The Church of Kharma Futures

The Rev's views on politics, events,faith, and the world. All content copyright Church of Kharma Future 2007-2015 All rights Reserved

Guns,The Constitution, and individual rights

Posted by revkharma on May 12, 2008

( This is the first of what I hope will be a semi-regular series of discussions of the Second Amendment and Gun rights, as well as Bill of Rights issues in general)

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.

“What are we to do with all those guns”! If you listen to many in the media, that is the constant cry. Americans reside in a dangerous Wild West arena of gunslingers. All those yahoos living in flyover country just need to see the light. If they refuse to see things the way the “educrats” and the rest of the anti-gun crowd see it, well, we’ll just have to take them to court and force them to see clearly. From that viewpoint, groups such as the Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence work diligently to convince us that we are simply not in need of guns. The police will protect us. That’s why they are there. That is the way Americans are being taught to think. Information is distorted under the pretense of presenting objective information. A quick example can be found in the US News and World Report cover story devoted to the impending Supreme Court hearing on the DC gun ban.

For most of American history, courts have interpreted the Second Amendment to apply to the collective right of states to assemble groups of armed citizens, such as the National Guard.

The problem is with the facts. The court decision to which the author refers is the 1939 Miller case. Despite revisionist history, in the Miller decision, the Supreme Court took note that the provision describing a Militia, was specifically referring to:”the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion…. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. (Source from FindLaw) That’s pretty clear to almost any reader. The problem is that these writers have an agenda, and will change the facts to fit that agenda. The ruling in Miller, in fact, did not turn on second amendment issue. The court ruled on the legitimacy of regulations prohibiting ownership if a sawed off shotgun. The court found that there was no purpose for such a weapon in a functioning militia. It appears that the right to own guns is taken for granted.

The ‘gun culture’ needs to be changed in order to protect Americans from themselves. Do these words sound familiar? How can we reconcile the words contained in the Bill of Rights with what we hear endlessly from our media and opinion elites?

Media control is a key weapon in the battle to disarm US citizens. We are told relentlessly of the vast lobbying power of the NRA, usually described in terms reserved for Darth Vader. Over and over the huge budget and vast spending power of the NRA is described as a weapon used to overpower common sense, legislation and influence court cases to prevent the removal of a terrible evil from our streets. This evil group should be held to account for the many deaths directly attributed to guns.

All the while the NRA is being demonized, there is a huge coalition of anti gun groups moving silently behind the scenes, working to move public opinion, as well as to influence judicial rulings.

Groups such as Doctors Against Handgun Injury (DAHI) work to include questions during pediatric exams about guns in the household. The CDC works to classify guns with viruses as a health hazard. Already mentioned is the now ubiquitous Brady Campaign. Hollywood celebrities are trotted out regularly to proselytize about the evils of gun ownership.

One of the more insidious groups is also one of the least known, The Joyce Foundation. An organization founded in 1948, originally to help hospitals. As with so many ‘philanthropic’ foundations, it has drifted steadily leftward. It has funded anti gun research with millions of dollars in grants. A vast array of groups and organizations are funded by this group. In addition, they fund legal symposia with the express purpose of providing backing for the anti-gun side in court cases. National Review documented much of this in Feb of 2008 ( may need a subscription).

My point in all this is simple. We Americans have had a right to our arms since the foundation of the nation. If there is to be a battle (and there WILL) we had best make sure we know just who our opponents will be.

Why is there such a drive to eliminate this right? In all seriousness, a government with the military power of the USA has little to fear from citizens bearing arms. Should there be an insurrection, the many thousands of Americans bearing handguns, rifles and shotguns which are owned by so many Americans would be no match for the US military. Even the police departments of most major cities would have more firepower available than that which could be brought to the field of battle by ordinary groups of citizens.

So why the fuss? Why the drive to over turn centuries of precedent and understanding of the Second Amendment? Look for the motivation of all big governments. If the ACLU, and various collectivist organizations can help the government to change the understanding of the Second Amendment, it will be a sea change in the understanding of the Constitution as a whole. Reversing the understanding of the Second Amendment to a group or government right as opposed to an individual right will have devastating implications. Once that is understood, then the move will be to bring more of the rights previously understood as individual under the umbrella of ‘group’ rights. Thus, bit by bit our individual rights can be stolen by legal subterfuge. The Second Amendment is one of the most fiercely debated, pro and con in our nation’s history. If the clear meaning of that amendment can be stood on its head, then almost any of our rights can be distorted beyond recognition. Once the Bill of Rights is watered down to the point of meaninglessness, then the government can impose whatever restrictions, regulations and enforcements deemed necessary or desirable without fear of court interference. The Executive and Legislative branches of the government have always been restrained, for good or ill, by the sure knowledge that court interpretation could possibly restrict their power. Eliminate the restraints on federal power contained in the Bill of Rights, and all restraints on government action are removed.

Fight. Fight–hard, loud, and strong to protect this amendment. This may be the first and most serious battle for the soul of our republic.

[You may note that I have links to many anti gun, or anti second amendment groups here. I encourage those on both sides of the issues to read up on the methods, ideas and tactics used by the opponents of private gun ownership. If successful, these tactics will be copied and used to erode other rights going forward.]

As always,

Keep the Faith!

The Rev.


4 Responses to “Guns,The Constitution, and individual rights”

  1. james said

    “We Americans have had a right to our arms since the foundation of the nation. If there is to be a battle (and there WILL) we had best make sure we know just who our opponents will be.”

    This is a key statement; however, I propose we think through the issues of “why the battle” and “why the opponent.” The right to bear arms considers only the symptom when there is a cure. Sadly, the cure itself has brought and will only bring more battle because those who need it, refuse it.

    The reasons why fighting exists are evident: pleasure, lust, envy, and selfishness. One person wants and does not get, so he murders in principle if not in actuality. One person is envious and cannot have, so he fights and quarrels until he gets his own way (of course, he does not “have” because he does not ask; or, he asks for the wrong reason–and that reason is motivated by selfish pleasure).

    If people would be awakened and alarmed to this, the cure makes more sense and they would stop signing peace treaties with a weapon in the back pocket.

  2. revkharma said

    Check this post, another view here.

  3. Paladin said

    I take issue with the comments asserting that “thousands” of Americans bearing arms would be “nomatch for the US Military.” Obviously you haven’t followed closely the insurgencies around the world (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.). What about the Viet Cong in Vietnam (they defeated the US Military with the assistance of the liberals in Congress)? You forget that a large majority of the US Military are strong backers of the 2nd Amendment and are under no obligation to obey “unlawful” orders to attack their fellow countrymen. I would venture to say that thousands upon thousands of these American citizens would join the resistance against those who would circumvent the constitution and violate their oath to “protect and defend the Constitution from ALL ENEMIES, foreign and DOMESTIC.” Additionally, you fail to account for the possibility that “thousands of americans” could use those personally owned firearms to acquire more advanced equipment and use it against the illegitimate federal forces. Also, you may want to change “thousands” to “millions.” Before the significant upswing in gun and ammo purchases which began shortly prior to Chairman Obama’s election by the ignorant and uninformed, there were an estimated 80-90 MILLION gunowner’s in the U.S. That has increased in number substantially over the last few months PLUS many more Americans own military look-a-like semi-automatic weapons now than before. A huge percentage of those citizens have been superbly trained by our military to conduct just the type operations which would be required in such an insurrection. Maybe you should think things through a bit more.

  4. deaconkharmafuture1 said

    While I’m sure you may be right about some of the military, it’s anyone’s guess as to the actual spread we’ll see, should any of this come about. I can appreciate your faith in our volunteer force, but there are tested psychological elements to be aware of as well. I also can see your thoughts on our noble military, but in modern times via subversion etc. and providing immunity for atrocious acts, we have seen terrible dictatorships arise in countries in recent memory. We see bits and pieces of assertions of this immunity and insidious use of government power in everyday life now. SWAT raids on innocents, people and animals shot and killed, even a sitting mayor was a victim. Do you mean to tell us that somehow “I was just following orders excuses” and “Qualified Immunity” falls only to police excess, but the military won’t show the same? While I hope and pray you are right, I also know that this isn’t a perfect world. I shudder to remember just how many people said “I was following orders” at Nuremburg. We have evidence, history, and psychology to go on here, and it isn’t pretty.
    Look up the following and let’s have a friendly discussion.
    1) The Milgram Experiment
    (A lesson in depravity, the power of authority, and peer pressure)

    2) Asch conformity experiments


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: