The Height of Technology

            

---

The 2nd Amendment was ratified into law, that is, into uninfringeable law at a time when gun ban advocates claim they could not have anticipated automatic weapons. "Surely" they could not have meant for people to own such weapons. I say surely you have not educated yourself on the issue and examined what incubated this thought. The formation of the idea of a ban on certain types of weapons is a modern construct for the American republic. At the conception of the second amendment the most commonly available weapon was the musket or the "Brown Bess." Earlier in the century ownership was restricted to the government. As new technological advancements such as percussion caps were developed, the British government reserved these to itself as well. It was fresh in the minds of the framers of the second amendment when they couldn't own the latest in weapons technology. Such had always been the case and under such means tyranny exerted power over the populace. It was by a gradual effusion that the musket entered public ownership. General Gage, then Governor of the Massachusetts Colony, issued a proclamation requiring the surrender of all weapons. This proclamation was a second requiring the surrender of weapons for he was informed that many did not surrender their weapons.

I have thought fit to issue this Proclamation, to require all Persons who yet Fire-Arms in their Possession, immediately to surrender them at the Court-House, to such Persons as shall be authorized to receive them; and hereby to declare that all Persons in whole Possession any Fire-Arms may hereafter be found, will be deemed Enemies to his Majesty's Government.

Today, it is not the tyranny of a King that we are threatened with. The threat is the tyranny of socialism and communism. Those who force their ideology upon us through their advocates in Congress know they must disarm the populace to have a lasting victory.

In 1996 Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, who favors banning gun possession by civilians, conceded that the arguments advanced by supporters of the "assault weapon" ban were "laughable." The "only real justification" for the law, he said, "is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."¹

They didn't take their pitch forks. They didn't take their knives. Sabers weren't taken from the populace. They took the best technology these colonists had available to them. This same tactic is prevalent today. The government hasn't banned all gun ownership, just the best of the current technology. Gun ownership was not about easing the procurement of food. These ideas were formed in the midst of civilization, not among the cadre of coon skin-capped characters living on the frontier. Butchers, bakers and other service providers supplied the daily food supply. These people wanted power over the government that the latest technology afforded. Then it was the Brown Bess, the assault weapon of its day. Today it is the automatic weapon. The argument that an automatic weapon is not needed to go hunting is an invalid argument. Of course no one would use an automatic weapon to hunt with. The thought is ludicrous. Its not about subsistence but about survival in the face of a tyrannical government. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, clearly illuminated this idea in saying

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."²

The framers understood that a republic was sustainable because the people owned the same technology as the standing army. The idea of balance of technological power provided a check and balance against government from going beyond a service to the people to that of empire. It is hypocritical that the same congressmen who support gun ban laws, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy especially of note, made explicit statements about Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito as being one who is "extremely deferential" to executive power. He charges that necessary checks and balances have been ignored. Sen. Kennedy is interested in his power over the executive and is "extremely deferential" toward the government's power over the people. Sen. Kennedy disregards the most fundamental check and balance of the people - private ownership of the best of weapons technology. The Violence Policy Center states that "...the U.S. Department of State suspended the export of 50 caliber sniper rifles for non-military purposes. The VPC is now working on the state and federal levels to restrict availability of these weapons of war."³ Of course the VPC does not mention that the 2nd Amendment was written to insure that the citizen could own weapons of war. Not only own, but carry fire arms. The 2nd Amendment has been infringed. Government has violated the power given to them by the people. These ban laws are in a constant state of violation of this freedom provided for in the very fabric of our government. This is not guess work. The laws are there for all to see that this most basic protection has been raped. The first thing the British monarchy went after was the latest technology available to the populace. It was then that they began a wholesale assault of the people. They did not feel safe to venture out in small groups. They would not go out at night except in battalion strength. These rights (note, that's rights, not privileges) are at the very core of liberty. Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1772:

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.⁴

With the de-emphasis of teaching about the founding of this nation ignorance has darkened the minds of the citizenry. These things are a five alarm warning for our future. They are counting on your ignorance.

---

¹Jacob Sullum. Ban Aid: The real point of the "assault weapon" law. Reason Online, 2003. http://www.reason.com/sullum/050903.shtml. ²Joseph Story, Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Volume 3. (Boston: Hilliard, Gray and Company. Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Co., 1833) Ch. 44, Sect. 1890. ³ About the Violence Policy Center. http://www.vpc.org/aboutvpc.htm ⁴ The Rights of the Colonists. The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting. by Samuel Adams. Part I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men. November 20, 1772. [emphasis mine].