During the late 1960s, certain black nationalists took up the slogan “Guns, baby, guns,” the logic being that if they as American citizens were being oppressed by tyrannical elements within our government that refused to observe their civil rights, then they had the right to arm and protect themselves under the Second Amendment, which ironically was written for just such an eventuality.
As a supporter of our grotesquely compromised Second Amendment rights, I wonder if it isn’t time for law-abiding Americans to consider the day when they may have to arm themselves – clandestinely, if necessary – against our enemies from without and within, a line which is growing more and more obscure with each passing week.
Associated Press, “Cops Link Black Muslim Group to Editor’s Murder,” Friday, Aug. 3, 2007
OAKLAND, Calif. – Police said they recovered firearms linked to the slaying of an Oakland journalist during a series of early morning raids Friday targeting members of a Black Muslim splinter group that operates a chain of bakeries.
Colleagues said Oakland Post editor Chauncey Bailey, 57, had been working on a story about Your Black Muslim Bakery before he was ambushed and slain Thursday morning near the Alameda County courthouse in downtown Oakland.
Just another “civic-minded” organization, I guess …
So, like the Mafia, we have a legitimate business fronting for a criminal organization that has no qualms with regard to violating another American’s First Amendment rights – a member of the press, no less. Further, this is ostensibly a “religious organization” (or cult if you like) exacting retribution due to a perceived theological affront. If a local group of Methodists had murdered an atheist member of the press, we’d have rioting across America by now.
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.
– Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
So, what is a “well regulated militia”? In the eyes of the federal government and most people, that would be the National Guard. After all, they’re regular people with regular jobs, as opposed to career military.
The only problem here is that they work for (and take their orders from) the federal government. Does this arrangement not conflict with the “security of a free state” as indicated in the Constitution if the purpose of the “well regulated militia” is to prevent a tyrannical government from being in a position to forcibly subjugate the populace? Of course it does. A concerned local business networking group couldn’t openly establish a militia to protect their community from terrorists or Muslim bakers no matter how “well regulated” they were; they’d be summarily branded as Randy Weavers or David Koreshes and out would come the ‘Guard. End of militia.
Had Chauncey Bailey been sufficiently aware, trained and in possession of a legal firearm and had shot his attackers dead, what would the repercussions have been? Certainly an investigation into whether Bailey had acted in accord with his right to self-defense, with the Damoclesian specter of a possible prosecution.
What if, however, he had produced an unexpectedly formidable illegal firearm (such as well-armed gang members in the area use), then strafed and killed his assailants? He would have been vigorously prosecuted despite his “victims” having been his would-be assassins. He would very likely have faced prison for the firearms violation alone, given the politics of the issue.
As an American, however, seeing how events did unfold, don’t you think he had the moral right (if not the legal right) to do just that if it would have saved his life?
My father used to say: “There’s not much value in being ‘dead right.'”
Am I suggesting law-abiding Americans violate standing firearms laws? Well, no; I am just asking the question: When does our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness outweigh totalitarian-leaning weapons laws and the politically correct concern for perpetrators’ civil rights? When will that which is morally right and in the best interest of America and its citizens force reformation of our firearms laws? After all, miscegenation, the male-only vote, slavery and Jim Crow were once “the law of the land.”
A very large friend of mine who, in his youth, worked as a doorman at a rough movie theater in the Bronx once had to disarm and subdue an armed inebriate. He then came within a hair’s breadth of being arrested for assault and battery by New York’s Finest. Their logic: He should have taken advantage of what law enforcement calls “an avenue of escape.” In other words, he should have run away, leaving his customers at the mercy of this person – and possibly been shot in the back. That’s the kind of gutless, nanny-state law and order that has taken root in the far-left bastions of America.
Martial law will ultimately be declared in such places when Americans become threatened on a large scale either by heretofore undetected terrorist groups or Americans who hold similar sympathies. The prospect of the police or citizens who’ve been systematically unarmed over the years being prepared to effectively react to such a scenario is nil.
In other areas of the country where the Second Amendment hasn’t been completely neutralized, it is likely that those who enforce firearms laws will simply look the other way – and well they should. Many will trust that the citizenry, having proven proficiency and safety with firearms for generations and who are sensitive to the goings-on in their communities will be responsible when these threats eventually emerge. When some implanted terrorist or radical American is neutralized by a citizen during the commission of a crime, something more akin to “frontier justice” will prevail. The totalitarian-leaning weapons laws and politically correct concern for perpetrators’ civil rights will be weighed for it is: The metaphorical smoldering bag of excrement left on our stoop, fit only to be shoveled into the handiest trash receptacle.
Related special offers: