Image via Wikipedia
This video (below) is four years old. You may’ve already seen it. But this video makes such an extraordinarily powerful presentation in favor of the right to keep and bear arms, that it deserves to be reviewed and recalled from time to time.
Texas state representative, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, whose parents were killed by an insane gunman while her gun was out in the car, gives moving and bold testimony about one reason that the second amendment protects our God-given right to keep and bear arms.
I would add (as I did for 60 Minutes, Coast to Coast, Follow the Money, etc.) that the reason for the 2nd Amendment (as with all ten Amendments known as the “Bill of Rights”) was to protect the People of the States of the Union from the federal government.
If you Google “Preamble to the Bill of Rights,” you’ll be taken to a number of websites that, in addition to the first Ten Amendments that most people are familiar with, also post the “preamble” to Bill of Rights wherein the Founders expressed their intended purpose for those first ten Amendments.
That “preamble” expressly declares that purpose for all ten of the “Bill of Rights” was to “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the Constitution's] powers“.
Q: Who could possibly “misconstrue or abuse the powers of the federal Constitution”?
A: Only those who had been entrusted to exercise any of those constitutional “powers”.
Q: Who has been entrusted with “powers” under the federal Constitution?
A: The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Officers and employees of the federal government created by that Constitution.
Conclusion: The fundamental purpose of all Ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights is to protect the American people from despotic individuals working for the federal government. The fundamental purpose for the 2nd Amendment must therefore be to at least intimidate and, if necessary, shoot any officer or employee of the federal government who misconstrues or abuses the powers of the Constitution.
That’s not what I say. That’s what the Founders implicitly wrote in the preamble to the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment is not about duck and deer hunting. It’s about self-defense against tyrannical feds.
I presume that the right to keep and bear arms found in most State constitutions is about empowering the people of that State of the Union to defend themselves against any officer or employee of their State government who misconstrues or abuses the powers of their State’s constitution.
It occurs to me that the 2nd Amendment creates an implicit “right” to shoot federal officers and employees IF they can be shown to have misconstrued or abused the powers of the Constitution. I.e., what good is a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms to protect yourself against despotic officers and employees of the federal government, if you don’t have the correlative right to pull the trigger? In conjunction with the “preamble” to the Bill of Rights, it might be argued that the 2nd Amendment gives the People the right to shoot at, wound, and perhaps kill any federal officer or employee who can be shown to have misconstrued and abused the powers of the federal Constitution.
This is not license to shoot anyone who works for the federal government. Odds are, anyone who tried to shoot a federal officer or employee would be found guilty by a jury and sentenced to prison. But if a very skillful defendant could prove to a jury (and it wouldn’t be easy) that federal officer or employee had “misconstrued or abused” the powers of the Constitution–it is remotely possible that such defendant might convince the jury that he had the right to shoot that federal officer or employee.
Technically, in combination with the intended purpose expressed in the “preamble” to the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment might even be taken as evidence that anyone who agreed to serve as officer or employee of the federal government, also implicitly accepted their liability to be shot if they misconstrued or abused the Constitution.
However, all of this conjecture may be at least compromised by some of the language of the 2nd Amendment which declares “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . .” It might thus be argued that only members of “militia” who were on “active duty” might have the right under the 2nd Amendment to shoot federal officers and employees. People acting individually and outside of the militia might have the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to shoot feds who abused or misconstrued the Constitution–at least not until they joined the “militia”.
What, exactly, constitutes the “militia”?
Don’t misconstrue my previous conjecture to be a recommendation that anyone shoot anyone else. I’m simply exploring the language of the preamble to the Bill of Rights and of the 2nd Amendment to see what they might mean.
In any case, here’s the video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s brief but powerful speech to Congress:
video 00:05:23
Yartap
May 12, 2012 at 11:33 AM
I agree with you. First and foremost, the Second Amendment is our protective Right against the possible tyranny of the government. I believe that it is our MOST important Right, because it protects all of our other Rights.
The Second Amendment is and stands as a legal defense for using Arms to arrest, capture, defend and shoot an actor or government actor, who commits an unconstitutional act, treason or tyranny as it relates to our Republican Form of Government. The use of Arms against crime, property damage and as a tool for hunting (acquiring food) are just side benefits for keeping and bearing Arms. THE MAIN FOCUS AND PURPOSE OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT IS TO PROTECT US FROM THE GOVERNMENT(S).
With regard to the word: “Militia” written in the 2nd Amendment, notice that it is used in a general statement or “preamble” that allows the States to organize against the Federal government. Remember: our Bill of Rights was set up as a restriction upon the Federal government. Further, I believe that the Militia, which were organized on a local level and usually unfunded, has authority to stop local, county and State actors, also. Because, the meat of the 2nd Amendment states: “…[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I construe the word “people” to mean “individuals,” because one may have to defend against a Militia to preserve his or her Rights. I do not equate “people” to mean “Militia;” I equate “people” to mean “individual.” This only makes logical sense to preserve our Rights, Freedoms and Republican Form of Government.
But please note: In the 2nd Amendment’s preamble the words, “well regulated Militia.” What does “well regulated” mean. Well, in Article I, Section 8 (Congressional Powers) of the U.S. Constitution it states that Congress shall prescribe the “discipline” for the State’s Militia. In other words, Congress shall regulate a standard by which the Militia of a State may act. Like, who a Militiaman can shoot and who he cannot shoot. But note: if a soldier acts according to the set standard, then a soldier has the authority to kill his enemy without repercussion from the Militia, State or National government. This act (murder) will usually get anyone prosecute. “Well regulated” equates and means License, because a license regulates, sets a standard and restricts one’s actions; and if one meets the standard, he or she is immune from prosecution for their said acts. So, we must surmise that a government actor does NOT have a 2nd Amendment Right when called to duty or hired as a peace officer; but rather, he or she has a LICENSE.
LICENSE: Permission from a competent authority to do such act(s) which without such permission would be immoral, unjust, a tort or a trespass, Black’s Law Dictionary, pre-1933 (side note: today’s edition replaced “immoral” with “illegal”).
The government actor does NOT have a 2nd Amendment Right; We the PEOPLE have the 2nd Amendment Right! When a government actor lays aside his governmental duties, then and only then, is he or she returned to having a 2nd Amendment Right. But, there exist a very fine line for a government actor, you see, the actor is sworn “to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the united States.” If the government actor sees the government commit tyranny, then, in the capacity as a government actor, does the actor returned to having a 2nd Amendment Right to stop the tyranny? The answer is still NO!, because the actor by law and regulation is under orders/authority to stop any governmental abuse(s) or abusive act(s), either by accusation, prosecution or force. And if the actor does not notice, understand or recognize the abuse and participates in the abuse; then ALL participants (from the top to the bottom) should be prosecuted and removed from their positions or offices. NO EXCUSES! (“But – I was just following orders and the Law,” still NO EXCUSES!). This places a safeguard for the public by placing the government actor as sovereign to decide and understand the laws or acts that he or she is enforcing. Further, it removes those who cannot see the abuses. Not only do they need to know the difference between good Law and bad Law, they must possess an understanding of the Republican Form of Government, and how it works.
And what about that word, “infringed.” What part of “infringed” does the government and politicians not understand? Better yet, what part of “infringed” does the public not understand?
Tom is convicted of an Armed robbery. After serving his time, the State will not allow him to keep and bear Arms, because he is a former convicted felon. Has Tom lost his Right to protect himself from government tyranny? It is an infringement by the government.
Joe wants to have the ability to sneak up on government actors by having a concealed weapon, but the State says that he must have a concealed weapons permit. Has Joe lost his Right to protect himself from government tyranny? It is an infringement.
Sally wants to buy a gun and not let anyone know she has a weapon. The government wants her to let them know if she has a gun by registering the owner’s name with them. Has Sally lost her Right to protect herself from the government tyranny of gun confiscation? It is an infringement.
T-Row wants a fully automatic firearm (machine gun). To have one, his State requires him to register the gun type, gun make, cereal number and himself to be permitted and allowed ownership by the State. T-Row is not allowed to sale or give the gun to anyone else. Has T-Row lost his Right to protect himself from the government tyranny of gun confiscation? It is an infringement.
Old Rossco buys a gun from Walmart. He later tries to return the gun to Walmart because it jams. A Walmart worker tells Rossco he cannot come inside the store with a gun. Rossco becomes irrate and says, “Hell boy, I bought the gun hear and I’m going to return it hear!” and he continues to the service desk. The young worker calls the police. The service desk informs Rossco that he cannot come inside the store with a gun and that he is going to have to mail the gun back to the manufacturer. Rossco becomes more irrate. The police arrive, handcuff and arrest Rossco. He is charged with disorderly conduct and brandishing a gun (unloaded) in a public place. Has Rossco lost his Right to protect himself from government tyranny? Where is common sense and reason? It is an infringement.
Randy is asked to saw off or shorten a friend’s gun barrel, then the friend ( a government agent) turns Randy into the government and the government arrest Randy for such act and takes his guns from his family. Has Randy lost his Right to protect himself and his family from government tyranny? Is it really a crime to shorten a barrel below a certain length? Did the government agent cause and facilitate the “so-called crime” by entrapment? It is an infringement.
David sales guns for a living; the Fed’s storm his home for the accusation of illegal Arm sales to a local Militia. Has David lost his Right to protect himself and the local Militia from government tyranny? It is an infringement.
Poor ole Wayne wants to buy a gun to protect his family and to hunt for food. He has $35.00 to make the purchase. The gun dealer tells Wayne that he could sale the gun to Wayne for $35.00, but the Federal excise tax is $10.00 and the State sale tax is another 7%, bringing the total to $48.15. Has Wayne lost his Right to protect himself from government tyranny and government taxation intrusion upon his Right? It is an infringement.
Delbert is sitting in his easy chair, when all of a sudden, the local ATF and DEA dressed in black with mask on and guns drawn bust into his home. Delbert grabs his gun and shoots one of the officers, who dies. Delbert is shot, subdued and arrested. All his guns are taken, leaving his family unprotected. Later, it is discovered that the raid made by the agents was at the wrong house. But the government proceeds with prosecuting Delbert for murder of a Federal agent. A jury finds Delbert not guilty by reason of self-defense. But, the Federal judge declares that because Delbert admitted to killing the agent in the line of duty, he is guilty of the crime and sentences him to life in prison. Has Delbert lost his Right to protect his home and family from government tyranny? Are government workers at a higher status and given more protection than We the People? Is the message being sent by the government, “You better not shoot a government agent, who is committing an illegal act!” It is an infringement.
Bob was well trained by his father in the use of firearms from the age of 8 years old (but training really does not matter). After graduation from college, Bob is offered a great job in a big city in another state. But, crime is high and he wants to buy a handgun once there. Bob discovers that he cannot buy a gun from a gun dealer or anyone else, nor can he have any gun within the State because he has not completed a fee based 12 hour long “Gun Safety Course” as required by his new State. Has Bob lost his Right to protect himself from government tyranny? Is Bob being forced to enlist into the State’s Militia? If so, why does Bob have to pay for it; doesn’t Congress have to pay for his training? It is an infringement.
Anne is in line at a local Target store. The checkout clerk and her boyfriend (the man ahead of Anne) are having a heated loud argument. All of a sudden, the man pulls out a razor knife and slices the throat of the clerk and proceeds to come around the counter with the knife raised. Anne quickly pulls a gun from her purse and kills the man, saving the young clerk from death.
The police arrive and witnesses tell the story of how Anne saved the clerk. Police confirm the stories by video tape. Anne’s gun is taken away from her, she is handcuffed and arrested for carrying an illegal concealed weapon, carrying a deadly weapon in a public place, assault with a deadly weapon and manslaughter. If Anne had done the same thing with her fist, I don’t believe she would have been charged. It’s all about taking our Arms away from us. Further, what is really sad, is that, the ladies who witnessed the man’s assault upon the clerk, were not shocked by his assault, but rather, that Anne had a gun hidden inside her purse. Has Anne lost her Right to protect a complete stranger and herself from government’s “political correctness” tyranny and public opinion tyranny? It is an infringement!!!
Bruce moves back to his small hometown in a mid-western state. He is very progressive, passive and politically correct in his thinking. The town has passed a law that requires every household to have a firearm. Bruce greatly protest and refuses to buy a firearm. He feels that a firearm inside his home will greatly place his children at risk of accidental death. The town reaffirms to him that he must have a firearm in his possession. Bruce calls local, state and national news media to voice his argument and protest, publicly. The media gladly broadcast his anti-gun rant. The town backs off. Bruce and his family enjoy a great town with the lowest crime rate in the nation. Bruce is an infringement!