The first article comes from The Arbalest Quarrel at Ammoland entitled The Supreme Court Will Not Defend The Second Amendment! As many of us have suspected for a while now, Chief Justice Roberts was a false flag candidate for the position of Chief Justice, posing as a conservative to get the position, then revealing his true colors as a Leftist once on the Court. Under these conditions, the Court will not defend the Second Amendment. They had ten cases from which to choose, all of which ticks off the reasons to grant a writ to one of them:
Conflict of law: The Supreme Court may elect to step in and make a ruling when different courts reach different conclusions about federal or constitutional law. With 13 federal circuits and 50 state supreme courts, the U.S. Supreme Court may want to step in and clarify certain legal issues so every court operates under the same law going forward.
National importance: If a case has national significance and is important to the public as a whole, the Supreme Court may decide to take it on. The Supreme Court has discretion when it comes to taking these cases, such as Bush v. Gore after the contested 2000 election, Roe v. Wade, or US v. Nixon concerning the Watergate tapes.
Lower courts disregarding Supreme Court decisions: If a case has arisen because lower courts are disregarding past Supreme Court decisions, the Supreme Court may decide to hear the case to correct the lower court or overrule the case without a full trial.
Justices’ interest: In certain cases, a justice may want to hear a certain case because it addresses an issue in their personal favorite area of law.Please read the entire article, and of course, go to The Arbalest Quarrel and read their other very complete analysis of Second Amendment issues. But what does this mean for Americans, particularly in a time of the governments failing in its duty to protect society? Interestingly, the second article today outlines exactly the shirking of that duty that is taking place because of the cowardice of various polititians and so called "leaders." The article, written by E. M. Cadwaladr at the American Thinker entitled Who Owns The Streets?:
The early 20th-century sociologist Max Weber starkly observed that a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is what defines a state. In other words, only a county's own acknowledged government has the ultimate right to use force against its citizens. With the very limited exception of immediate self-defense, the use of force by anyone other than the government must be seen as an act of either criminality or war. A federal system such as ours may complicate things a little — but the principle still holds true. If anyone outside the legitimate government is ceded the right to use violence to achieve his own ends, the government becomes a nullity to the extent of that allowance.
Ugly and un-utopian though this principle may sound, it benefits society as a whole. It cannot be denied that there are, and have always been, people in civilized societies who are unfit to live in them. There have always been murderers, rapists, and thieves. Even under the best imaginable set of laws and social conditions, there will always be people unconstrained by human empathy or social inhibitions. Someone must police them. Humanity will never be wholly free from antisocial behavior, so someone, however imperfect, has to be there to stop it short when it occurs.
Today, unfortunately, the voice of reason has been shouted down. Many of our cities and states have begun to disintegrate under cowering politicians who surrender their dignity and our safety to the mob. When people are suffered to loot, riot, desecrate, murder, and seize territory while officials stand idly by, it is more than just the latest cultural outrage. It is a failure by public officials to meet even the table stakes of their own legitimacy. Why should anyone, rich or poor, black or white, bother listening to Mayor Durkan of Seattle? She has ceded the heart of her city to armed extremists when she had the means to stop them. Small business–owners in Seattle, Minneapolis, and New York have dutifully paid their taxes — only to have their shops first closed by the government, then set on fire by the rioters. Mayors and governors have done nothing. These officials are no more than cringing little criminals — who prey upon the weak but kneel subserviently before a bolder, scarier class of thugs. Small business–owners in these lawless places have no legitimate local or state governments. What choice do they have but to cut their losses and vote with their feet?Implied here is the concept of a social contract, wherein individuals, including business poeple, pay their taxes, satisfy the requirements for business licenses and in general obey the law, and the government in turn protects them from looters and rioters, from thieves and murderers, and all manner of others who would prey on these people. By giving the rioters space to carry out their tantrums, government has effectively broken the social contract. By granting that the rioters may have a point, they have signaled to the rest of us that we are on our own.
Here then, is the point of both articles: The Supreme Court, the last resort of those seeking redress of grievances, will not defend your God given rights as secured by the United States Constitution. Not if your rights conflict with some leftist policy du jour. Every indication is that these riots, lootings, and tantrums will spread. And there is no indication that the police will be released to enforce the law. Under such circumstances, a wise person will be armed at all times. No, I am not suggesting vigilante actions, but for self defense and the defense of your loved ones and your property (your pursuit of happiness.) You will also need ammunition and training. Keep in mind that ammunition can be used as a trade good in a SHTF situation.
Forewarned is forearmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment