D.C. v. Heller: Militia, you say..? Arms Within Easy Reach
By John Longenecker (12/22/07)
Today, the anti-violence movement is, itself, predatory. It picks at minutiae and it misleads the public in order to, itself, thrive. This competition for survival comes at the expense of the nation.
Americans don't have guns for food, we have guns to block tricks and boondoggles where we as armed citizens can handle the violent crime problem better than non-violence policy can handle it. Independence is the best kept secret in the anti-gun movement. After all, citizens are there and policy isnt. Non-violence policy asks victims to do nothing until law enforcement gets there. This is called hiding the ball, where politicians and the bureaucrats and industries who support them desire to obfuscate the most effective solution: Citizen authority to act and superior force within easy reach. The crime is in the form of obfuscating Citizen Authority -- put another way, within the citizen, the law is already on scene.
In the middle of this is squabbling about who has this monopoly on force. Well, friends, the Militia has that monopoly.
And I can prove it.
When the Supreme Court looks at D.C. v. Heller, they will be looking at a concept called Original Intent. All of the issues they examine are viewed within the framework of what the Founding Fathers wanted, what they defeated, what they wrote as an expression of their intent, safeguards they wrote to protect the people, and how it is this which is the law of the land, and not current gun bans or regulations which may conflict with this.
Original Intent laws exist, but are hidden by current anti-gun laws which punish the protections the Founders put in place: having a gun within easy reach is one of those.
At the focus is MILITIA. Alright: let's look at Militia.
1. What is Militia appears throughout the writings of the Founders who show their work, you might say, on how they arrived at what they finally ratified. This is where you find the proof of what they really wanted for us. If you think Bill Clinton loathed the military, you ought to read how the Founders loathed a standing army as nothing more than a centralization of power, and they weren't going to return to what they had just defeated. Militia in the minds of the Founders which is Original Intent never meant Military. It, therefore, by law, cannot mean Military today.
2. Instead, what they wrote would be the law of the land in the new nation and forever, was that the Citizen is Supreme Authority. Never again would people be subject to abuses of power. At the time, Militia was every able-bodied person. What we know as the National Guard as anti-gun nuts claim excludes individual rights, was not even created until 130 years later, so twice we know they didn't mean the Military.
What they meant [Original Intent] is everything to this debate, and they meant citizens armed with a gun within easy reach.
In forming the new nation, the Founders realized that this Supreme Authority to resist boondoggles in power grabs must be backed by lethal force, and forever, so they wrote it to be absolute and not subject to due process short of another Amendment. That means no rhetoric, no gun laws. In writing the Second Amendment and the eighth, ninth, tenth and fourteenth which support it they were not forgetful of guns of the future, they were quite mindful of abuses of power of the future.
Three years ago, in December, 2004, the United States Department Of Justice published an answer to the U.S. Attorney General's interrogatory on whether 2A was individual or collective. DOJ's answer was that 2A is an individual right, and they showed how and where. Militia is addressed on Page 24 of that document. It can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
The Founders had just defeated not only abuses of power, but they defeated the army which enforced such abuses. It doesn't pass the test of reasonable expectation that they would write the new law of the land and defeat the British Army only to hand the monopoly on force over to another Army. Army is a wholly different issue addressed elsewhere in the Constitution and the people (militia) and Armed Forced are BOTH under civilian control.
The abuses of power the Founders foresaw live today as this disarmament rhetoric in the name of safe streets. Boondoggle. Militia in America means the individual citizens and not Military. It always did.
The Founders had their unsafe streets, too, and they wrote that the safest streets will always be where citizens are armed. Yes, the Militia. Armed citizens everywhere. As long as people understand that militia is the armed citizen and not military, it's good for the country.
I'll be with George Noory again on Coast To Coast AM this time January 9th, 2008 11pm to 2 am. Tune in to your Coast to Coast affiliate. Coast to Coast Members can visit CoastToCoastAm.com for the podcast of the first program aired December 10th, 2007.
(Printer friendly version) Email: John Longenecker
