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

The Temporary Biden presidency has fired its first shot in its anti-liberty/gun control purge, as Tyler O’Neil at PJ Media reports:

On Thursday, President Joe Biden announced new executive actions on gun control, trying to limit ‘ghost guns’ and to make it easier for people to flag their own family members who shouldn’t be allowed to purchase firearms. In announcing his gun restrictions, Biden specifically addressed the Second Amendment.

While Biden insisted that none of his gun control measures impinged on the Second Amendment, he also insisted that ‘no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.’

‘Nothing, nothing I’m about to recommend in any way impinges on the Second Amendment. They’re phony arguments suggesting that these are Second Amendment rights at stake for what we’re talking about,’ he argued.

Then came the key statement: ‘But no amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.’

‘You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater. Recall the freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons,’ Biden argued. ‘So the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution. Gun violence in this country is an epidemic.’

Gropin’ Joe Biden is known, and more so than ever, as an unashamed liar.  These days, there is no doubt of his rapidly failing mental capacity.  There is no doubt he is incapable of fulfilling the duties of the presidency.  Certainly, there is no doubt about that among America’s enemies, foreign and domestic.  What is in doubt is who is actually running the country, and what, if anything, Biden understands about what he reads from the TOTUS—Teleprompter of the United States.  Surely, Biden has been a life long anti-liberty/gun cracktivist, but combine that with rapidly progressing dementia, and the liberties of Americans are in jeopardy like never before.

Before I get into the primary theme of this article, let’s take just a moment to analyze a few of Biden’s assertions.

Whenever a politician tells you any argument against his unconstitutional policies is “phony,” that’s the best possible evidence they are not.  The next best evidence their policies are neither constitutional nor intended to benefit America or Americans is when they invoke “the children.”

Another certain way to tell when a Politician is trying to steal liberty is when he cloaks his depredations in the language of medicine.  Thus does “gun violence”—a deceptive assault on the language—become a “public health emergency,” because it’s an “epidemic.”  Crime, by definition, and any practical, sane understanding of language, cannot be a contagion, an illness, except, perhaps, metaphorically.

There is no such thing, grammatically and rationally, as “gun violence.”  People commit violence, not tools.  American English speakers particularly, like to settle on shorthand expressions of more complex topics, even though they make no grammatical sense.  Guns, which are inanimate objects, are incapable of agency.  They cannot commit violence any more than they can commit love.  There is, equally, no such thing as “knife violence,” “hand and foot violence,” or “motor vehicle violence,” though far more people die every year in motor vehicle accidents than through the use of guns.

“Gun violence” is a particularly insidious term because many anti-liberty/gun cracktivists actually believe firearms have a mystical, evil power to compel their owners to murder.  It is from this belief the lie guns in the home are far more likely to kill the occupants than violent, murderous criminal intruders is propounded.  Even those that do not ardently believe those particular lies, find “gun violence” a politically useful term because its widespread use encourages unconscious acceptance of their plainly false arguments.

Actually, from the beginning, Americans could own any weapon they wanted to own.  During the Revolutionary War and before, the most powerful military weapons of the period—cannon—were often privately owned.  Anti-liberty/gun cracktivists commonly argue “if the Founders knew about AR-15s—etc.—they never would have written the Second Amendment.”  This is nonsense.  The Founders were content that citizens kept and bore the most powerful military weapons of their time.  The issue, then and now, is not technology—I’ll get into this shortly—but principle: that each peaceable—a term the Founders often used—man be armed.  If AR-15s existed during the founding period, the Founders would have been delighted.

The Bill of Rights speaks to unalienable rights, rights given us by the Creator—God—because we are human beings.  Such rights exist irrespective of government.  They are not granted by government, therefore they may not be taken away by government.  The idea that no portion of the Bill of Rights is absolute is disingenuous.  What is certain is the Constitution may not be interpreted to be a suicide pact ensuring the destruction of liberty and the Republic, which is where we get to the point of this article.

I’ve been blogging since 2010, and frequently writing about Second Amendment and firearm-related issues.  In discussing the Second Amendment, commenters on this scruffy little blog, and other authors, often discourse on this particular portion of the Second Amendment:

…The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment does indeed speak to the right of individuals, not some nebulous, collective right of militias or government.  Even the dissenting justices conceded the point, though they argued “shall not be infringed” means “shall be infringed in any way government thinks convenient.”  In other words, the minority opinion would leave the Second Amendment in place, but allow any infringement government wanted.  Fortunately, for the moment, their view has not prevailed, for when it does, the republic is lost.

Some argue “shall not be infringed,” means just that.  Americans may own—keep and bear–without restriction, any arm, including nuclear weapons.  Some go so far as to suggest nothing may interfere with this right, including mental incapacity, felony convictions, etc.

In fact, Americans may, theoretically, own pretty much any firearm, and pretty much any explosive, subject to the National Firearms Act, which requires government approval, licensing, storage and travel requirements, subject to a $200 dollar, non-transferrable tax for each regulated item.  Americans, not otherwise prohibited by law, may own hand grenades.  Few want to own hand grenades, because they’re very much a one-time device with limited utility in a functioning, rule of law society with a functioning social contract.

However, while those that argue for a strictly literal interpretation of the independent clause are, technically, and in the sprit of the original conditions and intentions of the Founders, correct, few contemporary Americans would be comfortable with the individual ownership of nuclear weapons, their delivery vehicles, or a variety of other types of uniquely destructive military ordinance.  I do not, by the way, include machineguns.

In 1986, the Firearm Owners Protection Act was passed, but at the last minute, and by a voice vote unlawfully proclaimed to have passed, D/S/Cs froze citizen ownership of automatic weapons to those currently in circulation.  The rest of the law was necessary in securing liberty and curbing governmental abuses, which is why the majority didn’t just sink the whole thing.  Since the law went into effect, Americans cannot own any automatic weapon manufactured since, though government may.  Ownership is limited to those in existence prior to the law, which makes private ownership of machineguns possible—subject to the restrictions of the NFA–but highly unlikely, because they are rare, their owners seldom sell them, and when they do, for truly outlandish prices, which is probably about the only manifestation of free market, supply and demand economic principles D/S/Cs like.

Should fully automatic weapons be so highly regulated and/or banned?  Since the adoption of the NFA, there has apparently been only a single instance of a privately owned machinegun used in crime, and even that instance is iffy.  By any rational measure, Americans owning machineguns are among the most carefully vetted and scrupulously law abiding people in the country.  Of course, gun control is never about crime control.

So if most law-abiding American gun owners, and others of rational mind and good will agree there are some classes of particularly destructive arms that may be denied citizens, is Biden correct?  Is the Second Amendment not absolute?

We must consider why the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right.  Arguably, the foremost unalienable right is the right to self-defense, because without that right, what other right matters?  If one’s existence is dependent on the whims of government, or of those strong, evil and cruel enough to end one’s existence at whim, what’s the point of life?

We must also consider disparity of force.  If one is a big, strong man, skilled in the martial arts, they may, under the right circumstances, successfully defend their life without arms.  But attacked by more than one, or even by a single attacker armed with weapons, they may be easily killed.  What then is the state of a 5’2”, 110 pound female without martial skills?  How much more vulnerable is she to attack and death than a tall, strong man?

Obviously, firearms are the great equalizer.  They allow even the slightest woman to preserve her life against multiple attackers, and the weapon most common and usual for that purpose is the handgun.  Firearms are, in a very real sense, the ultimate women’s issue.  So is the Second Amendment, because regardless of one’s size, gender, or martial prowess, the Second Amendment does not establish, but recognizes, the unalienable right to self-defense, to preservation of life, regardless of the whims of criminals or government.  Without that right, what other right matters?

Is Biden right, then?  Only in the most limited sense, and because D/S/Cs believe such rhetoric gives them the unlimited ability to absolutely infringe on unalienable liberty.  Americans have tacitly agreed, through their elected representatives, to very limited infringement on what might reasonably be considered a right not subject to infringement.  That does not mean they consent to the slightest bit of additional infringement, and certainly none not enacted by a legitimately elected Congress.

However, Biden and his D/S/Cs anti-liberty/gun cracktivist handlers are, in this assertion, as disingenuous as ever.  They seek to ban all firearms in private hands, using a step-by-step, incremental approach.  Not only would Biden allow unrestricted lawfare against gun manufacturers, he would pack the Supreme Court, which would ensure the destruction not only of the Second Amendment, but every other liberty D/S/Cs find constraining.  Go here to read the Heller dissent; it’s a roadmap for how D/S/Cs would abolish liberty.

D/S/C anti-liberty/gun bans are not at all a public health or safety measure; they’re a D/S/C protection measure.  The Second Amendment exists primarily to deter governmental tyranny, a restraint on government D/S/Cs understand only too well, and abhor.  Self-defense applies equally to attacks by criminals, and criminal governments.

So when Joe Biden tells us “no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” we can be certain he absolutely intends to infringe on every unalienable, express right in the way of the establishment of a D/S/C utopia.  To prevent absolute infringement of every right, Americans must absolutely hold the line against any additional infringement of the Second Amendment, the right that secures all others.