It was no surprise that almost immediately after the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio that lawmakers began the tradition of calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment, tighter gun legislation, and “red flag” laws. We’ve seen many congressmen weigh in over the past 48 hours, but we may all be surprised to see who else is calling for the tighter regulations.
The solutions aren’t obvious, even if we pretend they are. But we must try. Let’s start with the TAPS Act. Maybe also implement state “red flag” laws, or gun violence restraining orders. Stop them before they can hurt someone.https://t.co/2G2pZSWaF1
— Rep. Dan Crenshaw (@RepDanCrenshaw) August 4, 2019
Representative Dan Crenshaw weighed in calling for “red flag” laws exactly while touting the TAPS act which would revert our gun laws back to the Clinton Era of 5 round limit magazines and no semi-automatic firing.
But Dan Crenshaw is not alone. More than a dozen Republican congressmen weighed in with very similar tweets and press releases. But one stuck out.
President Donald Trump weighed in by calling on congress to draft and pass “red flag” laws and a gun registry.
Defining Red Flag Laws & Why It’s Dangerous
What is a “red flag” law? A red flag law is any law in which gives the Government the right to create lists of desirable and undesirable citizens for gun ownership. This is currently being sold to the American people as a law which allows a family member call the police out of concern for your safety or safety of others to have your firearms confiscated. Make no mistake, that’s not the end of what these laws do. It creates a list of desirable and undesirables and the undesirable list would never be able to own or buy a gun. Essentially, “red flag” laws give the US Government the authority to remove your 2nd Amendment without due process. My wording there is key and substantial. While the politicians all tout that “red flag” laws would only be used by family members, it can be used by caregivers including your doctor, your psychologist, your dentist, your pastor, and your local government. Essentially this devolved in Austria to “mental disabilities”. Governments started red-flagging people who were suffering dementia, schizophrenia, then depression, and so on. But, guess what has just been added the the list of Mental Illnesses by the WHO? Video Gaming.
But that’s not what the left wants to red flag, they want to red flag hate and they have made this crystal clear. If they create “red flag” laws to include those deemed to espouse hate – and they will -, that would make this much, much worse.
Who Would be Targeted?
Let’s dive into the deep annals of the left’s psychology for a moment. What if they created these red flag laws for hate and bigotry? Who would they classify as mentally unfit? As it turns out, anyone who disagrees with them. Even now, a simple discussion with a liberal turns into ad hominem attacks from the left calling anyone that disagrees “racist”, “bigot”, “uncle tom”, etc. Anyone that disagrees with their narrative, is subject to this list. Eventually, “red flag” laws would allow for even those that disagree with the status quo to be put on the list of undesirables. If you didn’t agree with how they’re handling climate change, immigration, the budget, Wall Street, crime, etc, you would most certainly be added to the list of undesirables with a far-left president. You could even be raided and all of your firearms taken by force and then be put in prison for illegal possession of a firearm – never mind that you’ve never committed a crime in your life.
But let’s call this what it is: Red Flag laws are like George Orwell’s book, “1984” where you are prosecuted based on something you “might” do in the future, not something you have done in the past or present. Our laws are setup to punish criminals, not prevent crime. The reason for this is that our founders knew that by preventing crime, you have to remove someone’s rights. Our founders knew better than to put in place a system of laws that allowed for prosecution based on hypothetical which is why it’s specifically prohibited in due process and the constitution specifically prohibits the removal of a right except by due process. This is why a “Red Flag” law must absolutely circumvent due process, because due process specifically prohibits and rejects the premise of “red flag” laws.
Back to the Basics of the 2nd Amendment
But we need to put this story in reverse a moment and back up to really know what is going on here and why this has become the most important topic of our lifetimes. And to start off, I’m to drop a truth that many will not want to hear, but I ask that you follow the story through and read this to the end.
The United States Constitution’s Bill Rights doesn’t give you, me, or anyone else a single right. That’s not a belief. It’s not opinion. It is hard fact. Read the amendments. Here are some examples:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment …
… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace …
The right of the people to be secure …
That’s just the first four amendments and we’re already seeing a pattern. There is one of two statements made in every amendment that it boils down to.
- Someone (congress/soldiers) can’t do something
- “the right of the people”
I think we can all agree that telling congress or soldiers that they can’t do something doesn’t grant us a right. It does, however, protect an existing right. Most will agree that stating, “the right”, passively suggests that the right has already been defined elsewhere. If I say you have “the right” to free speech, I’m not giving you that right – I’m recognizing that it exists elsewhere. So, why were the amendments written in this way? Why didn’t they specifically state that it was giving us a right? Because it was understood that we already had all of these rights before the constitution was even conceptualized.
God’s Role in Our Founding and the 2nd Amendment
So, where do those rights come from? As it turns out, God. The original founding document of our country, the Declaration of Independence describes three inalienable rights that is endowed by our creator (singular, not plural) at birth, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness“. Let’s cover a few bases right quick. The document never said that a government couldn’t take these rights away as they literally drafted the document in protest of a government that just did. They also didn’t say that everyone was currently enjoying those rights. They simply meant to say that they exist. They modeled the very foundation of the source of our rights from a very popular book at the time, the Holy Bible. Examine Exodus, Chapter 20 and start from the very beginning.
1 And God spoke all these words: 2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.”
I don’t mean to give a religious lecture, but this is very important in understanding how our rights are understood to exist. Moses was very careful to define both that God said the words and which God spoke them. This part of the Holy Bible has shaped the very fabric of our civilization for eons. It has even been incorporated into our own laws and moral fabric. Before this, it was widely accepted that dueling for someone’s stuff was preferred to trade because it was “more manly”. Many societies regarded merchants as lower than a servant because he didn’t have to risk his life for his stuff. It wasn’t until nations accepted the Ten Commandments that trade became the primary source of wealth acquisition – not theft or raiding. When Moses wrote those words, whether you chose to believe that God said it or not, people of that time believed that God said it. Because God said it, only God could amend or resend it. Our framers and founding fathers took that ideology straight from the Holy Bible and defined our rights as “God-given” to make it clear that only God has the authority to govern our rights.
The Source of the Problem
Our government is well aware that our belief in God has created the temperament of the average American which believes that their rights are not up for negotiation. In order to open the negotiation, the government has to first assert that no God gave you those rights. This is why the government has been pushing atheism so hard and why most government officials are secretly atheists (even some in demonic worship, Google Bohemian Grove). I won’t knock anyone’s belief, that is your right to believe what you want, but if you don’t believe in God and don’t believe that God wrote the Ten Commandments, then what, exactly, tells you not to steal or kill people if the laws suddenly disappeared? A moral compass? Any compass that is relative to your own position is broken. The entire point of a compass is to guide you from outside of your limited perspective. That means an Atheist’s moral compass has no foundation – it is subject to change with his or her emotion, opinion, and the effects of others around them subjecting their compass to extreme malleability.
This was something that our founders and framers didn’t anticipate. Atheism brings the very existence of those inalienable rights into question and allows the government to subtly shuffle the authority of those rights away from God and to the the Government making those rights malleable. Atheism has posed a significant threat to our founding principals and the security of liberty in our nation. It’s not the fault of any atheist, it’s merely the government finding a loophole – blame the government.
If we can bring recognition of God back into our society, these inalienable rights will be unrepealable. Therefore, any tool, facet, or act needed to secure life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, was considered to be an inalienable right including your ability to acquire, store, and use firearms. This is why the Bill of Rights was called “The Protection Clauses” by our founding fathers. These amendments can be repealed no more than the defining articles of the Constitution. That is because they were ratified with the Constitution, and not separate from the Constitution as traditional amendments are ratified.
The Bill of Rights are NOT Constitutional Amendments
That is another piece of history that seems to be lost from collective knowledge and only still alive today by the grace of some historians like myself. The United States Constitution almost failed ratification, and if it had, we would be living today under another document called, “The Articles of Confederation.” Many big names such as Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock are missing from the ratification of the United States Constitution. To understand why, you would have to understand what the Constitution did.
The Articles of Confederation had a serious flaw that many framers chalked up as a “minor detail” while others saw it as a egregious injustice. That is, the states had supreme power and could circumvent the inalienable rights they just clawed their way out of darkness to obtain. Another convention was called in Philadelphia and the drafting of the new Constitution which would give the central government the supreme power began. After the first few weeks of drafting, those big names saw that this document gave a central government too much power and boycotted the convention by refusing to show up. Eventually, toward the end of the drafting, there wasn’t even enough representation to vote. James Madison had the solution and drafted the Bill of Rights amending the draft of the Constitution – that’s right, the Bill of Rights amended the draft, not the Constitution.
The convention ratified the Constitution and it’s amended draft containing the first ten amendments that would be known as the Bill of Rights. But those names were still noticeably missing. Benjamin Franklin was reported saying, “I smell a rat in Washington tending toward a monarchy”. Those were powerful words from a generation that just fought a long and bloody war to free themselves from the very monarchy the new Constitution was accused of bringing about.
What is the 2nd Amendment for?
Some people falsely or mistakenly claim that the 2nd Amendment is for hunting or self-defense, but that’s not at all why it exists.
The only defense against a standing army is well-regulated militias of armed citizens. [paraphrased]
– James Madison (Author of the 2nd Amendment)
And who did they define as being part of a militia? Was it the National Guard as some say it is? No.
The militia now consists of the whole people except for [government] officials.
– James Madison (Author of the 2nd Amendment)
James Madison was very clear that the militia was everyone except those on the Government’s payroll.
While some will agree with this they will stop the conversation by asserting the 2nd Amendment can only apply to weapons available during its creation and modern weapons can’t be considered as protected arms.
This is wrong. They also couldn’t anticipate cell phones, television, printing press, the internet, and blogs, yet, those same people very adamantly proclaim that the 1st and 4th amendments applies to those new technologies regardless of their existence during the drafting of the amendments. These people would tell you that the first and fourth amendments transcends time and technology.. So, why wouldn’t the 2nd Amendment also transcend time and technology? It does, no matter how inconvenient they might find that fact, it is a fact nonetheless.
But then you get those that like to take words out of context, “It says well-regulated militia“.
No, it says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and that militias were required for preserving liberty against a standing army as evidence of the quotes from Madison above. Once you read those quotes and really let those words sink into your thought process, it becomes very apparent exactly why the 2nd Amendment exists.
The second amendment is the final check in our government’s system of checks and balances. The Congress can check the president, the president can check the Judicial, and the Judicial can check the Congress. But what happens when it turns into a circle jerk and all three branches conspire to usurp the liberty of the people with a powerful army at their backs? That is why the 2nd Amendment exists.
Cutting the Bullshit
Now, that you understand the real history of the Bill of Rights and what it really is, you should also very clearly understand that it is set in stone, like the Ten Commandments. It’s also not a big leap to then understand what it is for and why the Government hates it so much. Infringing upon the 2nd Amendment is simply repugnant to the constitution and deemed by the supreme court to be null and void.
Once you consider that the second amendment is there for us to protect ourselves from an out-of-control government, it becomes painfully clear that allowing the Government to regulate firearms is akin to allowing thieves to regulate locks. A thief would love to implement red-flag laws against banks and our society has made it so simple. Imagine if little Jimmy and Martha died in a school fire and the firefighters couldn’t break the locks (the appeal to emotion fallacy). The thieves stand up and then assert that locks are bad and no one should have locks (composition-division fallacy). And by popular demand, locks are banned or regulated to be easier to break, which would give every thief who pushed the laws direct access to every bank vault. Just like the government will implement red-flag laws and tell organized militias they can’t have firearms, giving the government unfettered access to your total freedom. This is a common sense issue and doesn’t take much brain power to understand that the same government that created the FDA to put money in the pockets of Big Pharma isn’t ‘all-in’ for our safety and well-being.
If you give the government an inch, it will take a mile
– Ronald Reagan (1982)
The act of government creating red-flag laws only ends one way – a civil war.
As Ronald Reagan once said:
Ours, is the only national anthem that ends with a question. It is the responsibility of each generation to answer that question.
What kind of country are you going to leave for your children?
Is this the land of the free, the home of the brave, or the land of tyranny? The ball is in play and if you haven’t picked a side, it’s already too late.