---

Additional Titles

DO CHRISTIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE?
PART 4

 

by Brother Gregory Williams
January 2, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

While the State of Montana has recently made an attempt to protect individual rights by enacting state provisions, few understand that individual rights require individual responsibility. Gun rights advocates wait to see what the Federal reaction will be. The difficulty the Federal government faces will remain, as always, how will they maintain the delusion that US citizens still enjoy natural God given rights as free people, while continuing to regulate such rights as the privilege they have become?

“Brian Schweitzer [governor of Montana] has signed into law a bill that aims to exempt Montana-made guns from federal regulation.”[1]

To call on one government to protect your rights from another is simply to shift the authority and power over that right from one agent to another. Truly free societies are based on voluntary networks of liberty minded people who care about their neighbor's rights as much as they care about their own. Freedom only belongs to a peculiar people that are willing to equally protect their rights and their neighbors while allowing their neighbor the right of choosing to do the same.

Let us face the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The truth is that most people covet their neighbor's goods through the power of the governments they elect. Most people do not care about your rights as much as they care about their own welfare and comfort. They have long abandoned the precepts of Abraham, Moses, or Jesus Christ, to say nothing of the early American Republic.

Only virtuous people with diligent enthusiasm may consistently secure liberty. Institution of power created by man's own hand will claim to protect individual rights but like the gods of old[2] they will soon turn those original rights into regulated privileges. If institutions of power protect and secure your rights then those rights will become privileges.

“Protection draws to it subjection; subjection protection”[3]

The Natural God given Right to defend yourself and your community requires that the individual and their community recognize their God given Responsibility to equally protect themselves and their community from “any” threat that might jeopardize the life, liberty or the well-being of all.

Americans struggled for centuries to earn the status of freemen or freeholders securing the right to declare unwarranted usurpations in 1776. Few Americans today realize that when you elect men who call themselves benefactors, but exercise authority one over the other, providing security at your neighbors' expense, you are rejecting Christ, God and your natural rights.

The government that is empowered by you to take from your neighbor for your personal welfare and benefit, using your own standard, has the right to take from you for their benefit. As you judge, so shall you be judged. The contract makes the law. If you want to be free you must first free your neighbor from the tyranny in your own heart.

The truth is Americans are snared in a trap of their own making. No past laurels of dead heroes or patriotic flag waving, nor rationalized hope or imaginary rendition of the truth will alter that fact. Citizens of the United States are no longer free. They have sold themselves slaves to their own sloth and wantonness.[4]

Although you may began to finally realize now that “self defense” is not about guns or self, the recent decision in the Nordyke v. King case[5] is a good place to seek to understand your loss of liberty, if you have the stomach for it.

The Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb claimed “The Heller ruling in 2008 was the first critical step toward full restoration of the individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms to its rightful position as a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. This victory in the Ninth Circuit not only reinforces the Heller ruling, it expands upon it.”

Neither the Heller ruling nor the Nordyke opinion do anything to restore individual rights once enjoyed by early American freemen. The Nordyke opinion clearly states that, “The Bill of Rights directly applies only to the federal government.”[6]

It is important to understand that the phrase “We the People” in the Constitution of the United States originally referenced those men whose names appear at the bottom of the page. The States did eventually acquiesce to the provisions of that constitution,[7] but it was never put to the vote of the American people nor were the people, who were opposed to the constitution, a party to it.[8] The people as citizens of the States were far closer to a pure republics than the United States ever was.[9]

Advertisement

The Constitution only granted privileges to a body politic called the United States by the states' permission. The United States had no way of expanding its power beyond that of the States original power unless the people failed to “retain” rights and consented by word or deed to grant more power to that Federal government.

Americans have failed to retain those rights by failing to recognize the consequences of applications for and acceptance of benefits, along with pervasive participation in social schemes dependent upon mutual surety and debt as seen in Pharaoh's Egypt, Nimrod's Babylon, Caesar's Rome, or Herod's Judea.

The relationship between the Federal Government and its Citizens is completely upside down from the original intent. But that was their choice. When the leaders are lawmakers liberty is titular.[10] The “government” makes laws, compels contributions, regulates, and licenses almost every aspect and choice of their lives. As regulated “persons” they have few to blame for this subjection more than themselves, although blaming others for their dilemma has become a national pastime.

In Nordyke v. King the Circuit Judge O’Scannlain's opinion[11] verifies that the Constitution only bars Congress and the National government from infringing on the right to bear arms. But they also recognize that the second Amendment is incorporated against the States by the power of the 14th Amendment.[12]

The far ranging consequences of a former citizen of a State republic becoming incorporated to the Federal government places the federal citizen in subjection to a justified reasonable regulation. Rights, once granted by God, are now incorporated privilege granted to Federal citizens who become merely “residents” of their respective states.

Circuit Judge Gould's concurring opinion, goes on to clarify that the important governmental interests in this corporate federal citizen allows the government to regulate activities concerning rifles and handguns:[13]

If early free Americans were bound by a corporate Federal Citizenship, subject to the administration of government, described in the 14 Amendment and other subsequent acts [14] they would have no right to halt the actions or claim unwarranted usurpation if officer came to confiscate their guns on April 19, 1775 at either Concord or Lexington.

If every aspect of our care as individuals or communities falls within the province of the State or Federal governments then no activity is immune from regulation. In the original American Republics, citizenship of the individual freeman depended upon his private ownership of land as an estate,[15] but “in the United States ‘it is a political obligation’ depending not on ownership of land, but on the enjoyment of the protection of government; and it ‘binds the citizen to the observance of all laws’ of his sovereign.”[16] If they are sovereign, then you are not. Stop pretending to be what you have failed to be by acquiescence or sloth.

Modern Americans are accustomed to forcing their neighbor to guarantee their personal and community social welfare at the point of a government owned gun. This ungodly approach to secure their society has brought the people back into subjection again and again.

While there is hope, you cannot undo a century of sloth and avarice, covetousness and greed with the waive of the States pen or your own. Early Americans took responsibility for themselves and their community, for every aspect of their social welfare, through voluntary network of charity and sacrifice. Unless individuals come together with a true love of liberty and the rights of others there will be no freedom in this land or any other.[17]

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

If you will not take back the responsibility to govern yourselves, to care and protect one another, to live by faith with hope through charity under the perfect law of liberty which is love, and the duty of every Christian and God loving man, then you are probably to irresponsible to own a gun without being regulated by one government or another.

Click here for part -----> 1, 2, 3, 4,

Footnotes:

1. HELENA, Mont. (AP) - Gov. Associated Press - April 15, 2009 5:24 PM ET
2. Read the book The Covenants of the gods.
3. Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio protectionem. Coke, Littl. 65.
4. “Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.” Psalms 69:22 “And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:” Romans 11:9 Ex20:17, 23:32, 34:12...; Pr1:10, 6..., 11:15..., 17:18..., 23:1...; Ro13:9, Mr7:22, Mt5:34, Ja5:12, Hebrews 7:22
5. The ruling can be found here.
6. Barron v. Mayor of Balt., 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 247-51(1833).
7. Covenants Part III, 3. Is the Constitution constitutional?
8. Covenants Part I The Party of the first part.
9. Chapter 7. Republic vs Democracy, Chapter 8. Democracy vs Demagogue, of the book The Covenants of the gods
10. Republic vs Democracy.
11. II [4]“Although the Supreme Court has incorporated many clauses of the Bill of Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled Barron.” Nordyke III, 319 F.3d at 1193 n.3 (Gould, J., specially concurring).Therefore, the Second Amendment does not directly apply to the states. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875) (citing Barron as a basis for the conclusion that “[t]he second amendment . . . means no more than that [the right to keep and bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress”); see also Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (concluding that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the State”).
12. “V. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County on the Nordykes’ First Amendment and equal protection claims and, although we conclude that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated against the states, we AFFIRM the district court’s refusal to grant the Nordykes leave to amend their complaint to add a Second Amendment claim in this case.”
13, “Also, important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment.”
14, Chapter 3. of the book The Covenants of the gods, Citizenship vs. Citizenship.
15, Law vs Legal
16, Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 492; etc. Black’s 3rd Ed. p. 95.
17, The Living Network

---

 

Home