|
| | | | |
|
|
I am only one
by Ed Lewis
[email protected]
January 30, 2001
"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should
do, by the grace of God, I will do."
-- Edward Everett Hale
How often have we heard in our lifetimes people saying they are only one, that they cannot do anything because of it. This is especially true of oppressive laws seemingly passed into enforcement by all levels of
government. Sort of the �Can�t Fight City Hall� syndrome justifying inactivity.
Little do we realize how many others are making the same statements. Had the realization struck one like a bolt of lightening, perhaps non-acceptance of
oppressive legislation would have ended decades ago. But, because each feels alone on an island of frustration, nothing happens.
The strange thing is had a majority written or called government officials, changes would have been made. Elected officials depend on elections to
retain their jobs and their potentials for much money and/or power. This holds true up to the Congress of the united States of America. And for the
Congress of the United States, it means tremendous wealth. Of course, were all congressmen behaving in a lawful manner intended only to represent their
constituencies, the amount of wealth would decrease. But, just how much money does it take for a congressman�s family to live comfortably?
But, as we have all learned, elections are not necessarily on the up and up concerning higher levels of government. But, on lower levels, it is possible that elections could be held without officials interfering with the voting process. It would depend on doing away with every potential of voter count control. Not impossible but it would require modifying the voting process enabling no function
to remain in the hands of elected officials or their appointments.
The necessity for citizen involvement would be a must. Government officials are not going to change anything that has led to their gravy train. Their only desire is the need to maintain the status quo and not allow their power be affected by proper and lawful proceedings. In this sense,
politicians, regardless of the level, are for the most part conservatives in that they �resist change� from that which is allowing power beyond that of the Constitution.
Resisting change would be well and good except the changes being resisted are those which would return this nation to a nation of the People, by the
People, and for the People. What is being resisted is returning this nation to a constitutional Republic in which the sovereign reigns supreme, not
government officials, agencies, pseudo-agencies, non-agencies, and the unlawfulness of most legislation.
What is being resisted and denied is the power of the sovereign to make his own life�s decisions and not have his life, nor his sense of well-being as a
free person, interfered with by unconstitutional legislation, whether on a national, State, or local level.
In regards to the 2nd Amendment, it really doesn�t matter whether the right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution or not - it is a God-given
unalienable right that all animals, including man, have the innate right to defend their lives and property. No man has to lay down his arms based on
fictitious laws designed to give government powers not given them by the Constitution. And, no government may make any law outside their orbit of
power. No sovereign, nor groups of sovereigns can decide for another his means of controlling AND defending his own life.
Man is required to defend himself in order for the species to evolve as a self-actualizing entity. If turmoil does result, that is fine; it is as it should be. Otherwise, there would be no need for any law - we would each have proper respect for the property and lives of others.
But, until the day arrives that all man on Earth develops proper respect for others and their rights, then we must have laws to govern those who would
be lawless. But, we do not need laws that control those who abide by the rules of freedom of rights that all
people have. Law abiding citizens already have that quality.
As values go, there is no value more important. With it, one respects himself, his life, and his rights and, therefore, respects the rights of others
and would not consider doing to others what he himself does not want done to him.
But, those leaders we have in all levels of government do NOT trust the people. In their warped minds directed to control, they cannot conceive of
the desire of people to behave properly. As such, they commit crimes (treason) removing the rights of people because of their own fears.
They want guns out of the hands of citizens not because of citizens committing crimes with them but because of their own fear that citizens will
rise against their oppressive legislation. After all, crimes are not committed by law-abiding citizens who own firearms - crimes are committed by
criminals who would commit crimes without firearms if need be. Plus, being criminal in their intent, they would manage to secure firearms just as they have been. To my knowledge, no felony has ever been prevented by any
firearm controlling bit of legislation. All laws have failed miserably.
But, what has not failed is the inherent deterrent quality of citizens owning and bearing firearms fully loaded and ready for use, should the need arise. Millions of crimes, both known and not known, have been prevented.
Whether gun control freaks know it or not, one main reason in-home invasions while the occupants are home is not done more often is because of
a criminal�s fear that the occupants might be armed. Because of this, crime is deterred.
The government knows this, as do we who love our firearms and our right to be able to defend ourselves by whatever means necessitated by the
circumstances at the time of the situation. No one else can decide for any person the level of action to be taken, whether it is right and proper to use a firearm or not.
If we do take a life to save our own or prevent serious physical, that is our right given by God, a right that cannot be legislated against or ruled against.
No judge nor no jury can determine this simply because they weren�t there nor was the criminal act impending or in progress against them - it was
against the citizen. Only a fool who believes the government always tells the truth or a tool (lackey) of the government would ever state otherwise.
I remember the first firearm I bought. I saved my money from my job for several weeks. I only needed $20 for the
Stevens and some ammo sold by
Sears and Roebuck which, at the time, had actual retail stores, not just catalogue outlets. I started hunting when I was eight and had to prove myself
concerning safety before I could have my own. Dad said it was okay when I was eleven.
Anyway, the day finally arrived. I walked across the street to the Sears store, picked out the one I wanted, and proudly paid the clerk (can�t remember his name now - too many years). There was no registration, no felony check,
and no questions about my ability to use the firearm. And, you know what, never once after purchasing it, did I consider using it against another human
being because I was mad at them. It was my rabbit and squirrel gun.
Then, when I was 12, I bought a 20 gauge Mossberg which had a stock that looked like a high powered rifle�s with the cheek rest and all. I was in hog
heaven. I had both a rifle and shotgun.
Even though I was in many fights (boys will be boys), I still never considered using a firearm against an opponent. Never did I point a firearm at another person and still
haven�t to this day. It is not that I wouldn�t but just that I have never had to defend myself to the extent of being required to use a firearm or to take a life to protect my own. I suspect it is the same with millions of firearm owners, that is, law-abiding firearm owners.
Now that I do take it into consideration, it is not because of criminals -- I suspect
-- that such a need may arise but, instead, the federal government and other levels of government�s agencies that I
may have to raise my arms. I do not fear actions by criminals against me -- but only government actions against me.
I am only one. But, I also know that only one can take action. I also suspect strongly that others might be doing the same. I write legislators in all levels of government and have been no doubt termed a radical and worse. If
enough would realize the same, what is termed radical would be termed normal since only sovereigns can determine the norms of actions. In other words, if everyone drives 70, then what becomes lawful is 70. If everyone owns firearms, then the norm is to own firearms.
I also know that many �ones� added together can result in millions. But, it takes each �one� to start. So, in this respect, one can make a difference.
But, a thing I also know is that if enough �ones� don�t take the bull by the
horns, then unconstitutional laws are going to continue being passed until the day comes that federal agents or federally controlled agents are going to
knock on doors or break them in demanding all firearms and check the list they have as each person gives them, and liberty, up.
20,000 laws have not stopped felons from obtaining firearms. Therefore, the need for a felony check does not exist - it only interferes with the lawful
actions of law-abiding citizens.
20,000 laws have not stopped any particular murder. If one wants to murder, whether a firearm is available or not, murder will be done. It might be with a hammer, a baseball bat, poison, a car, a knife, suffocation, drowning, electrocution, throwing off a cliff, a gaff, hayhook, fork, club, lamp, table, chair, pool cue, kicking, hitting with fists or fingers held just right and in the right place, carbon monoxide, plane sabotage, and so on. Murder does not require a firearm
- it only requires enough anger or, in the case of feds and other hitmen, enough money and/or the simple liking of killing
people (bloodlust).
All gun laws, along with unconstitutional rulings by crooked or ignorant judges, can do is stop law abiding citizens from having the power and means to defend themselves. If enough make their cases plain to their legislatures, then laws against the rights of man will be repealed and forever put where they belong - in the trash can.
Of course, the thing is - the one must get actively involved. Lack of involvement must be turned around. If one is not willing to take individual
actions, then it goes without saying those in government will continue doing as they have been for the past 150 years. They will know they have the
public placated, welcoming oppression.
Individual rights depend on the protection of the rights by the individual. Consider this. If enough individuals defend their rights, then they form a large group even though they may be unknown to one another. Such matters must not be left up to others because others don�t necessarily understand freedom and, instead, aid in the government�s quest to oppress all people on Earth.
So, to those who use excuses such as �I am only one�, I say: �Then you had
best get started.�
Ed Lewis is a Featured Writer with
KeepAndBearArms.com. Mr. Lewis' archive can be found at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Lewis.
click to enlarge
|
|
|
