, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why are “Normal Americans” so alarmed at the prospect of losing the rule of law, of a tyrannical government?  Allow me please, gentle readers, to once again define “Normal American.”  Because I so frequently write on political issues, it’s useful to have brief, easily understandable terms for our two primary political parties/philosophies.  Within the Republican Party there are a variety of philosophies, so using the term “Conservative” is hardly accurately descriptive.  “Stupid Party” tends, in an ironic sense to be more accurate, but that’s not very satisfying.  I finally realized what I was trying to describe was Americans that honor the Constitution, that embrace American Constitutionalism, that unique understanding that all legitimate governmental power comes from the consent of the people, who are in their natural, unalienable rights, sovereign.  Because of their sovereignty, government must be limited, for the larger government becomes, the more power it seizes to the detriment of the power and liberty of the people.

So why not “Constitutional Americans?”  It is the embrace of American constitutionalism that used to be the norm–hence “normal”–the default understanding that held us all together as a people and nation. Without willing acceptance of those principles and limits on government, our republic will not stand.  Something less than half the nation no longer embraces American constitutionalism.  They seek “fundamental transformation,” in other words, socialism, which is the antithesis, the enemy, of our constitutional republic.  Communism is merely socialism in a hurry, and as such, is more willing to murder its opponents in mind, soul and body.  One might think “Democratic Socialism” a misnomer, a lie, but it’s actually not.  America is a constitutional, representative republic.  In a democracy 50.0000001% rule, and may do whatever they please, including depriving the minority of their liberties.  Our republic was established to prevent the tyranny of the majority.  

The Constitution, because of the sovereignty of the people, limits government.  There are some things government is not allowed to do, and legislators must be willing to say: “the Constitution doesn’t allow that, and that settles it.”  It doesn’t matter that a given legislator thinks their policy might give them enormous political advantage, or even that they sincerely think it would be good for the people, if the Constitution doesn’t allow it, even if it’s close, that’s it.

Leftist philosophy used to be called “Liberal,” but Americans soon realized those policies were not classically liberal, but were actually statist/totalitarian, so leftists switched to “progressive,” which is the same thing, but who can be against “progress?”  For the Left, it’s all about the narrative, and if people aren’t sufficiently tricked by a given narrative, they fret about changing their “messaging” to better fool the rubes, because no progressive policy can possibly be wrong.  There was a time, decades ago, when Democrats were also Normal Americans.  Most embraced American Constitutionalism.  There are likely a small number of Congressional Democrats that still do, but the heart and intentions of that party are Socialist trending toward Communist.  D/S/Cs, by their policy pronouncements and actions have demonstrated they see the Constitution as an annoyance at best.  They rhetorically embrace it when it’s useful to the narrative of the moment, and ignore and excoriate it when it’s not.  Thus have I coined the term Democrat/Socialist/Communist—D/S/C—because it’s accurately descriptive.  D/S/Cs should love it; it’s diverse and inclusive.

In any case, people of any party may be Normal Americans.  All they need do is embrace and honor the Constitution, thus holding together our union and preserving our liberties through the rule of law, not the rule of men.  In this, Normal Americans are the only truly inclusive political party, requiring nothing more of anyone than that they embrace and support what makes America great and free.

With that background, on to the topic of this article: self-defense.  The natural right of self-defense is the basis for the rule of law.  If there is no right to self-defense, what other right matters?  This is one of the defining lines between Normal Americans and D/S/Cs.  Normals embrace individual sovereignty, the inestimable value of each human life.  This is why they bristle at idiotic rhetoric like “Black Lives Matter.”  Of course they do.  All lives matter; none more than any other.  Race, gender, national origin, and sexual orientation are superfluous and must endow no greater advantage than the right to life.

The foundation of this Normal belief is faith, more specifically for most Americans, the Judeo-Christian tradition, and for most Americans, Christianity.  We begin with the Sixth Commandment, in the King James translation of the Bible (1769):

‘Thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13 / Deuteronomy 5:17).

Some who clearly do not believe in Christianity use this passage to argue against capital punishment.  Perhaps they are merely poorly read, or are lying for political advantage.  The Bible–particularly the Old Testament–makes clear, explicitly and implicitly, killing is both justified and unjustified, and unjustified killing is murder.  More recent translations of the Bible use the word closest to the correct translation of the Greek and Hebrew: “Thou shalt not murder.”  This ancient distinction between justified and unjustified killing, between lawful and unlawful killing, is the foundation of our criminal justice system.

D/S/Cs recoil in faux-horror at the stereotypical Flyover Country sheriff, who, arriving at the scene of a homicide, asks: “well, did he need killing?”  The Sheriff is not engaging in identity politics, but asking, in a very direct way, if the killing was justified under the law.  If it unmistakably was, the investigation will take a different course.

The distinction between killing and murder requires one additional, vital, understanding: each individual, each human life, has immeasurable value, and life may not be taken except under the narrow exceptions imposed by God’s law, and man’s law so long as it faithfully reflects God’s law in embodying the importance and value of each life.

This is why the rule of law is so important and why those that understand these issues and distinctions express such great concern when our own government appears to trend toward tyranny. When the rule of law is no longer in effect, when God’s law is ignored in favor of the whims of men, human life has only the value their whims accord it at any moment. The sanctity of life goes unrecognized by government and the value of the individual rests only in their usefulness to the state, which is why so many politicians exploit identity politics.

Government has no conscience, no morality.  This is also why tyranny—socialism/communism–is Godless and inherently hostile to religion and people of faith. No tyrant can allow anyone to openly recognize anyone or anything greater than the tyrant, than the state. That fosters rebellion.

Among the first signs of an impending tyranny is the state’s determination to disarm the people.  This is rightly alarming to everyone determined to remain free, but should be particularly alarming to women.  I’ve often written the right to keep and bear arms is the ultimate women’s issue.  Go here for the rationale.  

If we have the unalienable, natural right to self-defense, a right given us by God, therefore a right government cannot grant or revoke, we must also have the right to keep and bear arms.  The Second Amendment recognizes—not establishes—this right and this rationale, but most importantly, it was written to confirm—not establish–the people’s right to abolish a tyrannical government.  The mere mention of this historical fact causes D/S/Cs to react like vampires to a crucifix.  It should.

The right to keep and bear arms is essential because arms are the great equalizer.  Without them, the biggest, strongest and most vicious rule.  I am big, strong, fast, experienced in physical confrontations, and better trained than most, but I am also, by common measures, a “senior citizen.”  As such, I am no longer as strong and fast as I once was.  I’d be a fool to engage in hand-to-hand combat, particularly with those younger than myself.  Even the biggest, strongest and youngest may be overcome by numbers or superior weaponry.

For women, the issue is even more compelling.  Women tend to be much smaller, weaker and less aggressive than men.  Any government intent on disarming the people actually makes the idiotic D/S/C headline—“Women and minorities hardest hit”—a truism.  For women more than men, the physical means of self-defense, which for most is the modern semi-automatic handgun, are synonymous with self-defense.

But people don’t need guns!  The police will protect them!  Those that have been paying attention in recent years, and particularly during 2020, know that’s practical nonsense. Throughout America the police are being emasculated.  In many cities, there aren’t enough police to answer emergency calls, and officers are doing as little as possible to avoid prosecution for merely doing their jobs and enforcing the law.  And worse, the police have no legal obligation to protect anyone.  Remember I said government has no conscience, no morality?

credit: lidblog

But The Harris/Biden Administration only wants to take weapons of war off the streets!  They only want to ban evil, weapon of mass destruction: AR-15s!  There is no rational reason for their intentions.  Rifles of all kinds are used in only a tiny portion of crimes, and AR-15 type rifles in an even smaller portion of that tiny portion.  The weapons most used in crime are handguns.

Anti-Liberty/gun cracktivists are after ARs because they can more easily demonize them—a decades old anti-gun tactic–and fewer Americans own them than handguns, which might equal less reflexive resistance.  The issue is not lethality or statistical involvement in crime, but establishing precedent.  If they can ban any class of firearm, particularly a class that has miniscule utility in crime, they can ban them all, which is their ultimate goal.

A small portion of the “peaceful protestors” besieging the Mc Closkeys
credit: nypost

The logic is as simple as it is evil: ban the most effective and convenient means for Normal Americans to exercise their right to self-defense, and for most, self-defense itself is banned.  For those daring to defend themselves against criminals by any means, Soros-funded prosecutors will convince the masses of the futility of that course of action.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey

A disarmed people are a dependent people, dependent on a government that has no legal obligation to protect them, to preserve their lives, and that’s only if one assumes government’s actions in disarming the people, or depriving them of the foremost, natural, unalienable right, have a legitimate, altruistic purpose.  The first step to eliminating the rule of law is eliminating the right to self-defense by eliminating the means.

When the people are armed, and able to vindicate their right to self-defense, the government fears the people, and in fearing the people, is more likely to stay within it’s constitutional boundaries.  When the people are disarmed, the government has no boundaries—and no conscience, no morality, and the people have little left but fear.