Home»Commentary»The Consequences Of A Population Disinterested In Politics

The Consequences Of A Population Disinterested In Politics

Pinterest WhatsApp

Virginians will soon come to realize that not taking an interest in politics will reap its consequences as it was famously said by Raymond Brannen that politics will take an interest in you. In America, people with a dream can go a long way and make something of their lives. This leaves capable men disinterested in the affairs of government. When the halls of congress are absent the hearts of patriots and God-fearing men, shady characters with ambitions of their own take their place and attempt to use the power invested in them to force their twisted vision. The gun control bill in Virginia is a perfect example and can be summed up succinctly with one word  ̶  tyranny.

Senate bill 64 seeks to make a felon out of anyone who engages in any training that could potentially cause harm to another for the purpose of causing civil disorder. This includes firearm instructors and even potentially, martial arts instructors. The keywords here are “training that will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.” How are they going to prove you are taking a martial arts class so you can riot and protest? The good news is that conservatives and legal gun owners do not generally engage in that type of behavior. Those radical leftists who love to protest, however, may have something to worry about. The addition of those words clearly indicates that they fear an armed population. It is also clear that the intent is to destroy the citizen militia.

Gun control advocates try to argue that the text of the second amendment, or even the entirety of the constitution, must be re-interpreted to fit today’s society. The militia clause, they argue, clearly means government-run militias, or the National Guard, as many of today’s high school text-books try to teach. Thomas Jefferson foresaw this becoming an issue and specifically stated that the constitution should be interpreted in the spirit in which it was written.

On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed (Adams, The Second Amendment Primer).

At the time of the constitutions drafting the term well regulated was understood to mean well disciplined or well trained (Caplan). Therefore, the term “well-regulated militia, the right of the people” means exactly what it says. A body of citizens well trained in the use of arms not only for self-preservation but for the defense of the country as well. The founding fathers feared a standing army and the second amendment, or a militia made up of the citizens, was the solution.

The necessity of an armed populace, protection against the disarming of the citizenry, and the need to guard against a select militia (meaning a militia of the state) and assure a real militia which could defend liberty against any standing forces which the government might raise were topics interspersed throughout the ratification process (Young, The Origins of the Second Amendment).

Virginians are responding to this attack against liberty by forming second amendment sanctuaries. Americans have an independent, warrior spirit and they will not surrender the second amendment to a tyrannical government. The government knows this which is why they are ramping up their efforts to do something on gun control. On the federal level, the Department of Justice, headed by William Barr, is bypassing Congress and instituting an aggressive gun control enforcement policy. On the surface, it seems reasonable enough in its attempts to enforce existing gun laws and go after people who by law, shouldn’t have firearms. Typically, you must read between the lines and connect the dots yourself to get an understanding of the real intent. Barr said the purpose of Project Guardian is to “disrupt those who are mobilizing for violence.” What does that mean? That’s a term that goes well beyond the apprehension of criminals in possession of a firearm. If Virginia senate bill 64 becomes law, will those refusing to comply by forming second amendment sanctuaries be considered mobilizing for violence? That is a good possibility considering the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has already designated those concerned about the passage of gun restrictions as “right-wing extremists.”

Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government.  The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.

The fact that the DOJ would implement a policy, without Congress passing any law, promising to vigilantly enforce gun laws is concerning amid the developments in Virginia. As the government continues to seek more gun control, more resistance will result. Just as it is with red flag laws, you are already considered dangerous if you somehow appear on their radar. We have already seen how William Barr deals with those he considers dangerous.

This is the result of good principled men not taking part in the politics that govern their nation. Robert Greenleaf, an essayist known for coining the term “servant leadership” would say that this is the result of God-fearing men failing to exercise their duties as servant leaders and act in accordance with God’s will. When good men fail to act, evil stands in their place.

Article posted with permission from David Risselada

The Washington Standard

Previous post

Concerns Mount Over Kemp's Appointment Of Former Democrat To Replace Isakson

Next post

ADL, Sacha Baron Cohen, & the Criminalization of Thought