Translating the Denied Right to Keep And Bear Arms

by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com

June 29, 2001

In our email report of June 29, 2001, we ran stories about both the New Mexico and Michigan concealed carry decriminalization laws coming into effect. The excerpted text from each of the news reports contained the following quotes:

Michigan

"I can guarantee you that I've honked my last horn at an intersection in Michigan," former prosecutor L. Brooks Patterson told the Chicago Tribune's Tim Jones. A disgusted Oakland County official threatened to put up billboards saying "Welcome to Dodge City." 

"Police groups say their members will be in jeopardy from 'more guns in more and more locations.'"

New Mexico

"Most Santa Fe city councilors have expressed opposition to allowing concealed weapons in the city. Officials in Albuquerque and Espa�ola also have expressed opposition."

Following the above New Mexico quote, we ran this statement:

KABA NOTE: On behalf of our members in New Mexico, frankly, we don't give a damn what government employees think about the exercising of rights by citizens. What matters is the Constitution, period. These folks aren't paid to deny constitutional rights; they are paid -- and swore an oath -- to protect and defend them. http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Oaths 

It's also interesting to note that a denial of a "permit" could take place under the new New Mexico system if someone has a DWI on their record. Someone blowing a .08 -- a misdemeanor -- being denied a fundamental constitutional right is what any patriot calls "tyranny." 

But then again, you do not require a "permit" to exercise your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. All you require is the will to place your rights above unconstitutional "laws" -- and the willingness to face the consequences of being "caught" exercising your rights. In today's society, oftentimes, unfortunately, if you're caught exercising your right to keep and bear arms without a "permit," you can either go to jail or kill a cop. That isn't a very enjoyable choice to face, for cops or citizens, but that is the center stage in the days ahead if the anti-rights people don't back off.

The next morning, I received the following communication from someone who has been on our list for nearly two years:

"Your statements regarding the attempted denials of the right to keep and bear arms in New Mexico are true, but they sound a bit more angry than perhaps you intend. Anyone who has been with you good people long enough knows that you're serious about protecting our rights. And your fire and fury are what attracted me to your organization, too. Few groups really get irate when they should, and I do sincerely appreciate your willingness to speak plainly.  However, I am encouraging you to find stronger and clearer ways to communicate your righteous rage such that people who do not understand your angers and frustrations can meet you in that place of knowing why we must protect our rights. I love what you do, and I'm staying put and renewing my membership -- I just want to encourage you to funnel your ire with more precision."

Fair enough, friend. Let's see how we do...

Translations of the Denied Right to Keep And Bear Arms

When some well-meaning anti-gunner says, "Nobody should have a handgun," people who understand RKBA (the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms) hear any of the following:

"All of the self-defense uses of handguns each day are not important. Therefore, the lives saved by those many self-defense uses of handguns are not important."

"A 90 pound mother of two who must walk home alone -- from a second job, late at night -- should submit to armed and dangerous criminals."

"The constitutional right to keep and bear arms is changeable by the will of the majority. Therefore, any right is subject to the same social whims and pressures. Therefore, we have no rights in the big picture. As soon as the media and the political manipulators muster enough support, every constitutionally enumerated right our Founders fought and died for can be revoked."

[There are numerous places in America where citizens cannot carry a single-shot muzzle-loading handgun exactly like the one General George Washington wore on his belt. Therefore, he had more rights to self-defense than many among us do today. Living in Arizona, I'm not one of them -- I carry a gun everywhere, all the time -- but my heart yearns to restore the rights of ALL AMERICANS. (We'll get to the other countries once we fix this one.)]

When some well-meaning anti-gunner says, "Nobody should have military-style rifles," people who understand RKBA hear any of the following:

"All of the tens of millions of human beings whose lives were taken by their governments in the 20th century are irrelevant, even though history does in fact repeat itself and has done so many times over."

"The fact that the U.S. federal government burned 80 children, women and men to death -- over an alleged but never proven tax violation -- at Waco is irrelevant. And the fact that they've lied through their teeth about their actions there ever since is also irrelevant. That they used tanks and grenade launchers and lethal gas and machine guns against kids means nothing."

"The fact that the Founders of our country and the authors of the Bill of Rights specifically intended us to have military arms equivalent to those possessed by the government -- because they had seen first-hand what happens when government force is unchecked -- is irrelevant."

"We don't want The People to be able to protect themselves from the bullies within our government, no matter how corrupt and dangerous that government may become."

When some well-meaning anti-gunner says, "Only the police should have guns," people who understand RKBA hear any of the following:

"You're not supposed to be able to protect your own life and the lives of your family. Therefore, your right to life is denied until the police arrive on the scene, even if it means you're dead by the time they get there. But we are the compassionate ones and you are the baby killers."

"We support a police state -- where only police have guns. The American police state will be the first police state in history where all rights of the people are 'highly honored and protected.'"

"We are too weak and inferior to protect ourselves with guns, so you should not be allowed to do so."

"The police can be everywhere at once, and they can protect all people from harm."

When some well-meaning anti-gunner says, "All killing is wrong, no matter what the circumstance. There are better solutions than using force to stop violent people.", anyone who understands RKBA and the right to life hears any of the following:

"Shooting someone who is intent on raping and murdering my family in my home is wrong, because the would-be rapist and murderer's life is more important than the lives of his intended victims."

"Shooting someone who is trying to kill me is wrong. Therefore, I should let them kill me -- and this will clearly curb violent crime."

"If all killing is wrong, then killing Hitler's army was wrong, so we should have just let them take over the planet."

"If all killing is wrong, then all police should turn in all their lethal weapons, and somehow that will make violent criminals stop their killing."  [Britain tried that, but now their police are carrying and using guns. Why? If they don't, the criminals who outgun them -- with black market arms that get through just like banned cocaine gets through -- cannot be stopped. Meanwhile, the British citizens -- rightly called subjects -- are sitting ducks who must give armed criminals whatever they demand.]

If nobody ever puts a schoolyard bully in check, his bullying continues.  The same is true for criminals and that small minority of law enforcement officers who are mere thugs with badges.

If a national ban on armed self-defense was put into place and rigorously enforced, our society would decay into a state of rampant lawlessness within 30 days of the announcement.  Criminals would consider such a ban to be an open season on anyone they'd like to victimize. Those who put "laws" above their right to life would obey -- and suffer.

Expecting good, decent people to submit to violent criminals is not only wrong, it is pure evil in the truest sense of the word.  No gun owner in his right mind would expect an anti-gun person to submit to rape or murder -- but we are expected to calmly listen to people push that ugly fate upon our own loved ones.

Angry?  You bet.  Livid?  Times ten.  Fortunately, I'm armed and dangerous to anyone -- in or out of government -- who wishes to do me harm. My life is expendable, Mr. ATF.  Is yours?