Jeff Neal for C.U.R.E. - Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment

“Background Check” My Arse

In Opinion on May 3, 2013 at 11:22 am

Why are none of the men or women in the US Senate capable of making the case against a law that purports to deprive you of your right to keep and bear arms?  None of the ‘arguments’ in favor of more gun control are germane to the pertinent question, namely “Can the state tell a class of people that they may not own a gun?” And none of their arguments are the least bit convincing or sound.

None of these laws’ proponents have made the case [because it doesn’t exist] that their power grab is legitimate or just.  For example:

  • “We’re not taking anyone’s guns away!” I have no fear of the government taking my guns, and while your law may not purport to take mine away, it does explicitly say that the government shall have the power to tell certain people whether they can buy one.  Preventing ownership of a thing is tantamount to taking it, as there is no difference in the consequences.
  • “If you pass the background check, you’ll be fine, so what do you have to hide?” is a head fake.  Someone will determine what the word ‘pass’ shall mean.  I will not grant that power to anyone, nor do I wish for any free man or woman to fail whatever test some power craving, do-gooder might devise in the name of my safety.
  • “Do you really want any nut or madman to own a gun?” is a scare tactic.  Unless you’ve disarmed me and most of my fellow citizens, I have no reason to fear a flake with a gun any more than I fear a belly ache, earthquake or rattle snake.

And so on.  The dispositive argument is simple and irrefutable.  Would that the NRA and any one of the senators who voted against ‘background checks’ would say something akin to this:

Background check is a euphemism for the government taking illegitimately the power to determine who possesses the right to defend himself with a gun.  If, on a case-by-case basis, a particular man or woman – not a class or category of people – is deemed to have forfeited that right because of a danger he would pose in possession of a firearm or weapon, then a judge may ban him from doing so and enforce that ban as effectively as possible by whatever reasonable means he or the local police force might conjure.  (A tattoo on his forehead, an irremovable bracelet on his wrist . . .)  Otherwise, ‘shall not be infringed’ is perfectly clear and, more importantly, is supported by the moral and just argument that every man was born with the right to defend his life and property.  Except as reasonable punishment for another crime or remedy for some determinable threat, no one ought ever be told how or whether he may protect himself.  Furthermore, no one need recognize a law that purports to deprive him of that inalienable right, as such an edict is unjust and illegitimate ab initio.”

Senators Graham, Cruz, Ayotte, Mr. LaPierre . . . someone please figure this out and stop the freight train that’s running through Washington.  I do not wish to be a criminal, but I shall be if you let this law pass, as I will not subject myself to a government test to determine whether my life is worthy of my defending it.

  1. Amen, brother.

  2. Good one

    G. Trevor Vietor

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: