IrishGold
12-12-2003, 09:27 PM
Discontentment of Americans When the Judicial Branch No Longer Honors Constitutional Law
Reflections upon the US Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveria
Approximately 30 days ago, I received a long email from someone. At the end was a moderate length, beautifully phrased quotation, the core essence of which was this idea: A person who devotes his adult life to trying to hold government accountable so citizens do not have to resort to force is noble and is devoted to one of life's most noble pursuits. When I read that I instantly thought of people I know (plug in names?), all of who have stretched me to grow. I intended to pass that quote on but did not. I’m sorry. Those who are engaged in that noble cause know who they are.
Today, December 1, 2003, I am sad: The United States Supreme Court rejected the Silveria case, and I do not feel free. I have to felt that way for a long time. I do not feel free because my brain's rational thought processes convince me that I am not truly free. I am not truly free because I, and others, have been, and still are, denied one or more of our most fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, we have only the illusion of freedom and the reality of oppression. Oppression is enforced via perverted rules; misleaders and their subordinates who are exist. And can be seen by those who look and appreciate what they see.
We live in a perverted, disingenuous, nation, full of callous, cavalier, self-righteous, Constitutional illiterates, in and out of government, who are dangerous and oppressive. Despite the best efforts of some of the best people I know, plus their passion, sustained commitment, critical, cerebral energy, delayed gratification, sacrifice, etc. I have serious reservations if any of us, including myself, individually or in the aggregate, have accomplished anything meaningful in terms of "the big picture" or of delaying open armed conflict. I suspect that all we have really done is this: 1) Peacefully communicated a principled protest to Government, that continues to be rebuffed; 2) Clarified what the issues are; 3) Documented that we have compelling grounds to be disgusted, alarmed, alienated, and worse, and why; 4) Established that much of Government and many of its most important agents are smug, arrogant, dangerous, oppressive, and constitutionally insensitive or callous or both.
I sometimes think I am a fool to invest so much in the name of Liberty. Simultaneously, I beat myself up because I have invested so little in the name of Liberty. Simultaneously, when I see more wrinkles on the tops of my hands, more gray hairs on my spouse and on myself, when the knees creep more and take longer to lubricate, etc., I want to be free of the noble cause. I long to be free to be frivolous for a while. But I cannot be frivolous.
I do not know how long the center will hold. I suffer from a sad sense of foreboding. The glue that holds the Bill of Rights together has let go. Too many love their luxury and their plastic and their hair spray and Monday Night Football more than they do Liberty under a Constitutional Rule of Law. When there is such a large mass that does not care, no law will save Liberty from indifference or ignorance or the pursuit of hedonism and love in the wrong places-the bottom of a bottle, at an ATM, between another women's legs, at the point of a needle. Sadly, some people have taken their unfettered "pursuit of happiness" too far with their reckless self-destruction. The July 4th, 1770 Declaration declared a right to pursue "happiness," not a right to secure that goal nor Government's duty to provide it.
How long does one continue to devote his or her life to this noble cause, which most mock, do not understand, and do not appreciate? People have different limits of tolerance for perceived injustice. I am convinced some are close to reaching their "wall" and others are already there, and, given certain stimuli, a significant flashpoint will erupt.
We are deep into a cold war with our own governments. I would love for the noble cause to prevail without violence. I simply do not expect that to happen in my lifetime. I am profoundly sad. The eternal whirlwind anti-Liberty versus Liberty spins on, sucking us up into its vacuum, holding us to it tighter and tighter. Is there no way out for us other than to "kill" our conscience, to abandon our civic duty, or literally kill ourselves or others, or be successful in our noble cause: If so, what is that way - "out"?
Who would elect to be "dropped" by this whirlwind if they could so elect? Why?
Who would prefer to be a steer, incapable of critical thought, of a sense of tomorrow, of Justice, etc., "free" to chew his cud and to wander in a closed field until the owner decides to put a bullet in your skull? Even then, as a steer, would you know? Would you care? Would you give a damn?
Who is ready to kill? (No need to answer.)
Can homicide be justified for a noble purpose? Adolph thought so. Can an anti-Adolph think likewise, with compelling justification? I think so. Everyone who signed the July 4th Declaration knew the King would not let them go in peace. They knew when they signed that they would have to be willing to commit homicide and encourage and equip others to do so if they were going to successfully enforce their Declaration. Who finds it difficult to think of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, etc., as killers of human beings? I do not. People need to get realistic. The Founders were, in the eyes of the Crown, criminals, outlaws and murderers. I loath ending on a sad note, with reference to homicide. That is, however, a candid measure of my disgust, alienation, outrage, and sadness.
So far, Constitutional parchments have not proven to be effective in curbing or reducing Government's abuse of its powers. I now have a greater appreciation for the enormity of, and the seriousness of, the problem, plus the size and complexity of possible solutions to the problem and the limitations of contending solutions.
Even though a firearm is a crude, inadequate solution to this type of problem (namely, holding government accountable for its abuses of its powers, including its failure to take Constitutional rights seriously,) I now also appreciate better, at a higher, more intense level, what I perceive to be the true import--and value--of the Second Amendment.
Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court, by rejecting the Silveria case, stiffed armed those who think like I do. That rejection was imprudent. Rejecting Silveria does not fix the problem. It aggravates the problem. The Supremes were the end of the line (legal line) not because they are truly superior, but only because they are the end of our legal line to non-violently resolve and enormous, serious, festering problem that instantly got worse the moment the Supremes rejected Silveria.
We need to be disciplined, creative, resourceful, and suck it up to overcome this substantial set back. But how? What viable alternatives exist? How long can one put a brake on meritorious outrage?
I am afraid that for some of us, including myself, the following could be, and will be, our fate: When sufficiently pressed, some people will not know how serious and committed we were to our noble cause until our bullets kill them, and then, we, too, or some of us, will fall. That it would come to that, that my mind would even go there, makes me profoundly sad. Simultaneously, I am comforted knowing I have access to "Liberty's teeth," others of like mind do, too, and I am convinced some have the courage to use "Liberty's teeth" when pressed too far, and it becomes morally justified. I am convinced there is an extremely small percentage of hardcore spread throughout the nation who will fire, who are committed to doing so, who are waiting for an event to plausibly justify doing so while simultaneously pursuing, peacefully, with a deep commitment to a noble cause, a non violent resolution of this enormous problem.
We live in snarly times, which makes pursuit of the noble cause more critical, more necessary, and more noble. But, the peacemakers, the Constitutionalist, will probably loose the noble fight. The outcome will be determined on the battlefield--any town continental U.S.--not the courtroom. This is because too many judges, as a group, are no longer the Guardians of Liberty, most politicos are unscrupulous hacks or useful idiots of flaming tyrant wannabees, and the majority keeps electing them or tolerating them. Simultaneously, too many Black Robes espouse a functional equivalent of legal bubonic plague, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment.
I have read many decisions on the First and Fourth Amendment by 9th Circuit judges who do not share my views on the Second Amendment. Their views on the First and Fourth are excellent. Reading their decisions on the First and Fourth is deeply satisfying and comforting. Their decisions convince me they are highly intelligent, articulate, extraordinarily logical and persuasive, and for those amendments, they are superb Guardians of Liberty. Their views on the Second, however, are appalling. To go from one of their First/Fourth Amendment decisions to one of their Second Amendment decisions is like going from an A+ student's term paper to a D- student's term paper, from Madison to Stalin. I do not understand why these judges seem to have such an abrupt, illogical, disconnect. I suspect it is really about raw power. They know that a man with a loaded firearm is empowered to kill a would-be oppressor. Could it be really that simple?
We are in a downward spiral toward some flashpoint where a hardcore of no-nonsense Constitutionalists will press the issue and not submit to perceived, insufferable, oppression.
I regret that so far the Wolfgrams, Shamayas, Codreas, Zelmans, Gorskis, etc. have not scored a meaningful slam-dunk clear, non-violent, victory.
Sometimes, those who wage the noble fight peacefully, manifest sparks among themselves, but they pull the wagon in the same basic direction for the same basic excellent reasons. Thank you.
I would not bet, however, on how much longer their hearts and psyches can, or will endure and stay focused and committed to a non-violent resolution. I am reminded of a man I know. He told me he is a Yale law school graduate, an ex-U.S. Marine Corps A-6 Intruder attack pilot with hundreds of missions over North Vietnam, and an ex-attorney. He quit the practice of law because the judges "tore (his) heart out."
Some U.S. citizens seem to be willing to wait their entire life for the noble cause to be successful and are willing to never resort to lethal force. I, on the other hand, am much more impatient. I do not want to wait. I want the birthright to be honored now. It is already long overdue. I experience waiting to be the functional equivalent of enabling-of giving our misleaders and their agents the functional equivalent of the green light to continue to oppress. I am reminded of Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech. I experience that title to be a gross misnomer. Anyone who has read that speech knows Pat Henry was not really saying he wanted liberty or death, and certainly not death for himself. Instead, he was saying to his countrymen, "Damn it, we shall have Liberty now. I (Henry) am willing to risk death for Liberty. Who will join me (Henry) to kill the son-of-a-bitch who would dare deny me (Henry) and you Liberty? If the Crown will not back down, let us prey against the Crown! If not now, when? When we are weaker? Never!"
Simultaneously, I do not want to imprudently pre-empt. I know the dire consequences, and my moral code repeals at the idea of initiating a lethal mini-hell against anyone. On the other hand, those who tolerate indefinitely Government's fecal matter give a perpetual green light to bury all of us in a pile of more fresh fecal matter, piled higher and deeper. The Founders did not wait indefinitely. They forced the issue with their Declaration. They did so knowing that thousands of Redcoats were already embarked in ships for the Colonies, to be followed by thousand more, and each were sent to "redress" the Founders' grievances at the point of a bayonet, bullet, or rope.
I know "the gun solution" (political assassination, open rebellion, etc.) is fraught with peril and inadequate. But what is left? When we claim our birthrights and point to what is written in the Constitution we are mocked, corned, ridiculed, rebuffed, stiff armed, ignored, dismissed, rejected, and Government, like an Abrams tank, rolls on, crushing us as if we were anthills. My eyes, ears, brain tells me this, convinces me of this: Government and its agent break their own rules and do so successfully, without being held accountable, precisely because they have made enough rules to let them do so and/or the judges will not pull the "legal trigger" to hold themselves and other Government officials accountable. Government, its agents, and too many Black Robes are morally and legally hypocritical, inconsistent, and unscrupulous: They explicably flout the Constitutional Rule of Law while demanding that ordinary citizens, Louie Lunchbucket and Susie Seamstress, obey the law and turn perfectly square square corners while doing so.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent, not to redress, Government's abuse of its powers and violation of our rights. Rights, however, are not self-enforcing. It takes an air breathing human being, a Patrick Henry type, to breath life into a right, to make it spring into life, to jump off a damn dusty law book's page, to vibrate and scream "Hey, you, you-you the Oppression, I am talking to you! Look at me. Take me seriously. Now! Or take my bullet - an instant from now." And if rebuffed again, BANG, problem terminated on the spot. Move on to the next problem.
A right delayed is a right denied. A right delayed is not a right at all. A right delayed is a hollow sham, a cause of action for a lawsuit that will be verbally and conceptually machined gun to death in court by Government lawyers, witnesses, and Black Robes. The Black Robes, as a group, have wasted their political capital. They have had their opportunity to prove themselves as Guardians of Opportunity. As a group, too many are too much a part of the problem than they are of the solution.
For each of us who has had our rights denied on the spot, think about what would have happened if each of us has instead pressed hard the barrel of a loaded gun against the chest of the government official that oppressed us. What would the outcome have been then? Only God knows what would have happened. I suspect that an important message would have been sent, and some in government would react by becoming more oppressive while some would have head the message, lightened up, and start to take rights seriously, if only out of fear that their lights can be, and would be terminated by an energized hunk of metal.
Before Silveria and now with Silveria, the peaceful, legal way was tried. It failed. It failed not because the plaintiffs in Silveria or Silveria's strategists, supporters, and lawyers were somehow deficient. It failed because the Black Robes and the System failed. There is a split in the federal circuits regarding the Second Amendment, the Silveria petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was excellent, but still the Supremes rejected Silveria. I will die without knowing for sure why the Supremes rejected Silveria. I suspect the Supremes' primary motivation was this: They simply wanted to avoid investing their political capital on such an important decision. It was a no-win situation for them. If they ruled there is no individual right to arms, there would have been a near cataclysmic reaction that would risk tearing this nation apart, which is not hyperbole. By rejection this pivotal issue, they perpetuate the controversy, avoided further political heat-for a while, and got the defacto benefit of the status quo, for better or worse. That status quo works on balance in government's favor, for a while, to a limited extent. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of Silveria will embolden the gun grabbers who will press on indefinitely until they are stopped. But, what will it take to stop them? Another petition to the U.S. Supreme Court with a different ending? Or, energized hunks of metal?
8,000 years of the struggle for civilization have given us a piece of paper that is not a "bulwark of Liberty." One's duty to pursue the noble cause is measured by one's lifetime because the sworn oath is eternal. There is no built in expiration date. The duty ends when the life ends. The oat omits how the duty shall be precisely discharged. It does not expressly rule out resort to lethal force.
Indulging despair is a waste of time but to do so is also a manifestation of one's humanity, reaction to stimuli, moral code, decency, rational capabilities, impulse control, reflective thought processes, our worthiness to claim, and to insist upon, our birthright being honored during our life times. George Washington once opined, "The event is in the hands of God." When the gun grabbers press the issue, our duty to continue to support the U.S. Constitution is on going and endures for the duration of our lives. Hence, when they come for the guns-and they will, "the event (will be) in the hands of God."
Despite what all courts have written about the Second that ends up with a "no individual right" holding, the Second's text, historically accepted definitions, and the Framer's comprehension, intent, and vision has not changed, and never will. It remains our duty to be worth of the Founders' and Framers' vision and to enforce it, with arms, if necessary, in a final effort to restore the Constitutional Rule of Law.
Exhibit No. 1: Look at how Government treats us when Government officials know we are armed?
Question: How will government treat us if and when we are disarmed?
Exhibit No. 2: History.
Exhibit No. 3: They Tyrant's Pattern-Demonize privately owned firearms and their owners; Regulate same; Ban same; Confiscate same; Consolidate power; Eliminate opposition; Impose Genocide; Hand pick judges who rubber stamp hideous, horrific oppression; Convert the brain of anyone who opposes the tyrant into a pink mist.
That pink mist drill can work two ways: For Tyranny. For Liberty.
A majority has an absolute duty to rule per the Constitutional rule of Law, as a prudent fiduciary, and the Black Robes have a duty to be Guardians of Liberty. I am/We are faultless for their failure to be a prudent fiduciary or a Guardian of Liberty. I/We do not have to suffer them-nor their legal bubonic plague doctrine--forever.
Power still comes out of the barrel of a gun, but only for those with the courage and skill to convert that latent power to actual power.
Again, when principled, well reasoned, correct, peaceful lawsuits are rejected by the nation's highest court and the Legislatures are packed with gun grabbers who are Freedom Haters, Liberty Thieves, and Traitors, what is left? Submission? Capitulation? Another lawsuit? More peaceful use of the First to support the Second? Resort to arms?
I suspect millions are experiencing similar thoughts.
I suspect the real effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's imprudent rejection of Silveria is this: Like the referenced Yale law school graduate attorney who quit practicing law because "the judges tore his heart out,” Millions in this nation are intensely disgusted with the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supremes ratcheted them down tighter and closer to taking a hard look at the pink mist solution. Many will, as a result, steel themselves to use that solution to breathe life into a right to keep it viable, to keep it relevant, to retain the pragmatic means to enforce the rest of the Bill, in the belief that that was their only remaining option, and that option was, and is, noble.
In Liberty for All per the Constitutional Rule of Law,
Peter J. Mancus
Reflections upon the US Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveria
Approximately 30 days ago, I received a long email from someone. At the end was a moderate length, beautifully phrased quotation, the core essence of which was this idea: A person who devotes his adult life to trying to hold government accountable so citizens do not have to resort to force is noble and is devoted to one of life's most noble pursuits. When I read that I instantly thought of people I know (plug in names?), all of who have stretched me to grow. I intended to pass that quote on but did not. I’m sorry. Those who are engaged in that noble cause know who they are.
Today, December 1, 2003, I am sad: The United States Supreme Court rejected the Silveria case, and I do not feel free. I have to felt that way for a long time. I do not feel free because my brain's rational thought processes convince me that I am not truly free. I am not truly free because I, and others, have been, and still are, denied one or more of our most fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, we have only the illusion of freedom and the reality of oppression. Oppression is enforced via perverted rules; misleaders and their subordinates who are exist. And can be seen by those who look and appreciate what they see.
We live in a perverted, disingenuous, nation, full of callous, cavalier, self-righteous, Constitutional illiterates, in and out of government, who are dangerous and oppressive. Despite the best efforts of some of the best people I know, plus their passion, sustained commitment, critical, cerebral energy, delayed gratification, sacrifice, etc. I have serious reservations if any of us, including myself, individually or in the aggregate, have accomplished anything meaningful in terms of "the big picture" or of delaying open armed conflict. I suspect that all we have really done is this: 1) Peacefully communicated a principled protest to Government, that continues to be rebuffed; 2) Clarified what the issues are; 3) Documented that we have compelling grounds to be disgusted, alarmed, alienated, and worse, and why; 4) Established that much of Government and many of its most important agents are smug, arrogant, dangerous, oppressive, and constitutionally insensitive or callous or both.
I sometimes think I am a fool to invest so much in the name of Liberty. Simultaneously, I beat myself up because I have invested so little in the name of Liberty. Simultaneously, when I see more wrinkles on the tops of my hands, more gray hairs on my spouse and on myself, when the knees creep more and take longer to lubricate, etc., I want to be free of the noble cause. I long to be free to be frivolous for a while. But I cannot be frivolous.
I do not know how long the center will hold. I suffer from a sad sense of foreboding. The glue that holds the Bill of Rights together has let go. Too many love their luxury and their plastic and their hair spray and Monday Night Football more than they do Liberty under a Constitutional Rule of Law. When there is such a large mass that does not care, no law will save Liberty from indifference or ignorance or the pursuit of hedonism and love in the wrong places-the bottom of a bottle, at an ATM, between another women's legs, at the point of a needle. Sadly, some people have taken their unfettered "pursuit of happiness" too far with their reckless self-destruction. The July 4th, 1770 Declaration declared a right to pursue "happiness," not a right to secure that goal nor Government's duty to provide it.
How long does one continue to devote his or her life to this noble cause, which most mock, do not understand, and do not appreciate? People have different limits of tolerance for perceived injustice. I am convinced some are close to reaching their "wall" and others are already there, and, given certain stimuli, a significant flashpoint will erupt.
We are deep into a cold war with our own governments. I would love for the noble cause to prevail without violence. I simply do not expect that to happen in my lifetime. I am profoundly sad. The eternal whirlwind anti-Liberty versus Liberty spins on, sucking us up into its vacuum, holding us to it tighter and tighter. Is there no way out for us other than to "kill" our conscience, to abandon our civic duty, or literally kill ourselves or others, or be successful in our noble cause: If so, what is that way - "out"?
Who would elect to be "dropped" by this whirlwind if they could so elect? Why?
Who would prefer to be a steer, incapable of critical thought, of a sense of tomorrow, of Justice, etc., "free" to chew his cud and to wander in a closed field until the owner decides to put a bullet in your skull? Even then, as a steer, would you know? Would you care? Would you give a damn?
Who is ready to kill? (No need to answer.)
Can homicide be justified for a noble purpose? Adolph thought so. Can an anti-Adolph think likewise, with compelling justification? I think so. Everyone who signed the July 4th Declaration knew the King would not let them go in peace. They knew when they signed that they would have to be willing to commit homicide and encourage and equip others to do so if they were going to successfully enforce their Declaration. Who finds it difficult to think of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, etc., as killers of human beings? I do not. People need to get realistic. The Founders were, in the eyes of the Crown, criminals, outlaws and murderers. I loath ending on a sad note, with reference to homicide. That is, however, a candid measure of my disgust, alienation, outrage, and sadness.
So far, Constitutional parchments have not proven to be effective in curbing or reducing Government's abuse of its powers. I now have a greater appreciation for the enormity of, and the seriousness of, the problem, plus the size and complexity of possible solutions to the problem and the limitations of contending solutions.
Even though a firearm is a crude, inadequate solution to this type of problem (namely, holding government accountable for its abuses of its powers, including its failure to take Constitutional rights seriously,) I now also appreciate better, at a higher, more intense level, what I perceive to be the true import--and value--of the Second Amendment.
Sadly, the U.S. Supreme Court, by rejecting the Silveria case, stiffed armed those who think like I do. That rejection was imprudent. Rejecting Silveria does not fix the problem. It aggravates the problem. The Supremes were the end of the line (legal line) not because they are truly superior, but only because they are the end of our legal line to non-violently resolve and enormous, serious, festering problem that instantly got worse the moment the Supremes rejected Silveria.
We need to be disciplined, creative, resourceful, and suck it up to overcome this substantial set back. But how? What viable alternatives exist? How long can one put a brake on meritorious outrage?
I am afraid that for some of us, including myself, the following could be, and will be, our fate: When sufficiently pressed, some people will not know how serious and committed we were to our noble cause until our bullets kill them, and then, we, too, or some of us, will fall. That it would come to that, that my mind would even go there, makes me profoundly sad. Simultaneously, I am comforted knowing I have access to "Liberty's teeth," others of like mind do, too, and I am convinced some have the courage to use "Liberty's teeth" when pressed too far, and it becomes morally justified. I am convinced there is an extremely small percentage of hardcore spread throughout the nation who will fire, who are committed to doing so, who are waiting for an event to plausibly justify doing so while simultaneously pursuing, peacefully, with a deep commitment to a noble cause, a non violent resolution of this enormous problem.
We live in snarly times, which makes pursuit of the noble cause more critical, more necessary, and more noble. But, the peacemakers, the Constitutionalist, will probably loose the noble fight. The outcome will be determined on the battlefield--any town continental U.S.--not the courtroom. This is because too many judges, as a group, are no longer the Guardians of Liberty, most politicos are unscrupulous hacks or useful idiots of flaming tyrant wannabees, and the majority keeps electing them or tolerating them. Simultaneously, too many Black Robes espouse a functional equivalent of legal bubonic plague, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment.
I have read many decisions on the First and Fourth Amendment by 9th Circuit judges who do not share my views on the Second Amendment. Their views on the First and Fourth are excellent. Reading their decisions on the First and Fourth is deeply satisfying and comforting. Their decisions convince me they are highly intelligent, articulate, extraordinarily logical and persuasive, and for those amendments, they are superb Guardians of Liberty. Their views on the Second, however, are appalling. To go from one of their First/Fourth Amendment decisions to one of their Second Amendment decisions is like going from an A+ student's term paper to a D- student's term paper, from Madison to Stalin. I do not understand why these judges seem to have such an abrupt, illogical, disconnect. I suspect it is really about raw power. They know that a man with a loaded firearm is empowered to kill a would-be oppressor. Could it be really that simple?
We are in a downward spiral toward some flashpoint where a hardcore of no-nonsense Constitutionalists will press the issue and not submit to perceived, insufferable, oppression.
I regret that so far the Wolfgrams, Shamayas, Codreas, Zelmans, Gorskis, etc. have not scored a meaningful slam-dunk clear, non-violent, victory.
Sometimes, those who wage the noble fight peacefully, manifest sparks among themselves, but they pull the wagon in the same basic direction for the same basic excellent reasons. Thank you.
I would not bet, however, on how much longer their hearts and psyches can, or will endure and stay focused and committed to a non-violent resolution. I am reminded of a man I know. He told me he is a Yale law school graduate, an ex-U.S. Marine Corps A-6 Intruder attack pilot with hundreds of missions over North Vietnam, and an ex-attorney. He quit the practice of law because the judges "tore (his) heart out."
Some U.S. citizens seem to be willing to wait their entire life for the noble cause to be successful and are willing to never resort to lethal force. I, on the other hand, am much more impatient. I do not want to wait. I want the birthright to be honored now. It is already long overdue. I experience waiting to be the functional equivalent of enabling-of giving our misleaders and their agents the functional equivalent of the green light to continue to oppress. I am reminded of Henry's "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" speech. I experience that title to be a gross misnomer. Anyone who has read that speech knows Pat Henry was not really saying he wanted liberty or death, and certainly not death for himself. Instead, he was saying to his countrymen, "Damn it, we shall have Liberty now. I (Henry) am willing to risk death for Liberty. Who will join me (Henry) to kill the son-of-a-bitch who would dare deny me (Henry) and you Liberty? If the Crown will not back down, let us prey against the Crown! If not now, when? When we are weaker? Never!"
Simultaneously, I do not want to imprudently pre-empt. I know the dire consequences, and my moral code repeals at the idea of initiating a lethal mini-hell against anyone. On the other hand, those who tolerate indefinitely Government's fecal matter give a perpetual green light to bury all of us in a pile of more fresh fecal matter, piled higher and deeper. The Founders did not wait indefinitely. They forced the issue with their Declaration. They did so knowing that thousands of Redcoats were already embarked in ships for the Colonies, to be followed by thousand more, and each were sent to "redress" the Founders' grievances at the point of a bayonet, bullet, or rope.
I know "the gun solution" (political assassination, open rebellion, etc.) is fraught with peril and inadequate. But what is left? When we claim our birthrights and point to what is written in the Constitution we are mocked, corned, ridiculed, rebuffed, stiff armed, ignored, dismissed, rejected, and Government, like an Abrams tank, rolls on, crushing us as if we were anthills. My eyes, ears, brain tells me this, convinces me of this: Government and its agent break their own rules and do so successfully, without being held accountable, precisely because they have made enough rules to let them do so and/or the judges will not pull the "legal trigger" to hold themselves and other Government officials accountable. Government, its agents, and too many Black Robes are morally and legally hypocritical, inconsistent, and unscrupulous: They explicably flout the Constitutional Rule of Law while demanding that ordinary citizens, Louie Lunchbucket and Susie Seamstress, obey the law and turn perfectly square square corners while doing so.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent, not to redress, Government's abuse of its powers and violation of our rights. Rights, however, are not self-enforcing. It takes an air breathing human being, a Patrick Henry type, to breath life into a right, to make it spring into life, to jump off a damn dusty law book's page, to vibrate and scream "Hey, you, you-you the Oppression, I am talking to you! Look at me. Take me seriously. Now! Or take my bullet - an instant from now." And if rebuffed again, BANG, problem terminated on the spot. Move on to the next problem.
A right delayed is a right denied. A right delayed is not a right at all. A right delayed is a hollow sham, a cause of action for a lawsuit that will be verbally and conceptually machined gun to death in court by Government lawyers, witnesses, and Black Robes. The Black Robes, as a group, have wasted their political capital. They have had their opportunity to prove themselves as Guardians of Opportunity. As a group, too many are too much a part of the problem than they are of the solution.
For each of us who has had our rights denied on the spot, think about what would have happened if each of us has instead pressed hard the barrel of a loaded gun against the chest of the government official that oppressed us. What would the outcome have been then? Only God knows what would have happened. I suspect that an important message would have been sent, and some in government would react by becoming more oppressive while some would have head the message, lightened up, and start to take rights seriously, if only out of fear that their lights can be, and would be terminated by an energized hunk of metal.
Before Silveria and now with Silveria, the peaceful, legal way was tried. It failed. It failed not because the plaintiffs in Silveria or Silveria's strategists, supporters, and lawyers were somehow deficient. It failed because the Black Robes and the System failed. There is a split in the federal circuits regarding the Second Amendment, the Silveria petition to the U.S. Supreme Court was excellent, but still the Supremes rejected Silveria. I will die without knowing for sure why the Supremes rejected Silveria. I suspect the Supremes' primary motivation was this: They simply wanted to avoid investing their political capital on such an important decision. It was a no-win situation for them. If they ruled there is no individual right to arms, there would have been a near cataclysmic reaction that would risk tearing this nation apart, which is not hyperbole. By rejection this pivotal issue, they perpetuate the controversy, avoided further political heat-for a while, and got the defacto benefit of the status quo, for better or worse. That status quo works on balance in government's favor, for a while, to a limited extent. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of Silveria will embolden the gun grabbers who will press on indefinitely until they are stopped. But, what will it take to stop them? Another petition to the U.S. Supreme Court with a different ending? Or, energized hunks of metal?
8,000 years of the struggle for civilization have given us a piece of paper that is not a "bulwark of Liberty." One's duty to pursue the noble cause is measured by one's lifetime because the sworn oath is eternal. There is no built in expiration date. The duty ends when the life ends. The oat omits how the duty shall be precisely discharged. It does not expressly rule out resort to lethal force.
Indulging despair is a waste of time but to do so is also a manifestation of one's humanity, reaction to stimuli, moral code, decency, rational capabilities, impulse control, reflective thought processes, our worthiness to claim, and to insist upon, our birthright being honored during our life times. George Washington once opined, "The event is in the hands of God." When the gun grabbers press the issue, our duty to continue to support the U.S. Constitution is on going and endures for the duration of our lives. Hence, when they come for the guns-and they will, "the event (will be) in the hands of God."
Despite what all courts have written about the Second that ends up with a "no individual right" holding, the Second's text, historically accepted definitions, and the Framer's comprehension, intent, and vision has not changed, and never will. It remains our duty to be worth of the Founders' and Framers' vision and to enforce it, with arms, if necessary, in a final effort to restore the Constitutional Rule of Law.
Exhibit No. 1: Look at how Government treats us when Government officials know we are armed?
Question: How will government treat us if and when we are disarmed?
Exhibit No. 2: History.
Exhibit No. 3: They Tyrant's Pattern-Demonize privately owned firearms and their owners; Regulate same; Ban same; Confiscate same; Consolidate power; Eliminate opposition; Impose Genocide; Hand pick judges who rubber stamp hideous, horrific oppression; Convert the brain of anyone who opposes the tyrant into a pink mist.
That pink mist drill can work two ways: For Tyranny. For Liberty.
A majority has an absolute duty to rule per the Constitutional rule of Law, as a prudent fiduciary, and the Black Robes have a duty to be Guardians of Liberty. I am/We are faultless for their failure to be a prudent fiduciary or a Guardian of Liberty. I/We do not have to suffer them-nor their legal bubonic plague doctrine--forever.
Power still comes out of the barrel of a gun, but only for those with the courage and skill to convert that latent power to actual power.
Again, when principled, well reasoned, correct, peaceful lawsuits are rejected by the nation's highest court and the Legislatures are packed with gun grabbers who are Freedom Haters, Liberty Thieves, and Traitors, what is left? Submission? Capitulation? Another lawsuit? More peaceful use of the First to support the Second? Resort to arms?
I suspect millions are experiencing similar thoughts.
I suspect the real effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's imprudent rejection of Silveria is this: Like the referenced Yale law school graduate attorney who quit practicing law because "the judges tore his heart out,” Millions in this nation are intensely disgusted with the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supremes ratcheted them down tighter and closer to taking a hard look at the pink mist solution. Many will, as a result, steel themselves to use that solution to breathe life into a right to keep it viable, to keep it relevant, to retain the pragmatic means to enforce the rest of the Bill, in the belief that that was their only remaining option, and that option was, and is, noble.
In Liberty for All per the Constitutional Rule of Law,
Peter J. Mancus