Saturday, January 5, 2013

Passive Resistance and The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

A post for a Tweet that I cannot answer in only 140 characters. 

Yesterday, I engaged in the following tweet conversation with SelfishMom. The link in her first tweet refers to a letter from a former Marine written to Sen. Feinstein (text at the end of this post) regarding her gun registration proposal. 










Yes, I am. And I have two main reasons why.

First, what Mr. Boston proposes is not the same thing as criminal breaking of the law. There is a fundamental difference between, for instance, a convicted criminal who steals a legally owned gun in order to commit an additional crime and a law abiding citizen who refuses to surrender his natural rights. To take another right listed in the Bill of Rights as analogy, if Congress passed a law outlawing political debate on blogs—or to keep the analogy tight, a law requiring blog registration of all non-professional journalist writers who mention politics with the probable intent of shutting down those blogs at a later date—would you comply?

What Mr. Butler is saying is not that he would break the law, but that he does not recognize Congress's power to pass a law that infringes on man's natural and inalienable rights. He will consider such a law invalid. "You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain." Mr. Butler is engaging in passive resistance

If Congress ever managed to pass such a law, he would not be alone in his resistance. I suspect that we would see many appeals to the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence and a revival of the Gonzales Flag.


Second, my tweet was actually directed to the foolishness of disarming the law abiding citizen when the criminal certainly won't register much less eventually turn over his weapons. This appeal to rule followers would only achieve making us more vulnerable to criminals.

For both reasons but mostly the first, as a practical matter, any law Congress passes infringing on the right to keep and bear arms will not be effective. I'd be happy to explain how this might play out, to anyone who would like—and no, we will not likely need battles or revolution as was necessary in 1776 but would merely expose how dependent the federal government is on consent of the governed.

The letter from Cpl Joshua Boston from the link in SelfishMom's tweet:
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America. I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.We, the people, deserve better than you.Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston Cpl, United States Marine Corps, 2004-2012

No comments: