“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

Your rights are NEVER the problem. God gives you no problems:

James 1:13 No one who wants to do something wrong should say, `God is trying to make me do this wrong thing.' God cannot do anything wrong. (From the Worldwide English version.)

And, of course, having given us the right to life- with its inalienable, implicit demand that we protect that life, God would not deny us the tools to do so; for this would be contradictory to His nature. God gives the power- the solution- to overcome problems. It's important, so I reiterate, your rights are ALWAYS the solution to problems and are NEVER the problem.

Let's briefly discuss the second most volatile topic; disputed by those who understand the difference between rights and government-granted privilege and want to defend those rights and those, who also understand the difference but want to usurp- even destroy- those rights.The right to keep and bear arms, or the right to defend one's self with firearms, against an unjust government, is embodied in the second amendment to the Constitution.

We have here, then, a right which we may examine, that is affirmed in the second amendment: "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."

Let's start.

It is self-evident that the right to keep and bear arms is granted from the Lord God as He is the author of life- recognized by our Declaration of Independence, which affirms the legitimacy of our original government. It is self-evident and recognized by the founders who have dutifully, logically recognized that God, having given us the right to life- with its implicit demand we protect it- would not deny us the tools to do so. Recognizing this, the founders, knowing the danger of distant, unresponsive, evil government codified that right in the second amendment, affirming our right to keep and bear the arms necessary to prevent a government, having fallen into the hands of the corrupt, from denying us freedom.

But bit by bit, little by little, minor change in the law by minor change in the law, the government has overcome (infringed) the natural right of our citizens to keep and bear arms. It matters not, in this argument, whether this has occurred with good intentions or bad; it is a bad effect. We have been loaded down with many thousands of laws in this nation which discourage- even deny- citizens the LEGAL ABILITY to keep (in some cases) or bear (more frequently) our firearms. (They cannot deny us the actual RIGHT because that is God-given; alienable. However, legislators and courts can change the law. It's no minor distinction.)

Ask yourself these two questions if you do not believe me. Does the second amendment say in the closing clause: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Of course it does. And you know that it means that you can keep and bear arms. Now ask yourself this question. Can I legally strap my pistol to my side and drive my car? If you don't know, then doubt- or outright denial- has crept in, and it has crept in by design and by the successful passage of foul legislation and court decisions which appear to have the authority of law. However, any law which claims to override the Constitution is void. I do not recommend that you act upon this assertion, however, and hereby disclaim responsibility for your running afoul of the law if your government is unjust.

So, now that we don't really feel that we can "keep AND bear" arms as our Constitution has recognized as our God-given right, what do we do? Here comes the danger. Recently, there has been a move to get some states to pass legislation called "carry laws" or "concealed carry laws". This refers to legislation which "makes it legal" to carry a firearm and, in some cases, carry that firearm concealed.Those who champion the second amendment often champion this legislation and I will not split hairs here (discussing "shall-issue" versus "may issue") but deal merely with the greater points of states passing such legislation.

When such legislation is passed, it has generally (maybe always) contained language which qualifies (restricts) a citizen's right to carry, based upon several requirements. Often, a citizen is required to demonstrate proficiency (hitting an intended target and not hitting something not aimed at) and the ability to safely use that firearm (possessing an understanding of fundamental firearms safe practices). Of course we would all want someone with a gun to be proficient and practice safety.

However, upon petitioning the state government (applying) for the LEGAL ABILITY to carry a firearm, one automatically (in effect) cedes, to the government, the God-given right to carry and, in effect, grants the state the ability to turn that right into a privilege, which is revocable. In effect, one says, "I agree with the state that the government has the right to deny me my right (to carry) and can, in fact, issue me the privilege of "legal" firearms possession and transport- complete with the state's ability to disqualify my privilege upon further legislation."

Your RIGHT just became a PRIVILEGE.

And privileges are granted- and denied- in accordance with those with the power to do so. Since I do not know who your Governor is, let me posit this theoretical question which you can use as a representative question regarding your own particular State. While you might trust George W. Bush with the ability to grant privilege (though I trust no man with my rights) would you really want President Clinton (either of them) or President Gore or Schumer to have the power to deny you anything?

The framers remind us just why they took up arms against King George and formed a new government, "That to secure these [affirmed as God-given] Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Whether or not a government has become destructive of such noble ends is, of course, subjective. And I would bid you heed carefully the wisdom of the founders' advice in throwing off the old form in an attempt to establish another. They said, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."

Because history and graveyards are filled with peoples who were comfortable in their service to a government which had the power- but not the right- to control their lives, let us always remember our duties as free citizens, including our responsibilities to our families, our countrymen, our heritage, our ideals and our acknowledged creator-Lord.

The founders remind us that there may come a time of last resort, "But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

Disarmed people are, at best, wards of the state. Remember two very simple thoughts (the most profound truths generally are simple) which I did not originate but agree with: An armed population is comprised of free citizens, an unarmed population is comprised of subjects. Also: Fear the government that fears your guns.

Properly exercised, your rights are never the problem but are always the solution. God ordained it to be so.


"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Mike Smith is a freelance writer from Wisconsin. He is probably not either of the Mike Smiths you know. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

Mike Smith can be reached at: AllenWinston100@hotmail.com

Published in the October 29, 2002 issue of  Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2002 Ether Zone.

We invite your comments on this article in our forum!