*****

Laying Down A Marker...

...in a time when such things are increasingly needed.

SIMPLE AND CERTAIN: If a government purpose, program or policy requires, calls for or accommodates an infringement, compromise or violation of any right expressly secured under its Constitution, it is, on its face, an invalid, unconstitutional purpose, program or policy. Any advocacy for it, or acquiescence to it, by a government official, is an oath-of-office violation-- full stop.

This is particularly relevant today in regard to so-called "gun control" advocacy heard from opportunistic state-worshipping enthusiasts for disarming people they have spent the last ten years trying hard to marginalize, demonize and silence.

On the subject of that advocacy, let's remember that America has always been awash in guns, and thus, any seeming increased frequency of gun violence in recent years cannot be a consequence of access to guns. Instead, causation must be laid at the feet of something that has changed over those recent years, such as the absence of traditional masculine parenting in the lives of ever-greater numbers of children, and/or the increasing consumption of pharmaceuticals, and/or the increasing atmosphere of grievance-mongering by which some are made to feel threatened as alleged oppressors and others made to feel entitled to retribution as the oppressed.

HERE'S ANOTHER POINT needing articulation at this time: Russia is NOT the Soviet Union. Post USSR Russians are the folks who threw off and sh*t-canned the Soviet Union. The fact that Vladimir Putin was for a relatively brief time an officer in the USSR apparatus means nothing, and there is little more obnoxious in Washingtonian foreign policy blather than propagandistic suggestions to the contrary.

Afterword

KNAPP'S CONTENTIONS SEEM PRETTY STARK and simple and lacking in nuance, don't they? To which I say, "How refreshing!"... and how absolutely virtuous and correct.

Let me fortify the substance of Knapp's position-- which essentially is that per the terms of the Second Amendment governments have no authority to determine or impose limits-- "reasonable" or otherwise-- on the ownership, possession or carrying of weapons-- with a deep dive into the history of the amendment, the express views of those who promulgated and adopted the amendment, and the specific meaning of the words of the amendment, which will be found here.

Upon studying those facts, it will become clear to anyone and everyone that under no circumstances can any imposition be Constitutionally made by any government upon anyone's exercise of this right. To tolerate such an imposition, no matter how enthusiastically or forcefully advocated, is to fatally undermine the whole point of the amendment.

America is just waking up (I hope) from a long period since the time of FDR in which idiotic and indefensible state-serving declarations have been common to the effect of, "All rights have limitations..."-- meaning, the state has the authority to determine (or set limits upon) what "rights" people have.

Actually, no. The whole idea of a "right" is that insofar as it extends, it is proof against any tempering or limitation. Its exercise is solely and 100% at the discretion of the individual in whom it inheres.

Misunderstanding on this point arises because the extent of a right is-- in some cases-- limited, a point summed up nicely in the observation that, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Such limits are not due to some overriding authority of a state to impose such limits, though, but because everyone has and must have equal rights with everyone else.

Courts are tasked in this country with determining when such "fist" and "nose" conflicts arise and how they must be resolved. But where a right is spelled out in explicit terms, as in those of the Second Amendment, and its exercise as spelled out cannot conflict with the rights of anyone else (there being no such thing as a right to an environment or circumstance outside one's own home in which others cannot have or carry guns, for instance, or any like that) no limits exist to be found.

Our culture today has been trained to think otherwise about rights, by a state which hungers to exercise authority over everything. But this ambition of the state is not only ungrounded in any actual authority, it is at war with the principles and purposes of American states as conceived and as constituted.

We need to regain our understanding of the nature of rights and the limitations of states. Here is a good place to start, and here is a good place to continue.

Beyond the matter of refreshing our own understanding of our rights and the limitations of state authority, it is important to dampen the state's illegitimate ambitions by restricting the resources with which it pursues them.

In that regard, let's remember (or come to understand, in some cases) that individual Americans CAN stand up and pull the plug on an overly ambitious state. Individual Americans CAN defund the state that has become more a danger to our rights than their champion.

One simple act by each individual American will do the trick, and it needs no approval or agreement from any institutional authority. That one simple thing will function as a catalyst, compelling the beneficial reorganization of our whole societal and political structure as a natural and inevitable process.

You can see and learn all about this solution-- and how it will play-out under its own relentless logic-- in this little two-page paper. Read it, think about it, share it.

***

Now, seriously. Do you want this article to make a difference? It only will do so if YOU PASS IT ON TO OTHERS. Please do that.

Use the permalink address given above or below to post on social media. Or use the "e-mail this article" link to send it to someone else by that method.

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this article to a friend

Return to contents

Speaking Of Resolutions And Declarations...

...here are powerful examples of each.

A VIRTUOUS CtC WARRIOR who wishes to preserve his anonymity on the social media platform involved has shared a moving and muscular statement in response to an unfortunately typical pundit-post by a fellow named Matthew Bracken in which much is complained of, but nothing whatever is offered as a proposed dynamic solution or response. Hear, then, is a little wind beneath the wings of those with the spirit to which John Adams refers in the quote illustrated and discussed in the article above:

WHEN MEMBERS OF A POORLY-PERFORMING GROUP are persistently and institutionally told that their poor performance is not their fault there are only two alternative explanations to which they can resort. One is that the poor performance, while not a "faultable" product of bad behaviors, is due to an inherent inadequacy. The other is that the poor performance is the result of externally-sourced evil.

The alternative which will be chosen by the marginalized (and hence prone to moral-relativist "reasoning" and behavior) is obvious.

***

A SEEMINGLY MUSCULAR LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED BY KARI LAKE over the manifestly fraud-riddled mid-term election (a favorable outcome of which would also result in Blake Masters and Mark Finchem winning their races). The suit makes many significant and supported allegations challenging the validity of the outcome declared by Lake's improperly-positioned election-officiating opponent. See the complaint here.

***