Field Manual of the Free Militia:

Section I

Principles justifying the arming

and organizing of a militia

1994
 

By the Free Militia

LINK: Section II

1.1.1 Biblical inspiration and authority

Before we can rightly consider arming and organizing ourselves as a militia, we must consider whether or not doing so is the right thing to do. Later on we will see that we have the historical and constitutional right to form a militia. But ultimately, right and wrong is determined by God's will, and God's will is determined from the Bible. Why turn to the Bible to answer our questions about right and wrong?

If you are a Bible believer, you must be committed to following its moral standards. If you do not believe the Bible, you should still know and weigh what it says and use it to justify your actions to Bible believers.

To answer this question we will briefly look at what the Bible says about its own inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency, and authority.

First, look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All Scripture is God- breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Here the apostle Paul is teaching us that the Bible (or Scriptures) are inspired by God or God-breathed. Take careful note of two things that Paul says are God-breathed or inspired. He says that "all Scripture is God-breathed." Notice here that it is the actual Scriptures themselves, the words of the Bible, that are inspired (God-breathed) and not simply the authors. God gave us the precise wording of the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek, not just the main ideas. Paul also says that "all Scripture is God-breathed." It is not just portions of the Bible that are inspired but all of it. We therefore say that the Bible is the word of God! This testimony that the Bible is the word of God runs throughout the whole Bible. (See, for example, Exodus 34:27, 2 Samuel 23:2, Jeremiah 26:2, John 12:49, John 17:8, 1 Corinthians 14:37, and Revelation 2:18.)

Now to say that the entire Bible is equally inspired word-for- word does not necessarily mean that it is all of equal value or interest to us. It simply means that word-for-word it all came from God.

The Bible is word-for-word the word of God. Therefore it is completely true or without any errors. This is what we mean by "inerrancy." Think about it. If God knows everything (1 John 3:20) and cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18), and if the Bible's words are God's words, then there cannot be any mistakes in the Bible. Otherwise, God would either have to be wrong himself or lying to us.

While this line of reasoning is undeniable, the Bible does not leave us to make our own conclusions about its truthfulness. The concept of infallibility or inerrancy is clearly the Bible's own teaching about itself. Jesus said, "Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" (Matthew 5:18). In other words, the Bible must be fulfilled in the smallest detail. He also taught that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35) and praying to the Father stated, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). God's word can only be truth if it is free from errors. Remember in school when true or false questions on tests were false if any part of them were wrong? Luke wrote his gospel "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:4). Peter wrote, "We have the word of the prophets made more certain" (2 Peter 1:19). More certain than what? Read 2 Peter 1:16-18. Peters says that the word of the prophets is more certain than his own eyewitness experience of Jesus Christ.

Now the fact that the Bible doesn't have any mistakes is not simply "academic" truth. It is of immense practical importance. Only if it is all true can we know for sure that any particular part of it is true. Do you want to do right by obeying a command in the Bible only to find out later that you were wrong to do what you did? Of course not. We need a Bible that is true throughout to have any real hope of pleasing God.

There is still more you need to know about the Bible. Not only is it God's word, not only is it true, but it contains everything you need to know about God and your relationship with him. The fact that it is everything we need to know is summed up by the word "sufficient" and is clearly taught by Paul the apostle in 2 Timothy 3:15-17. It tells us everything we need to know for salvation (2 Timothy 3:15), truth (2 Timothy 3:16), and good works (2 Timothy 3:17). This is why the Bible tells us over and over again never to add to it or to take away from it (Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18).

Now when we say that the Bible tells us everything we need to know, we need to realize that some things are stated directly and some indirectly. A good algebra textbook, for instance, may not give answers to every algebra problem. Yet is does fully define the rules and principles by which every algebra problem may be solved. The Bible likewise contains all that we need for our relationship with God even if it does not provide direct answers for every problem or question we face. On such indirect issues we must draw valid conclusions based on what Scripture does say.

This leads us to the final point which needs to be made about the Bible: the Bible alone is authoritative meaning that it, and only it, must be completely believed and obeyed. Since all of the Bible is God's word we cannot pick and choose what we want to obey. Since it is all true we cannot neglect a portion of it by raising doubts about its reliability. Since it contains all we need for our Christian walks we cannot appeal to something or someone besides the Bible as our final authority on some issue.

We cannot argue with any part of the Bible any more than we can argue with God himself! God has "laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed" (Psalm 119:4). If we disobey, we will surely fail (Matthew 7:24-25).

We must make sure that whatever we do in any department of life, including the use of force, conforms to the truth and moral principles of the Bible.

1.1.2 The continuity of the Old and New Testaments

If the Bible is the word of God, is it a self-consistent message? Yes! Some sincere Christians believe that the New Testament overturned the Old Testament rendering the Old Testament obsolete. But this is false.

The New Testament did not change or overturn the moral principles of the Old Testament. It simply clarified, developed, added to, or fulfilled them.

Look at what Jesus Christ said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, unto heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18). Several things should be noted about these two verses.

First, Jesus did not abolish what the Old Testament said. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did not contradict anything said by the Old Testament. Rather than abolishing the law against murder, he went beyond it to prohibit hatred (Matthew 5:21-22). He did not abolish the law against adultery but went beyond it to prohibit lust (Matthew 5:27-28). He did not abolish the principle that punishment by the state should be limited to "an eye for an eye" but simply corrected the abuse of this legal principle of justice by forbidding personal vengeance (Matthew 5:38-39) which the Old Testament also forbids (Deuteronomy 32:35). And he did not negate any Old Testament law by telling us not to hate our enemy because this was a tradition of the scribes found nowhere in the Old Testament (Matthew 5:43-44).

Whenever Jesus wanted to justify his actions or establish a truth, he did it by quoting the Old Testament, not by denying it. Even when he said that loving God and loving our neighbor are the greatest commandments, he was quoting Old Testament commandments that were still in effect. The fact is, the law is still in effect and binding today. "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10).

Second, Jesus did come to fulfill the Old Testament. In Colossians 2:16-17 the apostle Paul says, "Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however is found in Christ." So it is true that some things in the Old Testament no longer apply to us because Jesus has fulfilled them. But it is only ceremonial aspects of the law that were changed, not the moral aspects. And whatever was finally fulfilled by Jesus Christ was replaced by something better.

The religious festivals of the Old Testament pointed to Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 5:7). The Old Testament priesthood was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who is our High Priest and replaced by the priesthood of all believers (Hebrews 7:23-24). The Old Testament physical temple was fulled in Jesus Christ and replaced by the spiritual temple of the church. The Old Testament sacrificed were fulfilled once and for all by the death of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:27). There is no such thing as something in the Old Testament which was abolished without being substituted by something better in Jesus Christ.

Third, the whole law remains binding until the end of the world. Nowhere did Jesus or the apostles ever change or do away with any moral law or principle of the Old Testament. We have already seen that Jesus based his morals on the Old Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament emphasis on love is not instead of the law but the essence of it.

Paul wrote, "Let no debt remain outstanding except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:8-10). Just because we are filled with Christian love does not mean that we can now sleep around, murder, steal, and covet. Indeed, our love makes us do what the Old Testament law commands.

The relationship of the Old Testament law to salvation

This brings us to the question of why Paul deprecates the law and good works (Roman 3:20, Galatians 24, Ephesians 2:8-10, etc.). Nowhere does Paul deny the validity of the moral laws for determining what is right and wrong and for guiding our everyday lives. Like Jesus, his arguments and teaching were always based on the Old Testament itself (Acts 17:2-3, Romans 1:17, Romans 3:10-18, etc.). What Paul denies is the validity of the view that obedience to God's laws can save us. As sinners, we are incapable of full obedience to the law and therefore cannot please God (Romans 3:20, Romans 8:6-8). So we must depend upon the grace of God in Jesus Christ to be forgiven (Romans 6:23).

But this was nothing new! Obeying God's laws did not save anyone in the Old Testament anymore than in the New Testament, and grace did not save anyone any less. No one in the Old Testament was forgiven or saved because they obeyed the law; the law simply made them aware of their sin just as in the New Testament (Romans 3:20, Romans 7:7-8, Galatians 3:24).

• The Lord looked with favor or grace on Abel (Genesis 4:4) who made his offering in faith (Hebrews 11:4).
• Noah found favor (grace) in the eyes of God (Genesis 6:8) because of his faith (Hebrews 11:7).
• Abraham was saved by faith (Genesis 15:6) in the gospel of Jesus (Galatians 3:8) and is a pattern for our faith (Romans 4:1-10).
• Moses found favor in the eyes of the Lord because God is gracious, not because Moses obeyed the law (Exodus 34:6-9, Psalm 103:7-8).
• David depended on God's mercy for forgiveness (Psalm 51:1-5).

1.1.3 Jesus Christ was not a pacifist

Of course, Christ's emphasis on love is sometimes perceived to imply that he was a pacifist who condemned all violence and war. But this is a misunderstanding.

A close look at the Bible will show that Jesus Christ was not a pacifist and will demonstrate that he approved of the justified use of deadly force.

Neither John the Baptist, nor Jesus, nor the apostles condemned soldiering.

"Then some soldiers asked him, 'And what should we do?' He replied, 'Don't exhort money and don't accuse people falsely -- be content with your pay'" (Luke 3:14). John the Baptist did not tell soldiers that being soldiers was immoral per se, but simply condemned the abuse of their position as soldiers.

Jesus did not rebuke the centurion for being a soldier, but commended him for the faith that came from his understanding of authority in the military (Matthew 8:5-13; see also Acts 10:1-48).

Jesus Christ both permitted and commanded his followers to be armed.

"He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one'" (Luke 22:36). Now that the apostles had learned the lesson of trusting in God (Luke 10:4), they were to be prepared to defend themselves as they travelled through dangerous areas to take the gospel to the whole world.

"Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. Jesus commanded Peter, 'Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?'" (John 18:10-11). Notice that Jesus allowed Peter to have the sword both before and after this incident. The problem was not that defending someone is wrong; the problem was that it was inappropriate at this time since Jesus wanted to die for our sins (Mark 10:45).

"'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword'" (Matthew 26:52). Again, Jesus did not necessarily condemn using the sword. He told Peter to put it back in its scabbard, not to get rid of it. What Jesus is saying is that anyone who fights risks his life in doing so. This is a matter of fact, not of ethics.

Jesus Christ used just force.

"Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of money changers and the benches of those selling doves" (Matthew 21:12).

"So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables" (John 2:15).

"When Jesus said, 'I am he,' they drew back and fell to the ground." He used his divine power against aggressors (John 18:6).

Jesus Christ would have been justified in defending himself.

On several occasions Jesus Christ evaded an angry crowd rather than giving in to their intent to kill him (Luke 4:28-30, John 8:58-59, John 10:35-39). It was not yet the time for him to sacrifice himself for the sins of many. When the time did come, and his disciples tried to defend him, Jesus said, "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?'" (Matthew 26:53). Jesus was quite capable of taking care of himself if he wanted to be defended. And his statement that he could call on the Father did not only mean that he had the ability to defend himself, but that he was morally justified in doing so as well. He was under no inherent obligation to die, although he and the Father did plan for him to die.

Jesus Christ will someday use deadly force on a wide scale.

All through the Bible we read of the day when Jesus will return to set things straight. At his second coming he will throw the wicked into the fiery furnace (Matthew 13:41-43). He will separate the righteous from the wicked and send the latter into the eternal fire (Matthew 25:41). He will bring destruction upon unbelievers (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10). He will lay waste to the present heavens and the earth (2 Peter 3:10). And with justice he will judge and make war on the evildoers of the earth (Revelation 19:11-21). This all demonstrates that Jesus is not absolutely opposed to the deadly punishment of wrongdoers. Indeed, there will come a day when he brings it about on a universal scale. But for now, he is delaying his just wrath while giving mankind a chance to repent of their wicked deeds (2 Peter 3:9).

Jesus taught that force was a last resort.

Of course, it is true that violence is not always -- indeed rarely -- justified. "Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place'" (John 18:36). So Christians should not use force to establish or maintain the kingdom of God or impose their religious beliefs on others. But this does not mean that Christians should never use force. Jesus implies that if the situation was different, if his kingdom was an earthly kingdom, then force would be acceptable.

Jesus also said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9) showering that our goal should always be to seek peaceful resolutions if at all possible (see also Romans 12:17-19). Later he said, "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39). Slapping the right cheek was not a life-threatening attack, but a personal insult similar to spitting on someone. So Jesus was teaching that we should not resort to force when we face minor personal insults and mistreatment. But he was not condemning self-defense when our very lives are threatened as we have already seen.

Finally, Christ tells us, "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:44-45). How can we love our enemies and kill them at the same time? Clearly Jesus is saying we should harbor no hatred towards anyone. Our actions should never be motivated by hatred or vengeance but only by justice. Judges can and do justly sentence criminals to prison while having compassion on them. God can and does desire a sinner's repentance as he condemns him forever. So also it is possible and necessary for us to love our mortal enemies, to pray for their souls and seek to change their minds and behavior, even when we are forced to take up arms against them.

1.1.4 Principles of just war

As we have seen, Jesus Christ was not a pacifist and it is sometimes necessary to respond to evil with force. But why and when is force right and when is it wrong? Through the Bible there are several key principles to answer this question.

The right to life. All through the Bible it is assumed that individuals have the right to life. For instance, Exodus 20:13 says, "You shall not murder." The reasons we cannot murder is because God says so. But the reason he says so is because he has given us the right to live. This right to life implies the right to self-defense. If we should not be murdered, then we are justified in preventing someone from killing us. This is shown throughout the Bible.

Capital punishment. For various terrible crimes and sins, only death is a sufficient punishment. God himself instituted capital punishment. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" (Genesis 9:6). "Anyone who strikes a man and kill shim shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:12). Consistent with the principle of "an eye for an eye" (Exodus 23-25), only a murderer's death can satisfy the demands of justice for murder. Capital punishment is also the just penalty for despising authority (Deuteronomy 17:12), rebellion (Deuteronomy 21:21), and kidnapping (Deuteronomy 24:7). It makes no difference in principle whether an individual, or an army, or political leaders are guilty. If a man is guilty of a capital crime, he should die at the hands of an executioner. If any army is guilty of a wide-scale crime, they too should die, at the hands of an opposing army if necessary. If our leaders are corrupted to the extent of imposing tyranny upon the people, then they should be forcefully overthrown and replaced by a legitimate government.

Resisting tyranny. This idea of resisting tyranny is common in the Bible. Clearly we should not resort to force when mere possessions are at stake. High taxes and the like can be endured and do warrant taking lives. But when leaders are responsible for murder, deny civil liberties, and generally impose a draconian regime upon the people, then we should disobey, resist, and rise up to fight. In Exodus 1:15-22 the king of Egypt ordered that all newborn boys be killed. But the Hebrew midwives did right by disobeying and sparing the innocent babies. As we said previously, the book of Judges is full of accounts of leaders raised up by God for express purpose of delivering Israel from the hands of tyranny. Read about Ehud (Judges 3), Deborah (Judges 4), Gideon (Judges 6- 7), and Samson (Judges 13-16). These people are commended for their faith in the New Testament because they responded to God's calling to fight against tyranny (Hebrews 11:32-34).

Justice not revenge, collective not personal. Paul the apostle wrote, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody" (Romans 12:17). We must always be motivated to do what is right. "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" (Romans 12:18). By all means we must seek peaceful resolutions. "Do not take revenge my friends" (Romans 12:19). We are not to get even with an evildoer nor are we to take justice into our own hands. But it is not evil or vengeful for people to individually defend themselves or to collectively exact just punishment.

Obeying authority. Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, we must follow its commands and principles. We must take seriously the concept of just war taught explicitly in the Old Testament and implicitly in the New since the Bible is consistent in its moral precepts. Since Jesus was not a pacifist, we cannot say that christians renounce all armed conflict. And while force should be a last resort it is sometimes necessary for self-defense and to resist tyranny.

This leads us to the all important idea of authority. Who is in charge. What must we obey? When is resistance justified? "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me'" (Matthew 28:18). All legitimate authority rests in the Lord Jesus Christ. All earthly authority is therefore derived and limited authority. Christ gives parents the authority to raise children according to his principles (Ephesians 6:1-4). But we have no authority to abuse our children or lead them astray. He gives ordained leaders of the church authority within the church, but they are accountable to Christ (Hebrews 13:17). They also have no authority to abuse or lead astray Christians. Likewise, he gives authority to governments to maintain law and order, not to abuse citizens or to perpetrate evil.

Consider Romans 13:1-5 which is perhaps the most important biblical passage about the authority of governments. "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God" (Romans 13:1). In America, the highest governing authority is the Constitution, not elected officials who are sworn to uphold and defend it.

"Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves" (Romans 13:2). Violating Constitutional liberties is rebelling against God, whether it is done by a criminal or the politicians. Thus,

When elected officials break their oath to uphold the Constitution, it is not the patriotic citizen who is in rebellion, but the governing official!

"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you" (Romans 13:3). If you do what is Constitutionally right by forming a militia and the government accuses you of wrongdoing, then in fact they have lost all authority because they have turned away from the very thing which legitimizes them.

"For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, and agent of wrath to bring punishment to the wrongdoer" (Romans 13:4). God intends the government to do you good by maintaining law, order, and justice. When the government systematically punishes the upright citizen and commends wrongdoing, it is no longer serving God's purpose.

"Therefore , it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience" (Romans 13:5). Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority and the Constitution is the real governing authority. If we are submitted to Jesus Christ and committed to Constitutional liberties, then our conscience demands the resistance of unconstitutional authority which is no authority at all.

1.1.5 Discussion questions

To determine what is right and wrong in ethical matters, should we follow public opinion, existing laws, our own opinion, or the Bible? Why?

Do you believe that there is any inconsistency in what the Bible has to say about the morality of self-defense and war waged against tyranny? If not, why not? If so, please specify what "inconsistency" you perceive. Is there any way you can see these "inconsistencies" can be reconciled?

Do you believe that Jesus was, or Christians should be, complete pacifists? Why or why not?

How is the idea of just war consistent or inconsistent with loving God? With loving our neighbor? With loving our enemy?

Describe the general continuity of principle among capital punishment, law enforcement by the police, personal self-defense, and just war.

Can you describe the difference between acting out of revenge and acting in behalf of justice? Why is the one right and the other wrong?

What is your definition of authority that must be obeyed?

What are some examples of usurped or illegitimate authority that do not justify armed resistance? Why isn't fighting right in such cases?

What are some examples of usurped or illegitimate authority that do justify armed resistance? Why is fighting right in such cases?

Main ideas of this section

We must make sure that whatever we do in any department of life, including the use of force, conforms to the truth and moral principles of the Bible.

When elected officials break their oath to uphold the Constitution, it is not the patriotic citizen who is in rebellion, but the governing official!

Further reading

If you desire to read and study these issues in more depth, I recommend the following books available from the Free Militia.

On the inspiration and authority of the Bible

Custer, Stewart. Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy? (Nutley, New Jersey, The Craig Press, 1968), 120pp.

Garrett, Duanne A. and Melick, Richard R., Jr. (editors). Authority and Interpretation: A Baptist Perspective (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1987), 220pp.

Giesler, Norman (editor). Inerrancy (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1980), 516pp.

Young, Edward J. Thy Word Is Truth (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Banner of Truth, 1957), 274pp.

On the morality and ethics of just war

Boettner, Loraine. The Christian Attitude Toward War (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1940/1985), 91pp.

Davis, John Jefferson. Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today (Phillipsburg, New Jersey, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1985), 299pp.

Morey, Robert A. When Is It Right to Fight? (Minneapolis, Minnesota, Bethany House Publishers, 1985), 143pp.

Murray, John. Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishers, 1957), 272pp.

1.2.1 Give me liberty or give me death!

When the second revolutionary convention of Virginia met in March of 1775, the majority of those in attendance favored quiet preparations for war but wanted to continue seeking peace with the king of England and Parliament. So when resolutions were introduced proposing that Virginia formally assume a defensive posture in anticipation of war, the majority cringed at the prospect of war being inevitable. The resolutions were about to be defeated when Patrick henry rose to address the assembly. It was his speech that changed minds so that the resolutions were carried. It was his speech that first openly advocated war. It was his speech which arguably mobilized the American colonies for eventual victory.

I therefore will quote the speech in its entirety to set the context of the American Revolution and to remind us of the similar perils we face today. As you read it, keep several things in mind.

• First, Patrick Henry was promoting war to a group of informed men who were predisposed to peace. His speech was meant to convince the skeptical rather than to agitate warmongers.

   

• Second, Patrick Henry was promoting war against the greatest military power on the face of the earth, the British Empire. The men in that assembly did not have the benefit of hindsight but were contemplating a war which, from their perspective, was by no means sure to be won.

   

• Third, Patrick Henry was promoting war as a necessary last resort. He was not a "trigger-happy" glory seeker. He was facing facts that peaceful approaches had been impotent for over ten years of struggle.

   

"No man, Mr. President, thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very honorable gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I should speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. And in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace, but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Thus was Patrick Henry's speech. Thus were the resolutions to prepare for war carried. Let me make a few more remarks so you can see the parallels with our situation today and so there is no misunderstanding.

• Neither Patrick Henry, nor the resolutions he sought to approve advocated attacking the British army. They simply advocated being ready for the inevitable British attack. Neither does the Free Militia propose to attack anyone but only to be prepared to defend.

   

• Just as the colonists sought to alleviate unjust taxation without representation with every possible form of peaceful means, there has been an ongoing attempt with all branches of the federal government to demonstrate how unconstitutional many laws, programs, and taxes are, to no avail. The Constitutional is routinely ignored and petitions to obey it are met with an "insidious smile" but no serious action.

   

• The great danger of Patrick Henry's day was the growing strength of British forces along with the growing measures to disarm the colonies. Today we see the multiplication of police officers, agencies, prisons, and government power simultaneous with attacks on personal gun rights.

   

Contrary to popular belief, the American Revolution was not fought because the colonists were taxed without representation. It is true that for years preceding the revolution, taxes and fair representation were the issues that energized patriots. These were the questions that first caused friction between the colonies and England. But no American patriot took up arms to kill a British soldier because he thought his taxes were too high.

American patriots took up arms against the British and began the revolution only when -- and precisely because -- the British attempted to disarm them.

The first incident was when the British tried to confiscate stores of gunpowder and weapons to disarm the militia in New England. Almost at the same time (news travelled slowly in those days) the British confiscated the colonists' gunpowder in Williamsburg. The events in New England resulted n bloodshed; in Virginia the bloodshed was averted. But both historic confrontations took place because the British attempted to disarm citizens.

March 23, 1775. Patrick Henry gave his famous "give me liberty or give me death" speech.

April 18, 1775. British soldiers set out from Boston to confiscate muskets, gunpowder, and cannons from the colonists. Paul Revere rode out of town to warn the Americans.

April 19, 1775. The British encountered their first resistance by minutemen at Lexington Green. After pushing on to Concord, the British were repelled, and then routed, by the American minutemen and sustained casualties.

April 21, 1775. Still unaware of fighting in New England, the governor of Virginia ordered British marines to confiscate all gunpowder held in the public magazine at Williamsburg.

May 2, 1775. Captain Patrick Henry led an armed militia of Virginians on a march to Williamsburg. Soon five thousand men sprang to arms and joined the march.

May 4, 1775. The British agreed to compensate the Virginians for the gunpowder that was confiscated before the armed militia arrived in Williamsburg, thus averting armed conflict.

 

Second, when the acts of war were perceived, it was not Americans acting under the authority of the British Crown that opposed them. It was ordinary armed citizens -- outlaws as the British saw them -- who fought.

Our country sprang into being and is founded on the principle of ordinary citizens like you and me arming and organizing ourselves to fight tyranny.

1.2.3 The Declaration of Independence

About a year after hostilities broke out at Lexington and Concord, the Continental Congress unanimously adopted the Declaration of Independence. This declaration officially severed political ties with England and established the thirteen American colonies as independent states.

On the one hand, it took quite a long time to finalize and ratify the Declaration of Independence considering that the country had already been at war with Great Britain for a year and there was no real prospect for a peaceful resolution. But what this delay accomplished was a consensus among the delegations from all thirteen colonies about the justification of revolution and independence. It is therefore enlightening to examine their rationale in the Declaration of Independence since it represents the universal position of the leaders of all the colonies as to why America was justified in its revolt against the king and Parliament.

The relevant text is the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence which reads as follows:

"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 government. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. --"

What follows is an enumeration of particular abuses by Britain, many of which were particular to that day. I shall not comment on these except to say that one complain rings very literally true today: "He has erected a Multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." We also are harassed by every conceivable kind of regulatory agency, trivial law, and arrogant official which "eat our substance" through confiscatory taxes that get us coming (income taxes), standing (property taxes), and going (sales taxes).

Now for some relevant thoughts on the second paragraph:

• "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." Man is granted certain rights by God. These rights precede the formation of any government. Since governments are established by God and derive their authority from him, they cannot legitimately take away rights that have been graciously given by God.

   

• "That among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Notice it says, "among these are." This is not a comprehensive list of man's rights. Even the Bill of Rights is not a comprehensive list as indicated by the Ninth Amendment. But our rights can be organized or classified under the headings of life, liberty, and happiness.

   

• "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This demonstrates that governments are formed to protect our rights, not to give them.

   

• "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government." This clearly advocates dissolution of any government which does not act to defend the rights of the people. Notice that "the People," that is, individuals, have the right to make this adjustment. In our present case, we do not need to change, abolish, or replace the Constitution; what we need is to change our government so it will conform -- by force if necessary -- to the Constitution.

   

• "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." No one should be quick to resist minor and isolated abuses of power. These are inevitable in any government staffed by human beings.

   

• "And accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Americans have indeed suffered evil after evil from the government -- infractions of free speech, gun restrictions, exorbitant taxes, and violations of property and state rights -- for a very long time.

   

• "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 thrown off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." For now we will not consider whether or not such a systematic abuse of power exists in the United States. What is important to note is that when systematic abuses exist it is the people's (remember this means you and me, not elected officials or law enforcement agencies) RIGHT and DUTY to "throw off such Government."

   

This is a radical conclusion, but our forefathers were "radicals" and this is the premise upon which our nation was founded and has its being.

1.2.4 Guns are not the problem

Americans have a rich heritage of arming and organizing themselves into militias. We have not even considered the Old West where virtually everyone had a gun for self-defense. Nor have we considered the fact that up until the turn of the century, states required by law that every able-bodied adult male citizen possess a gun and ammunition.

But aren't guns the cause of all kinds of evil? Ostensibly, recent movements to restrict private gun ownership or use have been intended to reduce accidents and violent crime. But facts simply do not support this.

Fewer accidents occur with guns than by many other common things in life.

• In 1987, there were only 1,695 accidental deaths involving firearms in the United States (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 59).

   

• It is 26 times more likely that you will die in an auto accident than by a gun accident (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 60). Yet there is no organized movement to ban car ownership like there is for guns which are Constitutionally protected.

   

• Accidents involving firearms have decreased by 42% from 1970 to 1983 (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 60).

   

• Violent crimes such as murder have not been invented since the advent of firearms but have occurred as long as sinful man has existed. Crime is encouraged by culture and sin, not mechanical instruments.

   

• Florida has the nation's highest violent crime rate and 8.6 gun dealers per 10,000 people. North Dakota has the lowest violent crime rate and 25.8 gun dealers per 10,000 people. This is consistent with crime and gun dealer rates in other states. (U.S. News & World Report, 1/17/94). There is no correlation between gun sales and crime.

   

• Gun control activists point to Great Britain as an example of a country with strict gun control and low crime rates. However, the British murder rate was lower than America's BEFORE the instituted gun control and their rate of increase in murders is FASTER than in the U.S. (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, pp. 77-78).

   

• The countries of Switzerland, Israel, Denmark, and Finland have the world's very highest per capita gun ownership and some of the world's lowest rime rates (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 78). Therefore, there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime.

   

• Taiwan, Mexico, and Jamaica have much stricter gun control than the U.S. and much higher murder rates. Since 1974, possession of just a single bullet in Jamaica has been punishable with life imprisonment! Yet Jamaica has six times as many gun deaths per capita as our murder capital, Washington, D.C. (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, pp. 78-79). There is no correlation between gun laws and crime.

   

• The National Sheriff's Association, American Federation of Police, and the National Police Officer's Association of America all officially support gun ownership by law-abiding citizens (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 111).

   

• One gets the impression from television and newspapers that so-called assault rifles are responsible for most murders since headlines often tell of maniacs shooting masses of people. In fact, only 4% of homicides involve any kind of rifle and less than 1% involve assault weapons (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, pp. 150, 154).

   

• The anti-assault rifle craze in the media is analogous to coverage of aircraft crashes. Although many more people are killed in care accidents, it is the isolated case of an airliner crash that gets the publicity because the story is more sensational. Likewise, the coverage of murders with "assault rifles" distorts the truth that assault rifles kill very few people.

   

• In fact, military rifles are designed to wound rather than kill. The .223 caliber cartridge of the M-16 is much lighter than a .30-06 hunting rifle. Moreover, military cartridges have "full metal jackets" to minimize tissue damage because killing the enemy eliminates one soldier while wounding him occupies several to remove him from the field and tend to his wounds.

   

• Furthermore, genuine assault rifles have not been legal for private, unlicensed ownership since 1968. The Department of Defense defines an "assault rifle" as a military rifle that discharges multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger (i.e., a machine gun). Today's focus is on semi-automatic weapons which by definition are not assault rifles.

   

• No legally registered automatic assault weapon has ever been used in a crime in the United States (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 149). Either such weapons are not used for crime, or those who do use them totally ignore gun control laws.

   

• In Switzerland, every able-bodied adult male trains two or three weeks each year in the army and is required to keep an automatic assault rifle and ammunition in his home (Fodor's Guide to Switzerland, pp. 60-61). Yet violent crime is virtually non- existent in Switzerland.

   

• Nazis in Denmark, the military in Greece, and officials in Hungary have all used pre-existing gun owners lists to confiscate weapons (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, pp. 88-89).

   

• The stated purpose of Handgun Control is the elimination of guns in the hands of private citizens. Waiting periods and registration are simply the tactical first step towards disarming the public totally ("Handguns Under Heavy Fire," 3/13/94, p. B-6).

   

What were your first impressions of Patrick Henry when you read his speech? Do you think he was a realist or an alarmist? Subversive or patriotic? Principled or power-hungry? Bold or foolhardy?

Read Patrick Henry's speech again in the light of today's situation (substitute America for Great Britain, Congress for Parliament, etc.). Using a highlighter, highlight the statements and ideas that apply now. What are the main parallels between Patrick Henry's day and ours?

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Christian theologian Loraine Boettner wrote, "We desire peace, but not the kind that is found in the slave camp or cemetery." What do you say?

Why do you suppose that the American Revolution was ignited over guns instead of taxes, even though taxes had been the main issue for so long?

What is your definition of a "right" and where do rights come from?

What is the purpose of the government and where does it gets its authority?

What is the proper, just, and moral response of an American citizen to a government which systematically violates the "unalienable rights" of the people? Why?

If a person would publicly advocate the ideas of Patrick Henry or the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence today, how do you think he would be labeled and treated by the federal government? By the news media? By the typical American citizen?

What does this tell you about the direction this nation is headed?

What was your initial reaction when you read the statement, "If you become convinced that the federal government is bent on systematic violations of our personal liberties, it is your moral duty and obligation to join with others so convinced to restore true liberty for all Americans"? What is your reaction after having time to reflect upon it?

Are you ready, willing, and able to join in such a cause provided that you are convinced your personal liberties are in peril? What are your reasons?

Do you believe that wide-spread gun ownership causes crime, prevents crime, or is virtually irrelevant to the issue? Why?

Do you think it is a virtue or a vise to own an "assault rifle"? Why?

The main ideas of this section

American patriots took up arms against the British and began the revolution only when -- and precisely because -- the British attempted to disarm them.

So-called assault rifles are not the weapon of choice among criminals. They are singled out for gun control not because they threaten the law-abiding citizen but because they threaten an unconstitutional government.

Further reading

At the very least, you should obtain, read, and absorb a copy of the Declaration of Independence.

If you desire to read and study these issues in more depth, I recommend the following books available from the Free Militia.

Gottlieb, Alan. Gun Rights Fact Book (Bellevue, Washington, Merrill Press, 1988), 168pp.

Gottlieb, Alan. The Rights of Gun Owners (Bellevue, Washington, Merrill Press, 1981), 235 pp.

Henry, William Wirt. Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches (Harrisonburg, Virginia, Sprinkle Publications, 1993 reprint), 3 volumes, 1946 pp. Written by the patriot's grandson.

Norval, Morgan. Take My Gun If You Dare! (El Dorado, Arkansas, Desert Publications, 1979), 103 pp.

Syrett, Harold C. (editor). American Historical Documents (New York, New York, Barnes & Noble, 1960), 427 pp. Excerpts and complete texts of important legal documents from 1606 through 1962.

Tyler, Moses Coit. Patrick Henry (New York, New York, Bert Franklin, 1898/1970), 454 pp. This is a fantastic and arousing biography of the great patriot. I highly recommend it.

1.3.1 The text of the Bill of Rights

Up to this point we have considered moral principles and human opinions, not the law. To be sure the Declaration of Independence represents a well-nigh universal opinion existent in the American colonies in 1776. But we have yet to establish the legal basis for forming militias. The Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of American liberty and the final court of appeal for our personal freedoms. Since many citizens are not familiar with the Bill of Rights, and since our public education system does an inadequate job of expounding upon them, the complete text is reproduced here for reference.

Article I -- Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

These are some of the "unalienable rights" we possess as human beings and which must be protected by the state and federal governments. They are not, necessarily, all-inclusive as Article IX indicates and as subsequent amendments (like Article XIII against slavery) have demonstrated. But they are the bare minimum of what we are Constitutionally guaranteed.

Note also that the Constitution provides for the legal amendment of itself (Article V of the main text). But while there are many parts of the Constitution that are subject to debate and amendable, the Bill of Rights are not. The Declaration of Independence rejects the notion that genuine rights can be annulled by any government or any majority.

We may, for instance, proceed on Constitutional grounds to debate whether the President's term should be four or six years, whether Congress should have the power to lay and collect income taxes, and whether the Supreme Court should be appointed or elected. But we cannot ever consider licensing free expression, invading homes without warrants being issued on probable cause, convicting those arrested without trial, or the like.

1.3.2 The meaning of the Bill of Rights

There are three concepts essential to a proper interpretation of the Bill of Rights. These are original intent, the people, and rights.

Original intent

There are basically two ways to interpret any document written by someone else. The wrong way is to interpret it the way we want to interpret it in light of our personal prejudices and cultural pressures. This is routinely the way our present Congress and court system actually do interpret the Constitution. The right way is to interpret it as those who wrote it intended it to be interpreted. This is what is meant by the Constitutional doctrine of original intent. According to this approach, we are not so much interested in the legal precedents handed down in previous court cases as we are in the historical context of drafting and ratifying the Constitution.

Now of course there are situations and issues that have come up in modern times which the Framers could not have known about and therefore had no direct intentions concerning. But their intent should be held to as closely as possible. For instance, the Framers could not have possibly envisioned the advent of radio and television. Yet their intention was for all forms of press to be free and therefore radio and television journalism should remain free even though they are a new technology. The Framers also could not have anticipated the invention of the telephone or wire tapping. But their intention was certainly that such forms of communication to be free from unreasonable surveillance and searches via wire taps. In the same way, automatic weapons were not a reality in the eighteenth century. But that does not mean that they are not protected by the Second Amendment. To say that machine guns are not protected because they were non-existent when the Constitution was drafted would also mean that radio and televisions journalism are not protected forms of press, and that telephone conversations may be recorded without warrant because these are all new technological developments.

This tangent shows that what we mean by original intent is not that we have exactly and only the same circumstances in mind as the Framers but that we have exactly and only the same principles in mind. Circumstances, technology, and culture may change, but Constitutional principles do not and cannot.

Now the reason that seeking original intent is so important to our Constitutional rights is that ignoring this principle inevitably leads to infringing our rights. Rights are routinely violated by the federal government because the courts ignore original intent and interpret the Constitution to suit their whims or to satisfy public pressure.

Now let's say that you and some friends sit down to lay a board game like Monopoly. Perhaps you agree to play by the rules. Or perhaps you unanimously agree to play by "house rules" and modify a few rules here or there. Either way, all of you agree to proceed with the game on the same basis. Now if some of the players -- even a majority -- choose to reinterpret the rules later in the game this would be viewed as cheating. If such cheating persisted to the point of altering all the rules in the majority's favor and against the minority, then one could hardly blame the minority from quitting the game. Cheating is cheating even if it is done by a vast majority!

Today, the Bill of Rights is being reinterpreted by political officials for the "benefit" of the majority. But such interpretations are clearly contrary to the true meaning of the Bill of Rights. It doesn't matter how strong a majority wants to change these rules, it is cheating nevertheless to change the rules by reinterpretation instead of making legal amendments to the Constitution.

It is clear that our Congress and court system generally reject the doctrine of original intent from the following facts:

• The emphasis on Constitutional cases is virtually always on legal precedent rather than on the historical background. What matters to the Supreme Court is what they have previously decided, not what the Framers intended.

   

• Those who assert legal cases on the basis of original intent instead of legal precedent are ridiculed and opposed as dangerous radicals. (A good example of this is the outpouring of opposition to Richard A. Epstein's book, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. It is considered subversive because it argues from the Constitution that our present tax structure and welfare programs violate the intended meaning of the Fifth Amendment.)

   

• Congressmen frequently ignore whether or not a pending bill is Constitutional when they consider voter for or against it. What matters to them is the prevailing public opinion, not the Framers' opinions.

   

• Judges who openly hold to the idea of original intent, like Robert Bork, are rejected by the Senate for confirmation to the Supreme Court exactly because of their method of interpreting the Constitution.

   

The only way that the Constitution has any meaning and can serve as the governing document of this country is if we follow its original intent.

"The people" means individuals

The next idea we must examine to understand the Bill of Rights is "the people." The Bill of Rights recognized three entities which are to be governed and united under the Constitution. First, there is the United States which refers to the federal government. Second, there is the states which refers initially to the first thirteen and now to the fifty state governments. Finally, there is the people which refers to individual citizens, not the federal or state governments. It is "the right of the people to peaceably assemble." It is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." It is "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." And other unmentioned rights are to be "retained by the people."

All the rights of the people, indeed all of the first nine amendments, are rights we have as individuals and are limitations on the state's powers.

This is a very important point. The framers were very clear and consistent in who they attributed certain rights to. "The people always refers to individuals, not groups or governments. Indeed, the first nine amendments are solely rights guarantied to the people. Only the Tenth Amendment guaranties rights to state governments, and none, count them, none, recognize any rights of the federal government. The whole of the Bill of Rights was intended as limitation of government, not an empowering of it. So we do great violence to the intended meaning whenever we twist "the people" to mean collective groups or state governments.

The concept of rights

This brings us to the concept and nature of rights. Rights are not a privilege that can be taken away. Nor are they franchise granted by the government. A right is something a human being possesses as a birthright given by God. They cannot be denied, legislated away, or amended into oblivion by any majority short of 100 percent.

The fact that rights are unalienable by any government and cannot be outweighed by the interests of the majority is incontestable.

• God is greater than any government. "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God" (Romans 13:1). Therefore, governments and other people have no authority to take away anything -- including rights -- given by God.

   

• God has in fact given human beings certain rights. For instance, following the Ten Commandments, Exodus 21 outlines our right to life and Exodus 22 outlines some of our property rights.

   

• The Declaration of Independence says so. "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 ..."

   

• The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution says so. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So even the Constitution recognizes that it does not and cannot grant or take away rights but can only recognize and guaranty them.

   

• The common notion of human rights implies as much. We often talk about some foreign government or regime depriving its citizens of basic human rights. This has no meaning if it is the government or the ruling majority that grants rights. If the ruling authorities grant rights, then by definition no government could ever violate them.

   

1.3.3 The structure of the Bill of Rights

The primary right of the people is personal liberty. All government functions are designed to insure personal liberties. The Constitution's Preamble states the Constitution's (and thus the government's) purposes:

"PREAMBLE: We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America."

All of these purposes serve the final purpose of securing liberty: justice is established so institutions and majorities will not abuse our liberties. Domestic tranquility is secured lest criminal elements trample liberties. The common defense is provided for so foreign powers will not invade and enslave us. The "general welfare" (which benefits everyone, not select groups) must be promoted for the sake of fostering liberty. (Roads and mail, for example, benefit all citizens by allowing free movement, trade, and communication.) These are the sole legal purposes of the federal government and each is subordinate to maintaining the blessings of liberty.

This pattern of subordinating everything to personal liberties is also found in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, and the press. The remainder of the Bill of Rights is subordinate to free expression, not in the sense of being less important, but in the sense of insuring First Amendment rights. Therefore the Second through Tenth Amendments are designed to protect the First Amendment.

• Article II: Gun rights are the "teeth" of the Bill of Rights, meaning that the people are empowered to enforce it against being infringed.

   

• Articles III, IV, and V: Property rights give us a limited sphere of "personal sovereignty" where we can live freely without intervention.

   

• Articles V, VI, VII, and VIII: Legal rights prevent the government from persecuting those who speak out against federal policies or practices.

   

• Article IX: The rights retained by the people are anticipated as a contingency against the government inventing all sorts of new powers.

   

• Article X: State rights divide and dilute the powers of the federal government. The more centralized the power the greater the tyranny.

   

1.3.4 The meaning of the Second Amendment

Now let's examine the meaning of the Second Amendment as it was originally intended as an integral to the whole of the Bill of Rights.

"Article II: 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."

• "A well regulated Militia" does not refer to the regular army. It would be absurd to recognize the federal government's prerogative to raise an army in the Bill of Rights since: (a) It is presumed that all governments raised armies. (b) Since Article II amends the Constitution which already recognizes this prerogative. And (c) since the Bill of Rights is in its entirety a limitation upon, not an empowering of the federal government. Nor does it refer to a state's national guard. Had the Framers meant state militias, they would have not connected the militia with the right of the people to bear arms. It does mean a well-organized army of the people by the people. The word militia originally legally meant (Virginia Bill of Rights, Section 13) and still legally means (U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 31) the whole able-bodied citizenry of the country, not the formal armed forces of the United States. Therefore, "A well regulated Militia" is a well-organized citizens' army, not a well-controlled standing army.

   

• "Being necessary to the security of a free state." It does not say, "being necessary to the security of a crime-free state" nor does it say "being necessary to the security of a free hunting state." Thus, self-defense and hunting are not protected, per se (although these are legitimate derivative activities of gun owners). The reason that the right of the people to bear arms and form militia is protected is to secure a free state. Without the ability of the people to rise up against the growing tyranny of a government, there is nothing to stop the tyranny of the government growing! This intention is made explicit in Section 13 of the Virginia Bill of Rights which clearly influence the development of Article II of the Bill of Rights.

   

• "The right." As we have seen, rights are God-given and governments are formed to protect rights, not to grant them or take them away. Thus the right to bear arms is not something that the government can legitimately legislate away through gun regulation, registration, licensing, taxation, or prohibition.

   

• "Of the people." Consistent with the view that "Militia" refers to an army of the people by the people, the Second Amendment recognizes the right of the people, or private individuals, to keep and bear arms. This right is possessed by people independently of membership in any government-controlled armed force or law enforcement agency.

   

• "To keep and bear." Notice that we have the right both to keep and bear arms. The Framers did not waste words but were very concise in all their texts. So clearly they intended to say that keeping and bearing arms are two different things, both of which are protected. Now the keeping of arms is ownership and possession of arms on your property. The bearing of arms is the carrying of arms with you off of your property. So you have the right to carry weapons with you as well as to own them. Any federal, state, or local law that prohibits bearing firearms on your property or in public is unconstitutional. (Of course, people like business owners may prevent you from bearing arms on their property by exercising their own property rights.)

   

• "Arms." What are these arms that are to be protected? Clearly they are those that are useful and effective in maintaining an armed militia. In other words, it is military-style weapons like assault rifles, submachine guns, and combat shotguns that are explicitly protected, not just hunting and target shooting weapons. Whatever type of firearms are the standard-issue weapons of the armed forces, these are the weapons that you and I have the right to own. The more militarily effective a firearm is, the more it is protected by the Constitution. This is not to say that you and I should be permitted to own anything used by the army. Just as the citizen of 1789 did not own canons and ships-of-the-line, today's citizen should not own M-1 Abrams tanks and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. But just as the citizen and the soldier were armed with the same musket then, so citizens should be able to keep and bear Colt M-16 assault rifles now.

  Select-fire assault rifles like the M-16 are the most Constitutionally protected firearms precisely because they are standard infantry weapons.

   

• "Shall not be infringed." "Infringe" means to encroach upon and does not necessarily mean to totally do away with. There are many ways that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed: regulation limits gun ownership by controlling the production and sales of firearms. Licensing means that an individual is permitted to own or carry weapons. Registration means that an individual's possession of a particular weapon with a serial number is recorded. (Gun businesses are regulated, gun owners are licensed, and guns themselves are registered.) Taxation restricts gun ownership, particularly among the poor, by increasing the cost. Prohibition is either an outright ban of gun possession or the limitation of guns that can be bought.

   

• Regulation of guns is illegal if it is designed to reduce the supply or availability of them to the public. There is no difference in principle between limiting production and sales of guns and banning possession of guns. Both have the same effect of disarming citizens.

   

• Licensing means the government gives permission to do something like driving a car and is totally contrary to the nature of a right. What would you think about the government "licensing" your religion or free speech? Having permission and having the right are incompatible.

   

• Registration means you must list your gun with the government which is also contrary to a right. How would you feel about Christians having to register Bibles and newspapers having to register printing presses?

   

• Taxation of guns is also illegal if the taxes exceed the normal sales tax because this artificially raises the cost and limits the citizens' ability to purchase guns. The $200 transfer tax on automatic weapons is a good example of an illegal tax intended to restrict ownership.

   

• Prohibition is clearly unconstitutional as the ultimate infringement of gun rights since it absolutely bans their possession and use. Even limiting gun purchases to one gun per month is an infringement of gun rights since it slows the arming of a militia when a crisis develops.

   

How much of the Bill of Rights were you familiar with before reading this section? Which of these rights were you unaware of or surprised by? Why are these rights so important?

Describe what we mean by original intent. Why is it critical that we interpret the Bill of Rights this way instead of any way we see fit?

What are some Constitutional limits on majority rule? Why are such limits placed on the majority? Are such limitations justified? Why? When do the interests of the majority outweigh the rights of the individual?

Which one or two rights guarantied by the Constitution are most "near and dear to your heart"? Why? Does the fact that you decide not to exercise some of your rights diminish their importance? Why?

Main ideas of this section

The only way that the Constitution has any meaning and can serve as the governing document of this country is if we follow its original intent.

All of these -- regulation, licensing, registration, taxation, prohibition -- are totally unconstitutional with respect to arms useful to a militia.

Further reading

At the very least, you should obtain, read, and absorb a copy of the Constitution of the United States in its entirety.

If you desire to read and study these issues in more depth, I recommend the following books available from the Free Militia:

Barnett, Randy E. (editor). The Rights Retained By the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment (Fairfax, Virginia, George Mason, 1989), 416pp.

Cord, Robert L. Separation of Church and State: Historical Fact and Current Fiction (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House, 1988) 315pp.

Epstein, Richard A. Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1985) 362pp.

The Gun Rights Activist, "The Epistemology of Liberty," contributed by Herb Campbell, Ron Jongeling, Bruce Knodel, and Rev. Steve Lineman (Hermatage, Pennsylvania, 1994).

Norval, Morgan. Take My Gun If You Dare! (El Dorado, Arkansas, Desert Publications, 1979), 103pp.

1.4.1 Our civil rights are threatened

The Bible says that you are morally justified to arm yourself and band with others who love liberty. American history shows that you stand in a great tradition if you arm and organize yourself. The Constitution clearly recognizes your legal right to possess firearms and join a militia. But should you want to?

The U.S. Army field manual on Guerrilla Warfare (FM 31-21, September, 1961, page 5) says: "Resistance movements begin to form when dissatisfaction occurs among strongly motivated individuals who cannot further their cause by peaceful or legal means."

So we must ask ourselves: Is there any reason to suspect that my personal liberties are in jeopardy? Is there any indication that the government is systematically threatening my rights? Is there any possibility that a tyranny could be established in the United States?

Affirmative answers to any of these questions should arouse our fervor for liberty and motivate us to spring immediately and effectively to arms.

It will now be demonstrated that our liberties are in jeopardy, that our rights are systematically threatened, and that tyranny can happen in the United States. (I am not saying it will, I'm saying it could happen.) We will demonstrate this by examining the status of our civil, gun, property, and state rights. First, here are some examples of violated civil rights:

The right to life (Fifth Amendment):

• For a generation we have had legalized abortion which denies the right of the unborn child to live. While an individual's right to privacy cannot be restricted by the interests of any majority, they are restricted by other individual rights. The Declaration of Independence and Bible both imply that the right to life is superior to privacy.

   

• President Clinton's proposed health care program will include "reproductive services" like abortion (Senator John Glenn, form letter to constituents, 1/5/94). Not only will abortion be legal, but every hospital will be required to perform them and public funds will be used to pay for them.

   

• This means we are approaching the situation in communist China where abortions are mandated by the state for all but the firstborn child.

   

• President Clinton's health care program will include built- in euthanasia for "undesirable" patients. If the state determines that you are too old, too disabled, or too mentally ill to lead a "quality" life, medical care can and will be denied. (National Right to Life Committee high priority communication, 1994, p. 2.)

   

• In the city of ----- it is technically illegal to conduct a worship service or church gathering in a private residence. While this is rarely enforced, the fact that it is law says a lot! This is somewhat typical of municipal zoning regulations against churches.

   

• Attempts have recently been made to require state certification of private school teachers and homeschoolers. While the attempts have failed for now, it is incomprehensible that legislators and congressmen even consider such measures in light of the First Amendment. Remember: licensing means state permission and certification means state control!

   

• The American 2000 education program is designed to standardize the curriculum in and centralize control of all public schools by imposing "outcome based" education on all school districts.

   

• J. Gresham Machen wrote, "A public-school system, if it means the providing of free education for those who desire it, is a noteworthy and beneficent achievement of modern times; but when once it becomes monopolistic it is the most perfect instrument of tyranny which has yet been devised" (Christianity & Liberalism, Eerdmans, 1923, p. 14).

   

• It is a well-known communist tenet that if you can control the education of one generation, you will control the government and lives of all subsequent generations.

   

• The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulates the radio and television industry. While it is practically necessary to specify which stations can use which frequencies, it is unconstitutional for the FCC to base station licensing on the content of its programming.

   

• The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a federal agency that funds public television. PBS is by its very nature informational. Thus we have a situation that in principle approaches having a state news agency like foreign dictatorships and autocratic governments have.

   

• At various times it has been required that radio stations and TV networks give equal time to political candidates or views. The present push towards the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting is a case in point. While this is a sound practice for objective journalism, it violates the First Amendment for the government to mandate which political views are aired and how much coverage they should receive.

   

• At one time when I was in high school, the sheriff's department routinely pulled over and searched any and all cars carrying teenagers between two towns that had rival gangs. No warrants were issued, and the only "probable cause" for criminal intent was the mere fact that occupants happened to look like teenagers. This sort of thing happens all the time in America and is rarely contested in the courts.

   

• The Internal Revenue Service routinely has access to all of your bank records, including microfiche copies of checks identifying who you do business with and what you buy, without a warrant (Mark Skousen, Mark Skousen's Complete Guide to Financial Privacy, chapters 1 and 2, 1979).

   

• It has been alleged -- although I have not confirmed it -- that laws are on the books which permit unlimited and unwarranted wire taps of private telephone lines provided that they are not used in court. But the Fourth Amendment does not concern court- related surveillance but any surveillance at all by any government official or agency!

   

In case you think your right to keep and bear arms is secure, just consider the following (much of this happened just in 1993- 1994).

Historical gun control

• Some of the first American gun control laws were intended to keep black slaves and even free blacks from owning guns lest they free themselves (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, p. 129). Many of today's gun control initiatives are veiled attempts by the American elite to keep guns out of the hands of the poor and blacks.

   

• Nazis in Denmark, the military in Greece, and officials in Hungary have all used pre-existing registered gun owners lists to confiscate weapons when they invaded or came to power (Alan Gottlieb, Gun Rights Fact Book, 1988, pp. 88-89).

   

• The U.S. 1968 Gun Control Act is a word-for-word translation of Adolf Hitler's German gun control laws of 1938 Nazi Germany (T.C. Fry and Tony Lavinge, "Are You Aware That ...", American Freedom Network).

   

• The Brady Bill was passed and signed into law by President Clinton requiring a five-day waiting period and criminal background check for all handgun purchases in late November, 1993 and was effective 3/1/94.

   

• Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen (who oversees the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or BATF) proposed raising the licensing fee for gun dealers from $66 to $600 per year for the express purpose of putting 200,000 out of 284,000 American gun dealers out of business. (Wall Street Journal, 1/5/94, p. A1).

   

• The 1968 Gun Control Act outlaws the possession of all automatic weapons and "short-barreled" rifles or shotguns unless they are licensed by and registered with the BATF.

   

• Virtually all municipalities require a person to have a "carry permit" or license to openly carry a loaded gun in his or her car or on the street or to carry any concealed weapons on his or her person.

   

• A yellow federal form must be completed for every purchase of a gun from a dealer. These forms include your name, address, type and serial number of the gun bought, and answers to several questions. While this is not called "registration" because the records are kept by the dealer only, the BATF is allowed to make a warrantless search of these records each year and may "borrow" them for further inspection and perhaps copying (Up to Date, "BATF Abuses of Gun Owners' Rights," The Second Amendment Foundation, 1994).

   

• All guns must be registered in states such as Illinois and New York.

   

• Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen proposed registration of "street sweeper" semi-automatic shotguns because they have no sporting use (U.S. News & World Report, 3/14/94). What about militia use?

   

• The 1968 Gun Control Act outlaws the possession of automatic weapons without a $200 transfer tax being paid to the BATF.

   

• It is now seriously being considered that a sharp tax be placed on certain kinds of ammunition to help fund the national health program.

   

• Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen also proposed a sharp tax increase on "street sweeper" semi-automatic shotguns because they have no sporting use (U.S. News & World Report, 3/14/94).

   

• Former Governor Wilder of Virginia proposed that citizens of Virginia be limited to the purchase of one gun per moth. Similar proposals are even now being pressed and considered in the U.S. Congress.

   

• Foreign assault rifles are banned for import and sale in the U.S.

   

• The city of Cleveland passed an outright ban on the sale and ownership of semi-automatic "assault rifles" in 1989 and the Ohio Supreme Court upheld as "Constitutional" this law in 1993. ("Crime Fighters Have a New Tool in Deadly Work," 8/22/93, p. A-1).

   

• Columnist Bob Greene of The Chicago Tribune has proposed abolishing the Second Amendment altogether and enforcing gun bans by sweeping house-to-house police searches and seizures for all guns ("A Gun-Free Nation? Just Think About It," 8/28/93, p. 2).

   

• Sarah Brady of Handgun Control wants national gun control laws, a ban on semi-automatic "assault rifles," and says, "It simply doesn't make any sense at all for private citizens to be permitted to buy military equipment that was designed solely for killing people in combat" (Sarah Brady, Handgun Control newsletter, p. 2, 1993).

   

• The U.S. Senate voted 56-43 to ban "19 specific assault weapons" and all detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds on November 17, 1993 (Wall Street Journal, "Senate, 56-43 Votes," 11/18/93, p. A24).

   

• The House is also debating banning assault weapons and 10+ round magazines ("Reports from Washington," February 1994).

   

• The BATF is known to have routinely and intentionally given false answers to inquiries about gun regulations so they could raid the person's house and arrest them (Up to Date, "BATF Abuses of Gun Owners' Rights," the Second Amendment Foundation, 1994).

   

• The BATF raided the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas although all charges were previously investigated and dropped, using falsified information to obtain a warrant, by shooting first, and by misinforming the public (Waco: The Big Lie, video tape, 1993).

   

• The BATF attempted to entrap Randy Weaver in Idaho. When he refused to become one of their henchmen, his cabin was put under 24-hour BATF surveillance, leading to a surprise confrontation that left Weaver's son and wife dead and Weaver acquitted of any wrongdoing ("It Could Happen to You," by Charlie Reese, 1/11/94, p. 4).

   

In the couple of weeks since printing this material several attacks on gun rights have come to my attention which deserve being mentioned.

First, the Senate-approved ban on semi-automatic weapons which is now pending in the House (a vote is expected around April 1, 1994) actually would ban much more than politicians admit. Supposedly, it would ban only specific models such as the TEC-22, TEC-9, AK-475, Uzi, Galil, AR-70, MAC-10, MAC-11, MAC-12, AR-15, and Steyr AUG to name just a few. However....

• The BATF admits that 26 other models of firearms would be banned by the language of this bill. This is 45 firearms, not 19 as claimed.

   

• Furthermore, any semi-automatic with a detachable magazine would also be banned if it has any two additional military features such as a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, etc.

   

• If the bill becomes law and you own one of these firearms, you will have 90 days to surrender your rifle or to register it. After that, non-compliance could result in a $1,000 fine, six months in prison, and permanent loss of any right to own any firearm forever!

   

• Banning magazines that can hold more than six rounds of ammunition and an outright ban on all "Saturday night specials" or cheap handguns.

   

• Federal registration and licensing of all handguns in the United States and limiting purchases of handguns to only one gun per month.

   

• Making all gun shows and gun sales illegal, requiring gun dealers to sell only at their one licensed place of business, and raising the gun dealers license fee to a staggering $1000 per year.

   

• Imposing a 30 percent tax on all handgun sales and a 50 percent tax on all handgun ammunition sales.

   

• Requiring individuals to obtain an "arsenal license" if they own more than 20 firearms or if they own more than 1000 rounds of ammunition.

   

• These "arsenal licenses" would cost $300, be subject to government approval, and would require BATF inspections (i.e., invasions) of your home three times per year to maintain.

   

1.4.3 Our property rights are threatened

Your property rights are also under attack. Virtually everything possible is being done to take away whatever wealth you have.

Taking property without a trial (Fifth Amendment)

• The Fifth Amendment states: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

   

• The Internal Revenue Service has the power to put a lien on your house, attach your paycheck, and confiscate your property without a trial by jury and without your conviction if they unilaterally determine that you have evaded taxes (Tax Loopholes: Everything the Law Allows, Boardroom Classics, 1993).

   

• Various police departments across the country routinely confiscate homes, cars, and other possessions of those arrested for dealing in drugs and sell these properties to raise funds before the person arrested has been convicted of wrongdoing by a jury and whether or not it is demonstrated that drug money was used to buy the property.

   

• The Fifth Amendment also states: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

   

• The use of your property can and is restricted by municipal zoning codes, state and federal environmental laws, and other governmental regulations for "the public good," even if the use of the property that is forbidden does not harm the lives or property of others.

   

• All of these regulations somehow limit the personal use of the property and many limit or reduce the property's commercial productivity or value on the real estate market.

   

• While the courts recognize that these practices reduce the uses and value of private property, they have ruled they are Constitutional because they are only "partial takings" not total takings of property (Richard A. Epstein, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain, Harvard, 1985). In other words, it is legal for the government to seize your property -- without compensation -- as long as they don't take all of it!

   

• Originally income taxes were illegal because the Constitution required all taxes to be apportioned among the states proportional to their populations, not their incomes.

   

• The 16th Amendment, which permits federal income taxes, was not ratified in the same language by three fourths of the United States as required by Article V of the Constitution and is therefore invalid. The approved wording was different in different states and therefore they ratified different amendments! ("Is Income Tax Un-American and Illegal?", July and August, 1993, pp. 14-16).

   

• The courts refuse to cast down the 16th Amendment even though it was not legally ratified.

   

• As we have seen, the Fifth Amendment prohibits taking property for public use without compensation.

   

• State and federal income taxes are "progressive" taxes meaning that the higher your income, the higher the percentage of your income you pay in taxes. The purpose and effect of this progressive tax structure is to redistribute wealth from one group to another. High wage earners are taxed to fund welfare and other entitlements. In other words, their property (money) is taken for the public good without compensation in total violation of the Fifth Amendment.

   

• The fact that this tax structure is propped up by a majority consensus is immaterial. "The Bible says, 'Thou shalt not steal.' It does not say, 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote'" (Gary North, "Free Market Capitalism" in Wealth & Poverty: Four Christian Views of Economics, edited by Robert G. Clouse, InterVarsity, 1984, p. 41).

   

• At the time of the American Revolution, European-type serfdom was considered a form of slavery and consisted of paying 25% of a peasant's productivity from farming land to the landlord.

   

• For 1993, American tax rates were as follows for a family with a taxable income of $25,000:

   

  Social Security	12.40% of income	(Half paid by employer)
  Medicare	2.90% of income	(Half paid by employer
  Federal income tax	15.00% of income	(Up to 39.6% for rich)
  Income tax	2.67% of income	(Up to 7.5% for rich)
  County 5% sales tax	2.00% of income	(All money isn't spent)
  County property taxes	3.00% of income
  City income tax	1.75% of income
  Total	39.72% of income	(Up to 69.15% on rich)

   

   

• This does not include hidden taxes like employer contributions to workers compensation (between 2% and 14%!), gasoline taxes, tariffs on imported goods, "sin" taxes on tobacco and alcoholic beverages, and so on, and so on, and so on. Therefore today's typical American citizen can pay between 40% and 70% of his income or productivity in the form of some kind of tax.

   

• The tax system is thus a subtle form of slavery and violates the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (Robert J. Villella, "A New Declaration," July/August 1993, p. 17).

   

• States and communities commonly tax hotels, amusement parks, and some restaurants at higher rates than other businesses. Generally this "hotel" tax is two or three times as high as the area's sales tax.

   

• The obvious purpose of such taxes is to make tourists from out of town pay higher taxes than the locals. As the maxim says, "Don't tax you, and don't tax me. Tax that man behind the tree!"

   

• This practice is clearly contrary to the American principle of "no taxation without representation!

   

The state rights guarantied by the Tenth Amendment are universally ignored by every branch of the federal government.

The way things should be

Article X of the Bill of Rights states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Unless the Constitution specifically grants a power to a branch of the federal government, or says that states cannot do something, it is presumed that the authority and power rests with the states. In other words,

Whenever there is a conflict between the laws of federal and state governments, the state law which should take precedent and prevail over the federal law, not vise versa, unless the Constitution says otherwise.

As we saw previously, the whole Bill of Rights is designed as a limitation on federal powers. The Tenth Amendment serves this purpose by dividing and diluting power among the several states. Indeed, it was state governments that ratified the Constitution and delegated authority to the federal government. This being the case, they only handed over authority to the federal government to do what is specified in the Constitution and nothing more.

The way things really are

Obviously, the Tenth Amendment is routinely ignored by the president, the Congress, and the courts. In extra-constitutional matters, state laws should override federal laws. But in fact, federal laws always override state laws. National speed limits supersede state speed limits. Federal environmental rules outweigh similar state rules. In every governmental matter, the only state laws that exist are those compatible with federal laws or which the federal government has seen fit not to address at all.

One of the best examples of the total disregard for state rights is federal mandates. The federal government frequently mandates that states enact certain laws, provide certain services, or fund specific programs that cost millions or billions of dollars without one cent of federal funding to support the mandate.

Don't be fooled by the fact that states are permitted to do things that Washington does not do. Remember, permission and rights are incompatible. In some matters, Congress et al. simply do not want to flex their muscles. For instance, during the Reagan administration, a major shift in power took place away from federal agencies to state agencies. But this was because liberals in Washington recognized that Ronald Reagan sought deregulation. Since state agencies were more active regulators than their federal counterparts, responsibilities were conveniently transferred to the states to sustain strong industry regulation. But this whole scheme is Washington's doing and not the result of any state's right to govern.

The point here is not that state governments are any more noble or benevolent than the federal government. They are not because they consist of the same frail human beings that are susceptible to corruption by power. The point is something that is spelled out clear as day in the Constitution is always and everywhere totally and completely turned on its head!

A call to arms!

From every legitimate angle, we are justified in keeping and bearing arms as well as forming or joining a militia independent of government control. The Bible tells us we are morally right. The American Revolution shows we have the historical right. The Constitution protects our legal right. Moreover, our Constitutional liberties are systematically being eroded and denied. The fact that officials are infringing gun rights on every front is simply a manifestation of their inner tendency to empower themselves. Left unchecked, this tendency will lead to genuine tyranny. Remember, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

So this is a pivotal point in American history. If the government is successful in banning semi-automatic paramilitary weapons, then they will be emboldened not only to further infringe gun rights, but to infringe all rights. This is because the Second Amendment is the teeth of the Bill of Rights, and assault rifles are the teeth of the Second Amendment. Without their bite, there is nothing to prevent a draconian state from devouring all of our precious liberties.

Your right and duty is to arm and organize yourself against further federal and state encroachments on your liberties. As a minimum, you should purchase and learn how to effectively use a firearm, preferably a so-called assault rifle. The more citizens that own guns, the less willing the government will be to threaten us. Ideally, you should also join a local m