...including my own, now recognized as not fully empowerd pro-gun argument, although I take some pride in having had my little brain hint the direction of his argument. WOWOWOWOWOW, I LOVE to be wrong like that!
A Shameless Self-Promotion: my previous words on the Second Amendment
PLEASE read the entirety of the article at The Daily Bell. It covers a LOT of ground in a fairly short space. If you want to understand the Constitution and the workings of those who really control the world, read the whole article; it's one of the best primers I've ever seen on all of that. And of course, the book is available on Amazon.
From The Daily Bell's interview, Vieira:
America's national para-military police state is not simply "growing"; it has grown to fantastic proportions. Why else do you imagine that I am devoting the last years of my life to promoting the revitalization of the Militia? Nostalgia for the by-gone Colonial era? When the Executive Department of the General Government declares, as it has today, that nameless, faceless bureaucrats can order the assassinations of Americans, anywhere in the world, on the basis of the mere suspicion that the targets are somehow allied with "terrorists" or other "enemies," and no other department of the General Government or the States at any level of the federal system challenges that declaration, then America has degenerated into a politically putrescent state beyond mere "authoritarianism." This condition constitutes a species of legal nihilism with which, heretofore, only monsters such as Caligula and Hitler were associated. For if one's life can be stripped from him under such circumstances, what other rights does he retain? None, as all rights inevitably depend upon the right to life itself. And if such an individual − indeed, every American − retains no rights, because the theory of "official assassinations" embraces essentially anyone and everyone who might be denounced from within the bowels of the bureaucracy as an "enemy combatant," then what limits exist to rogue public officials' powers? None. This is totalitarianism with a vengeance. (all emphasis Vieira's own)It's coming around, America. The sedition and revolution that have been brought by a wannabe elite (a nobility-pretending clan of people who like to suggest that society and "the people" need kings, lords and the like, by whatever names they may be called) the insurrection they have wrought in the realm of ideas, mind manipulation and "law" are recognized, are known as evil; and the counterrevolution, which must ALSO take place in the minds of all Americans and on the legal battlefield of courts and legislatures--not on some field of physical confrontation unless THEY force it--is coming to a head. Vieira is as right as rain.
Getting back to gun rights per se, what I see as the weaknesses of my past argument:
My argument went to the idea that the Second Amendment guaranteed (not granted) self- and family defense, as well as community and the larger ideas. I now understand why I had a niggling consternation with that aspect of my argument: just as I said that banning guns for hunting or sport would have been unthinkable to the founding generation (the TRULY greatest generation so far in America), so would have been any ban on self-defense weapons. Thus, the Second Amendment is SOLELY about protection of groups larger than the family, and perhaps even larger than the community.
Thus, any weapon suitable for family defense will fall under the Fourth and Ninth Amendments and not so much the Second (Vieira may or may not agree with this--it's my own thinking). The Ninth said, essentially, "Just because we laid out specific rights doesn't mean there aren't plenty more." ...some of which would include being free to do any dang thing you want as long as you don't hurt someone else. I will also offer now that the Fourth Amendment, in its protection against seizure, allows for an individual right to defend against it--whether said seizure is by an individual or by a government. Let's remember that the "Bill of Rights" did not pass as one amendment, but rather, stripped of its preamble and as ten (of an original twelve--missing the contents of two propsed) amendments. Thus its text, while seeming to imply "by government" never says so, except inasmuch as how a search or seizure can be justified and empowered.
The mechanics of Vieira's observations:
Edwin Vieira: The Sword and Sovereignty is available at Amazon.com. It is a study of the actual constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" in the Second Amendment in its inextricable relation to "the Militia of the several States," as opposed to the historically inaccurate and legally indefensible so-called "individual right to keep and bear arms" on which almost all contemporary advocates of the Second Amendment fixate. I describe "the individual right to keep and bear arms" as legally indefensible because fundamentally it is a right in name only, inasmuch as it lacks an effective remedy if an highly organized and armed tyranny sets out to suppress it, whereas the true "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" exercised in the context of "well regulated Militia" is the Constitution's own preferred remedy against usurpation and tyranny in their every aspect. Even though the Second Amendment is very much the subject of contemporary political debate, I seem to be one of the very few commentators saying as much − which, in these days of rampant legal and political confusion, misinformation and disinformation, is probably very convincing evidence that I am correct.I'm going to dispute one point: effectively, all of the rights enumerated are as vulnerable to malicious interpretation and being overrun by rogue government as Vieira says of the Second. Nonetheless, his points that the militia function is built upon an armed citizenry and that this is no doubt what the Framers had in mind is very powerful medicine for a sick legal world.
Again, please read the whole interview. Good stuff indeed!