Safer Streets 2010 and McDonald: no such thing as a reasonable gun law.

With regard to McDonald v. Chicago now before the Supreme Court of the United States, the issue has been framed as one of reasonableness, as if it is fair and reasonable to regulate guns out of existence as long as the law allows people to have one gun left. This is the State's definition of not taking our guns. This is the State's definition of reasonableness. This is the State's definition in a nation of self-rule.

But does it match the original intent of the Founders? If there is any regulation at all of guns by the Supreme Court, would it match the original intent of the Founders in the framing-era reasonableness of militia being the everyman? Militia in the framing era was everyone, and never contemplated to be the National Guard. National Guard came 130 years later, perhaps against the will of the very souls of the Founders. The idea of the Founders was that the government shall have no authority to allow or disallow anything in the way of guns.

And would taking guns make for safer streets? Our streets will not be safer until there are no more gun laws. There is no such thing as a sensible gun law. Where the reasonableness standard has come into the arguments, let's go with that: there is no such thing as a reasonable gun law.

Years ago, I wrote that there is no such thing as a sensible gun law. This is because the second amendment is absolute, and for one reason (that word again!): the second amendment is the lethal force which backs our supreme authority as the sovereign in this country, government being our servants. In short, the servants do not have one iota of authority to disarm the sovereign. People can be fooled into thinking there is such a thing, goaded into believing even-handedness, even punished into thinking it, but then it becomes what the founders feared the most: they knew that the independent sovereignty of the people would be challenged more by our very own servants than by any other entity in the world.

Simple.

When the second amendment is challenged, as in so-called ‘reasonable' gun laws, there is then a direct and most unreasonable challenge to our supreme authority as the sovereign. It is masked as reason, as in the Average Reasonable Person doctrine, but it slowly erodes our sovereignty in spite of it's being wrong from the outset. It is a hostility to the supreme authority of the nation: Us.

Because it challenges our supremacy over servants, it cannot be reasonable by their hand, nor even by our own, and even quarreling with us, the sovereign, betrays the intent to undermine our authority over them. For the survival of the nation, there is simply no other way of looking at this. This has been the fear realized by every single country facing gun control. They lost, the government won. At this time, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Philippines and even India are demanding to be armed as a people.

Why all of this is important to our country is this: we don't get back to safer streets (and self-rule again) until we see the rights of citizens protected as the sovereign of the country, and nothing says it better than servants' respecting our sovereignty over them. (That's the part they don't like about guns: our lesser need for the servants than the servants would like.) Nothing says respect for the electorate better than affirming the right to back that supremacy with lethal force. Our force, not theirs. It's fundamental!

As I have said, it keeps frauds at bay, not only tanks. Keep the frauds away, and there will be no tanks coming. (The idea of citizens battling armored divisions is the lust of the statist, not the rational average reasonable person. Does the statist hope that someday tanks will overrun person and property and still call America a free nation?)

Keep the boondoggles away and not only do we enjoy safer streets, but we and our kids also enjoy safer private property rights, safer assets and safer futures.

The purpose of demonizing and regulating guns is to flatter the government programs which attempt to fill the void in fighting violence created by their gun control. Larger programs then follow. Transfers of wealth then follow.

The second amendment impeaches the need for such excessive government programs as we are now experiencing, and that means impeaching the need for bigger government, which we are now experiencing.

This is why there can be no such thing as a reasonable gun law.

Be sure to register for my Safer Streets Newsletter.
_______________________________________

Safer streets, safer assets, safer futures. See Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns now available as an e-book online.