Only I can own me! — by guest blogger Danny Lemieux

This clip of today’s Sotomayor hearings may just have hit upon the most important constitutional question that faces us all as we confront our devolution into the Obamatopian State.

In this segment, Senator Tom Coburn (R., OK) asks Judge Sotomayor whether she agrees that Americans have a basic right to self defense. The ensuing silence is deafening. It is enlightening in that it reveals her not only to be mendacious but clueless: asking herself whether the Constitution grants Americans a right to self-defense, the judge could not even answer her own question. She said that she could not think of such a Constitutional right.

Now, granted, Judge Sotomayor has a difficult job. She needs to communicate answers which sound rational, reasonable and wise while obfuscating what she truly believes. Not everyone is adept at such two-track thinking and thus, the wheels turn slowly. The net effect is somewhat akin to a cell phone call fading in and out of range as the caller ducks behind rhetorical hills. So let me help her out by pointing to one of the underlying foundations of our Constitution as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence . . . you know, the one that refers to a God-given right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

My life is my own. It was given to me by God, or so says the Declaration of Independence. Supposedly, the State can make no claim upon my life . . . at least this is what I presume to be the underlying principle of the 13th Amendment banning slavery or involuntary servitude. Yet, this is exactly what the State does when it professes to dictates if, when, how and under what circumstances I am allowed to preserve (or end, for that matter) my life. It asserts a right over my life that could only exist if my life was subject to the whims of the State. At that point, I would not be a free citizen.

Just for the record, I will refuse ever to cede that right to the State, even on pain of death. I was born free and I fully plan to die free. I will never accept the right of the State to dictate if, when and whether I must sacrifice my life to another. This is a big part of what makes me an American.

Other countries don’t accept this and it’s not just barbaric backwaters like North Korea and Iran. British or Canadian passports, for example, quite explicitly (even proudly) proclaim their members to be “subjects” of another human being, Her Majesty the Queen. Although there is talk about redefining British subjects as “Citizens of the EU”, the words EU and “free” hardly go together, do they. Citizens of the EU quite explicitly do NOT have a right to self-defense.

Now, in fairness, the 13th Amendment does not preclude voluntary servitude and I suspect that this is where many of my fellow citizens on the Democrat /Left long to go. They want to abdicate their freedoms under the delusion that a benevolent master will relieve the burdens and responsibilities of freedom from their shoulders in the coming Obamatopia. To them, I say you’re welcome to it: just find a way to finance it yourselves and then get out the way of those of us that insist on staying free men and free women. After all, making claims on my labor without my consent also violates the 13th Amendment. Perhaps we really are devolving into a two-tier society: one of citizens, the other of serfs.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Oldflyer says

    I have not listened to any of the hearings, to speak of. Mark Levin will tell me what I need to know.

    I did hear one excerpt last night in which she discussed the right to self defense. I don’t know if that is the one you refer to; but, it was one of the most tortured discussions I have ever heard. She went off on a tangent about (sic) . . . if you ran home and got a gun that wouldn’t . . .

    Some of the stuff coming from her mouth is simply “jaw dropping”.

  2. says

    “The net effect is somewhat akin to a cell phone call fading in and out of range as the caller ducks behind rhetorical hills”….beautiful!…maybe even good enough for my upcoming “Great Insults of All Time” series.

  3. says

    Book, Thanks for publishing this article by Danny.

    Danny, if I recall you are a Bible believing Christian – You know that I am and I believe we have agreed on theological questions in the past.

    As a former Pastor I have been asked the question, “If (when) the Obama Brown Shirts knock on my door and demands my weapons under threat of violence or imprisonment, would it be a biblical response to resist or ‘open fire!'”?

    We know that God puts up and puts down leaders and we are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

    I would be interested in discussion on that topic or “How much should a Christian resist tyranny with force in light of Bible verses”?

    in Jesus Christ eternally,

    ExP(Jack)

  4. Danny Lemieux says

    Wow…tough question, ExP. I struggle with it. Let me try to formulate an answer to that: One consideration is that if you don’t resist evil, you enable it. On the other hand, I also remember “vengeance is mine, saeth the Lord”. So, much will depend upon the circumstances and motivations of the moment. If I shoot in anger and out of a sense of vengeance, then I am in the wrong. However, if I shoot in self-defense and in defense of something bigger (our liberty as a people), then this puts it into a totally different framework.

    Perhaps what I am trying to say is that there may come the time for me to sell my cloak to purchase my sword (you and I know, Jesus was not a pacifist), but it should be the last resort when all else fails.

    If this sounds confused it is only because it is not an easy question to answer. I can assure you, however, I will not accept serfdom…if only because I would want to set the right example for my kids and offer them the promise of a better world.

    In anticipation of Ymar’s response, however, let me say this is a very different situation than if someone was to threaten my life on a street or in my home. Such a situation would require instantaneous and quick reaction and I would give no thought to my attacker’s state of health. If someone attacks me with the intent of doing harm, then they have to suffer the full consequences of their action. This is cut and dried and very different than if my local police force, many of whom I know or like and who have nice families, were ordered to go to my home to round-up my weapons. Very tough call, my friend.

  5. Charles Martel says

    The story goes that a Quaker, hearing a burglar enter his bedroom, reaches into his night stand and pulls out a pistol.

    He cocks the pistol as loudly as he can, and then says, “Ahem, friend burglar. I am about to practice with my pistol by firing it directly at the spot where thou art standing.”

    Regarding the moral dlilemma posed by ExPreacherMan, I remember something C.S. Lewis said in defense of the British and American practice of killing German soldiers on the battlefield in WWII. He said that when a man engages in demonstrable evil again and again, such as the wanton murder of Jews and children, other men have a moral responsibility to stop him. Not only to prevent evil from snuffing out the lives of people who may not be ready to meet their maker, but also to stop the evildoer himself from compounding his sin by repeating it.

    Perhaps in the instant when he is dying, the evildoer will ask forgiveness for what he has done. In any case, though, he has already indicated through his past actions that he intends to continue in his evil—a state of volition that will be his responsibility, not his slayer’s, to account for before God.

  6. says

    Those are good logical discussions from Danny and Charles..

    We might also consider that the aforementioned Brownshirts are not legitimate agents of our government. For example — Just recently, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook refused to report for service in Afghanistan for what he and many Americans perceive to be orders from an illegitimate impostor, Barack Hussein Obama, who apparently spends millions in his effort to hide his “long form” birth certificate from scrutiny.

    Therefore one might refuse the illegal orders from a presumably illegal Obama and his illegal Brownshirts. Thus, if they invade, one might consider them intruders. Like the Quaker — “Brownshirt, you stand where I am about to shoot.” I will protect my family from intruders and take the consequences. However, being realistic in my case, who would fear a defensive maneuver from a feeble almost blind octogenarian such as I?

    However, if “legitimate” officers from a “legitimate” President haul us off to prison, we have lost the Constitutional war and we can take solace in the fact that the Apostle Paul was at his best writing letters and sharing the Gospel of Christ from his prison cell.

    Pray for our Republic!!!!

    In Jesus Christ,

    ExP(Jack)

  7. says

    As an addendum to my note above:

    “As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.”

    –James Madison, National Gazette Essay, March 27, 1792

    ExP(Jack)

  8. says

    In anticipation of Ymar’s response, however, let me say this is a very different situation than if someone was to threaten my life on a street or in my home.

    You’re one up on me for this, Danny. Cause I didn’t even know I was going to respond ; )

    I know I haven’t written much concerning moral complexity and ethical dilemmas vs the clearer cut lines. That’s usually because when up against gun controllers, you usually have to smash their face into the truth in order to get them to expose the fundamental philosophical contradictions behind gun control. Amongst allies, I adopt a similar clear cut approach because it simplifies matters in that it exposes what we are truly fighting (and it ain’t a difference of opinion about how to reduce gun related crimes).

    For ethical dilemmas, there was something I wrote (and by something, I mean a lot of things) at Blackfive’s comments in response to a few of Grim’s questions.

    I will go dig up the link.

    Link

    While the specific portion of relevance is the comments, the OP is also pretty good. And I do recommend people read it, if only because it highlights a few things of both domestic and foreign relevance to the US.

    Grim’s quesiton to me:

    Ymar:

    Let’s explore the argument you made re: good and evil a bit more.

    If you are fighting a foe that intends to kill you personally, but has shown that he treats noncombatants honorably, are there moral restraints upon you that are greater than those if you are facing a foe who intends to wipe out your entire family, and your community? Let us say that you are good and he is evil in both cases; and that there are effective means of resistance that are not moral, but are available to you.

    Once you’ve answered that question, here is part two: does it make a difference if your enemy is your own government? In other words, if you know the government intends to kill you (but will leave your family in peace), are you less morally free to resist than if it is an enemy government that intends to kill you (but will leave your family in peace)? What about the case of genocide, both for your own and other governments?

    As you can see, the relevance to Danny’s point is clear here.

    My answers are in the link for those that wish to delve deeper into the subject.

  9. says

    Perhaps in the instant when he is dying, the evildoer will ask forgiveness for what he has done. In any case, though, he has already indicated through his past actions that he intends to continue in his evil—a state of volition that will be his responsibility, not his slayer’s, to account for before God.

    I’m a firm believer in citizens executing criminals on the spot, thus completely avoiding the issue of “Life Imprisonment then DP vs Life Imprisonment without DP” or the whole lack of space in prisons or rehabilitation issues.

    After all, the American military didn’t execute insurgents, they took their surrender. And look what happened in GitMo. Halal meals, prayer mats, and official support for Islam’s practices. Yeah, that’s a good way to reform terrorists. Get them closer to their religion, plus add on isolation so they become as fanatic as Mohammed sitting in a cave.

  10. says

    SueK,

    The link you suggested is superb — as are most of the comments.

    Chuck Baldwin has some excellent thoughts on Romans 13 “the U.S. Constitution is the ‘supreme Law of the Land.'” And as such is the power to which we Americans submit. The President and all public officials pledge obedience to the Constitution — and when they disobey that pledge, that Constitution (as they are now), they should be held accountable by the people.

    SueK’s link is a great reference to counteract the pacifist movement whose actions would relinquish our freedoms to illegitimate authority.

    Great discussions.

    In Christ eternally,

    Jack

  11. gpc31 says

    If I may connect the main point of Danny’s excellent article to another issue, health care: I believe it was Mark Steyn who said that once you succumb to nationalized health care, you are no longer free because you become a ward of the state from birth.

Leave a Reply