by: Michael Del Rosso
We are not sure what political philosophy CPD Chief Brackney believes, but we believe in the American Political Philosophy embodied in the Declaration of Independence, which is based upon principles of Liberty.
The current lineup of Democrat presidential candidates advocates various UN-AMERICAN political philosophies based upon the principles of Tyranny. Those opposing philosophies all look to disarm their own citizens, which led to over 100 million citizens murdered by their own governments the past century.
To put a little legal and historical clarity on this issue let’s take a quick look at Second Amendment rights by looking at the majority ruling of the first significant gun rights case to come down the pike in decades. The US Court of Appeals DC gun ban case, Parker versus The District of Columbia (now referred to as DC vs. Heller since it successfully made its way through the Supreme Court) decided March 9, 2007. This one paragraph (on page 46) in the majority opinion written by Senior Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman should be closely examined:
“To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.”
This is a powerful paragraph with significant claims:
- The right to keep and bear arms is an “individual right.”
- The “right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution.” This is no minor point. The Constitution does not give the citizens’ rights; it merely pledges to secure them and not interfere with them. The Declaration of Independence is the organic legal document (identified as such in US Code) which established the United States of America as a nation. It clearly states that in America individual rights come not from Government, but rather “men are … endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The fundamental purpose of our government and Constitution is also clearly stated: “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
- The arms are for the citizen, not only for hunting and self-defense, but for use in armed resistance against “the depredations of a tyrannical government (or threat from abroad).” The power of this cannot be understated. The Constitution (and the complete historical record associated with its framing) clearly acknowledges that individual citizens possess the right to use firearms violently against the US Government if it should become tyrannical. None could deny that it would indeed be a horrible situation if domestic affairs degenerated to this condition. But the horror can be avoided not by disarming citizens, but by ensuring that our government does not become tyrannical.
- There are further implications to this. It goes to reason that if the citizen has a right to keep and bear arms needed to resist the contemporary military of a “tyrannical government (or threat from abroad),” the arms citizens need are modern military weapons, not muzzle loading muskets or even modern sporting firearms.
Michael Del Rosso is Chairman, Charlottesville Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia
The current lineup of Democrat presidential candidates advocates various UN-AMERICAN political philosophies based upon the principles of Tyranny. Those opposing philosophies all look to disarm their own citizens
Not one Democratic presidential candidate supports disarming citizens. All support measures including gun buybacks, tougher background checks, licensing gun owners, and banning assault weapons (only) that would get rid of some but nowhere near all guns or gun types. All would leave any American without a criminal record or mental illness with “the right to bear arms.”
Presumably the Framers did not object to the people keeping arms out of the hands of people who could not be trusted to be responsible with them, and keeping them out in the only really effective way of doing so, i.e. through their own elected government. It’s true that they made no explicit provision for this, but that’s because they weren’t just plain stupid, and trusted that future generations of Americans wouldn’t be either.
Likewise, the Framers lived in an age when private citizens might need to form citizen militias in order to defend the country, an age that is long past. They also lived in an age when those militias could conceivably have withstood and overcome a military force formed by their own government. That age too is long past. Nor has the age come when more than a tiny handful of my-cold-dead-hands gun rightsers would actually pick up their guns and shoot a representative of the state, local or federal government. There is therefore no reason why private citizens need assault weapons.
Again, the Founders had common sense, and they expected that we would have it too. Jefferson even imagined rewriting the Constitution every 19-20 years. You guys conflate Christianity with nationalism, nationalism with patriotism, and patriotism with worshipping the Founders, whom you speak of as if they were Moses receiving the Ten Commandments. Let me remind you (and me) of number two and number nine: You shall not make idols, and you shall not lie.
“We are not sure what political philosophy CPD Chief Brackney believes”…..
NO….We actually do know what political philosophy she believes in when she, rather then answers a direct question, talks about the “social contract” we have with citizens. She see’s her role as arbitor of what laws get enforced according to her socialist and racist view of the oppressed “people of color” by “white racists” in this town. This is exactly why she was hired in the first place. This is why so many officers have left.
So, if she believes so strongly in gun control and banning weapons then we should allow her to confiscate weapons…only start with Hardy dr, prospect ave, 6th st, and the other neighborhoods where the shootings occur in this town on a regular basis. Don’t the law abiding residents in those neighborhoods deserve to be protected too? IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN……
Following up on my previous post, I regret the intemperate “just plain stupid.” No one here is stupid, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. But if we support keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, we effectively admit that we’re not bound not by the letter but by the intentions of the Constitution, and that it is entirely possible, and even necessary, to use common sense in understanding what those were.
The Founders were concerned to ensure “the security of a free State.” They never envisioned and therefore didn’t mean to sanction the sale of semi-automatics that would be employed in mass shootings.
I am a supporter of the Second Amendment rights to bear arms. This Amendment has protected not only the citizens but our country! For those who may not know—the enemy is already here and have been for years. The only reason why they have not taken over our country is—its citizens are armed! If we were invaded from within –the President could call us to bear guns to protect our nation along with the military. I feel it would be a dangerous move to ban guns and disarm our citizens. If we want to preserve our freedom—we must keep the power of the Second Amendment rights to bear arms. Dave Heislup
the enemy is already here and have been for years. The only reason why they have not taken over our country is—its citizens are armed!
On the other hand, the Martians have landed, and they’re working for Trump! Stuff and nonsense, you say? I’ll demonstrate that what I say is true if Dave will prove what he says is true. But never mind – what you guys say is true is true because you want it to be.
“Not one Democratic presidential candidate supports disarming citizens.” You would think that someone trying to make a point would not make such a glaringly inept statement in the very first sentence. We have a lineup of the most extreme left wing candidates in the history of our nation. The competition to make the most outlandish progressive promises in their race to the left pole assures this. Parse the statements made by each of these candidates and it’s perfectly clear that a number of them would disarm the citizenship in a bloody heartbeat.
If any of them want to disarm you – not just ban or even ban and confiscate one type of gun, but actually prevent law-abiding non-mentally ill citizens from owning any guns – it ought to be a simple matter to just quote them and prove your point, so go ahead.
I repeat: If we support keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, we effectively admit that we’re not bound not by the letter but by the intentions of the Constitution, and that it is entirely possible, and even necessary, to use common sense in understanding what those were.