by Mark Niwot

Created on: November 18, 2009   Last Updated: November 21, 2009

The very question is an affront to both the Bill of Rights and the English language! It doesn't take four hundred words to explain the obvious: NOTHING which is a "Right" can or should be Lawfully taken away from another for ANY reason - by definition.

Only "privileges" can be taken away, and then only from children or legal incompetents, by their parents or masters. And while it should be equally obvious that an "accusation" of the increasingly-nebulous term "domestic violence" is hardly the same thing as what was once - when we were still a "nation of Law" rather than a "nation of men" - called "conviction by a jury of one's peers", we should remember the priorities.

A State which no longer believes in or understands "God-given Rights" because it has instead embraced privileges (called "civil liberties") from an almighty Government will also ignore nuances.

The Declaration of Independence stated that the singular purpose of lawful government was "to secure these Rights" that came NOT from any government on earth, but were instead "endowed by their Creator". Once we take what James Madison presciently called "a single step" beyond that principle, the line has been crossed.

The Second Amendment in what was once understood to be the "Bill of Rights" is unequivocal. Like the rest of those explicit prohibitions in the Constitution, it amounts to a definitive "thou shalt NOT" commandment to the central government. That Right to "keep and bear arms" was acknowledged to PRE-EXIST the document, and it simply "shall not be infringed".

It is in fact the strongest imperative in the Constitution - surpassing even the almost equally-ignored prohibition, "shall make no law" (Thought crimes, or so-called "hate speech," are only the latest desecration of that one.)

Such "infringements" of the Supreme Law of the Land are not new, of course. But they have accelerated, especially since the last major infringement of the Constitution having to do with the Right to "keep and bear arms", which was also based on the same "domestic violence" pretext.

The infamous "Lautenberg Gun Ban" not only violated the Second Amendment, but also the Constitutional prohibition against "ex post facto" laws, since it additionally penalized people for crimes IN THE PAST!

I will leave the question of jurisdiction, and of what constitutes a "US citizen" for another debate. After all, it stands to reason that any government which ignores the clear prohibitions of its own alleged "Supreme Law", as well as the history which acknowledges any Power or Authority superior to it, will not readily be thwarted by arguments based on more trivial limits to any claims of control over lives, liberty, or property of mere people.

Learn more about this author, Mark Niwot.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.