To summarize here:
When is it proper, for example, to use force to stop a legislator engaged in unconstitutional actions? Indeed, when is it required of those who have sworn oaths to… protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic…?
This is a question I have often asked myself over and over, and it is a very critical item. There have been numerous comments made on the subject and many have different feelings. Ultimately I think everyone has their own independent tripwire of what will “set them off”. Joe’s page on Civil Disobedience serves as a good resource to those who have never pondered the question.
I read that new post just after re-reading the Declaration of Independence. Now if you’re wondering why I would spend my free time reading that, or the Constitution or any other numerous items regarding history, it’s because I don’t want to repeat it. A smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from other peoples mistakes. History gives you the ability to see events and what occurred because of them.
Back to the point however many only remember a few phrases, such as: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Many do not remember the laundry list of things that was done by the King that was presented as evidence. Now while many of these may not directly pertain to our present state of affairs, we should however also note other lessons that we’ve learned in the 20th century.
My personal thoughts on the subject is that the denial of the any specifically enumerated right of the people, most especially the right to keep and bear arms is a tripwire. Any and all attempts to prevent the people from being able to arm themselves properly for the defense of themselves, family, or property serve no other purpose to make us subservient to the state. This includes attempting to restrict ammunition by tax, or by requirements. A firearm without ammo is only an expensive club. While some would argue that you can stash weapons and use them at a later time, not everyone will be successful in stashing weapons. With restrictions on firearms, restrictions on travel and speech will exist limiting our ability to organize.
My definite words to live by are the lessons of the 20th century. When it came to New Orleans after Katrina, certainly shoot any soldier collecting weapons, nail the police chief, and the mayor too. At this point their sole goal is to be bigoted against us and kill us. To me it’s like negotiating with a terrorist who only wants you dead, what is there to negotiate? If it reaches this point you must trip and act. As for legislating it’s much harder to say. If someone actually starts collecting after legislation, they are definitely guilty, but who will hold them accountable.
These are just my thoughts on the subject, they’re very fluid and it’s a topic that is very difficult. It is not clear cut like someone attacking you in your house or stealing your property. However it is someone stealing your rights.