There Ought To Be A Law

When personal responsibility was a given

No phrase in the American lexicon grates on my nerves more than 'there ought to be a law'. Usually this phrase is uttered by some well meaning, yet ignorant person in response to some sort of perceived injustice. The thought process is that some law should be in place, or proposed to limit the behavior which caused the perceived injustice. The only problem is... this reasoning flies in the face of our system of government.

There are a few inherent flaws with this reasoning, and I'll show you how I came up with this.

1. The United States Constitution was designed to limit the government. It was a document to restrain government from exercising too much power and influence over our lives. The founders understood that 'men are governed best, when they are governed least'. They knew that in order for America to be a prosperous and free nation, men must be able to govern themselves responsibly without interference from some all powerful referee. In the event that man was unable to do so, a justice system was established to settle grievances. However, it was understood that the justice system was a system of last resort. Should free, self-governed men not be able to settle their disputes on their own, the final recourse was to take the matter before a justice of the peace to arbitrate the matter for them. However, by creating laws, inherently freedom is diminished, and the role and power of the government are expanded. If you take away my right to 'X', then you've removed my freedom, and expanded the government's role in policing the enforcement of that removed right.
   


2. I've read through the United States Constitution, and nowhere can I find where it limits citizens rights to, well, anything. There was the 18th Amendment which outlawed the manufacture, transport and sale of liquor, however, that was overturned by the 21st Amendment. Therein lies the beauty of our system of government. The limits were placed solely upon the governing powers and not upon the citizenry. John Adams framed it this way, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." In other words, he knew that in order for our society to exist and flourish, men had to understand that there was a universal right and wrong, and had to accept a morality superior to themselves. Without the ability to do so, the nation would dissolve into chaos and anarchy specifically because there were not (and never intended to be) laws which prohibited behavior of the citizens of the United States. Prohibition by definition is preemption, and preemption does not exist in the Constitution. Our system was set up so that men were free to do whatever they wish, but that they would have to bear the full consequences of their actions. This novel concept is known as personal responsibility. When you create a law which preempts behavior, personal responsibility is limited or removed altogether.
   

Personal responsibility demands people held accountable to their actions. In the event that someone makes a poor choice, our justice system and Judeo-Christian precepts exist to make penance for the error. Sadly, our country long ago moved away from the concept of personal responsibility and instead began to preempt the rights of the citizens. Since that time, our recognition of an absolute moral authority has diminished, and our callousness and disdain for the rights of others has increased. In our nation today, we've eliminated personal responsibility to the point that 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices recently ruled against the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. They hold the opinion, contrary to the authors of the Constitution, that in order to prevent violence, the right to hold a gun must be preempted. How far we've fallen from the nearly Utopian society which the founders designed and left to us.

Now, you may be asking yourself, why I felt the need to write this. If your curiosity is so piqued, I would point you to this column by a local newspaper associate editor which is nothing short of breathtaking ignorance on display.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

California Gun Laws

Want to own a gun in California? No Problem! Just refer to this easy to read flowchart to determine if the gun you desire is legal, then fill out the required forms in triplicate for submission to your local magistrate.

Did we forget to mention this one? Yeah, cross check your selection with this chart, as well, before purchase to ensure your firearm is California legal.  Happy shooting!

So, it shouldn't be a shock to anyone who reads here that I live in California. We can boast some of the greatest weather, tallest trees, coolest natural parks and most draconian gun laws in the United States. Wanna move here?! Didn't think so. For all it's natural beauty, the libtards in control have made it one of the ugliest places in the world to live. The California Legislature apparently cannot discern exactly what this means:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, in their ever existing effort to remain relevant, they write and pass laws year round which make this state harder and harder to abide in. I was perusing online searching for a new .45 pistol to purchase and had my eyes set upon this Sig Sauer P250. No dice. Why? Who the f*#@ knows. From what I can discern, it has something to do with the magazine capacity. Sig Sauer P220, yes. Sig Sauer P250, no. Got it? Yeah, me neither. Arizona, however, is once again leading the border states in freedom. They just enacted a law to allow concealed carry without a permit. Imagine that, people other than criminals carrying concealed weapons. Why, whatever is the world going to do with itself?! In contrast, California only permits criminals to carry concealed weapons. Well, maybe 'permits' isn't the right term. However, when you disallow the populace from carrying weapons around, by definition the only ones who are doing it are criminals. Or are you so naive to believe that because it's illegal that criminals are not carrying? You see, we Californians are so forward thinking that we've banned all assault weapons. Er, wait... aren't all weapons used in an attack on another human being an 'assault' weapon? Exactly. All California has done is to create another meaningless definition class for weapons to be banned. As for what's outlawed in that ban, well here's a general idea:

1. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
   
• (A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
• (B) A thumbhole stock.
• (C) A folding or telescoping stock.
• (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
• (E) A flash suppressor.
• (F) A forward pistol grip.
2. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
3. A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches [762 mm].
4. A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
   
   • (A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
   • (B) A second handgrip.
   • (C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
   • (D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
5. A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
6. A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
   
   • (A) A folding or telescoping stock.
   • (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
7. A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
8. Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Also banned? Why any shotgun with a barrel length less than 18". Good bye easily maneuverable home defense weapon, unless of course you're a criminal. What are we allowed to carry? Glad you asked. Wait, nevermind, that gun isn't legal, either because it does not display the mandatory blaze orange tip. Yes, if you're a criminal searching for that defenseless haven where nearly every home is undefended, start in San Franfreako, then work your way through the rest of the state. The state government has made it nearly illegal to observe the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.