Pro-Polygamy.com ™

Helping the Media & Information-gatherers by providing
news, reports, and insights from the pro-polygamy view.

Click to order DVD
image
Order Your Pro-Polygamy Passport ™

Gun Control and Marriage Control Infringe Individual Rights

Date: Apr 27, 2007
Word Count: 750 words
Cross-Reference: Virginia Tech mass murder, gun control, marriage control, individual rights


Gun controllers and marriage controllers use the identical big government arguments - “society’s rights,” “democracy,” and re-defining “the People” as “the collective.” When opposing each other, both use the same arguments too - the Constitutionalism of Individual Rights.

On   April   16,   2007,   a   psychotic   student   traversed   the   Virginia   Tech   campus,   gunned   down   32   innocent   people,   and   then   shot   himself.     The   college   had   a   policy   in   place   making   their   campus   a   gun-free   zone.     With   no   one   allowed   to   possess   a   firearm   on   campus   to   stop   him,   the   killer   was   knowingly   “safe”   to   commit   his   evil   as   easily   as   shooting   fish   in   a   barrel. 
 
Many   liberals   mis-applied   this   tragedy   to   call   for   more   big   government   control   –   gun   control.     Constitutionalists   and   many   conservatives   opposed   it   as   infringement   of   Individual   Rights. 
 
Yet,   most   of   those   same   would-be   conservatives   had   already   justified   identical   big   government   control   –   marriage   control.     Similarly,   constitutionalists   and   many   liberals   also   opposed   it   as   infringement   of   Individual   Rights. 
 
In   both   debates,   supporters   of   big   government   control   use   exactly   identical   arguments:   “society’s   rights,”   “democracy,”   and   re-defining   “the   People”   as   “the   collective.”     Likewise,   opponents   in   both   debates   use   the   very   same   arguments:   Individual   Rights. 
 
Gun   controllers   assert   that   “society   has   a   right”   to   control   guns,   that   “democracy”   justifies   infringing   Individuals’   rights   for   the   supposed   good   of   the   people.     They   frantically   purport   that   society   is   imperiled   without   gun   control.     Yet   the   U.S.   Constitution’s   Second   Amendment   expressly   declares   that   “the   right   of   the   People   to   keep   and   bear   arms   shall   not   be   infringed.”     So,   gun   controllers   re-define   the   meaning   of   “the   People,”   asserting   that   it   only   means   “the   collective.”     Thereby,   “the   collective”   is   represented   by   the   government.     Hence,   their   re-definition   of   “the   People”   means   a   constitutional   absurdity   that   the   government   –   not   the   Individuals   -   has   the   supposed   right   to   keep   and   bear   arms.    
 
Marriage   controllers   assert   that   “society   has   a   right”   to   control   marriage,   that   “democracy”   justifies   infringing   Individuals’   rights   for   the   supposed   good   of   the   people.     They   frantically   purport   that   society   is   imperiled   without   marriage   control.     Yet   the   Constitution’s   Ninth   and   Tenth   Amendments   say   that,   unless   any   authority   is   specifically   delegated   to   the   federal   government   in   the   Constitution   itself,   the   right   is   always   reserved   to   the   States   or   to   “the   People”   (codified   or   not).     Marriage   is   –   appropriately   –   nowhere   in   the   Constitution.     Thereby,   government   is   banned   from   marriage.     Moreover,   both   federal   and   state   governments   are   additionally   prohibited   by   the   First   Amendment   (freedoms   of   assembly,   religion,   and   speech).     Yet   marriage   controllers   cry,   “Let   the   People   choose”   the   re-definition   of   marriage   through   majoritiarian   collectivism.     Hence,   their   re-definition   of   “the   People”   means   a   constitutional   absurdity   that   the   government   –   not   the   Individuals   -   has   the   supposed   right   to   determine   marriage.      
 
But   there   is   no   such   thing   as   “society’s   rights”   –   a   collectivist   idea   premised   in   Marxism.     America   is   not   a   “democracy.”     And   constitutionally,   “the   People”   only   means   the   Individuals.     America   is   a   Constitutional   Republic   of   limited   government   to   protect   Individuals’   rights.     The   founding   principle   is   that   Individuals   are   endowed   by   their   Creator   with   inalienable   God-given   rights.     Accordingly,   Individual   Rights   are   neither   “granted”   nor   overturnable   by   government   –   precisely   because   they   are   God-given. 
 
Gun   control   infringes   the   God-given   right   of   the   Individuals.     The   issue   is   not   about   the   guns,   hunting,   or   sports.     It   is   about   the   Individuals’   God-given   right   to   protect   themselves   –   from   psychotic   murderers   to   even   a   tyrannical   government   gone   amok   (as   was   necessary   in   America’s   Revolutionary   War   for   Independence).      
 
Marriage   control   equally   infringes   the   God-given   right   of   the   Individuals.     Marriage   pre-dates   the   invention   of   government.     Ironically,   marriage   controllers   cite   Adam   and   Eve   from   the   Biblical   book   of   Genesis.     Yet   that   very   story   never   involved   government.     In   fact,   no   one   in   the   Bible   was   ever   married   “by   government.”     Plus,   the   author   of   that   Genesis   story   married   two   wives   himself.     Yes,   polygamy   -   Moses   was   a   polygamist.     Therefore,   even   the   Adam   and   Eve   account   proves   that   marriage   is   an   inalienable   God-given   right   of   the   Individuals.     This   is   true   even   if   the   godless   choose   it   or   otherwise   personally   invent   foolish   re-definitions   for   their   own   imaginations.      
 
Gun   controllers   believe   that   “society   has   a   right”   as   a   “democracy”   to   protect   “the   (collective)   People”   from   the   supposed   dangers   of   law-abiding   citizens   choosing   responsible   firearm   ownership.     And   marriage   controllers   believe   that   “society   has   a   right”   as   a   “democracy”   to   protect   “the   (collective)   People”   from   the   supposed   dangers   of   law-abiding   citizens   choosing   real   or   imaginary   marriage. 
   
In   both   debates,   it   comes   down   to   big   government   control   versus   Individual   Rights. 
 
Because   gun   controllers   argue   Individuals   Rights   during   the   marriage   control   debates,   and   because   marriage   controllers   argue   Individual   Rights   during   the   gun   control   debates,   the   solution   is   to   mutually   embrace   the   Constitutionalism   of   Individual   Rights.    
 
Constitutionalists   have   always   known   this   answer.     But   will   gun   controllers   and   marriage   controllers   honor   the   Virginia   Tech   victims   and   now   apply   this   solution   together? 


###


Bibliographic URLs:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070811102140/http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200704/CUL20070418a.html  
 



[Reviewed for publication - Pro-Polygamy.com Review Board.]

 





image
image
Click to order DVD

Latest Headlines

From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

2017 Aug 19
Pro-Polygamists Celebrate 17th Annual 'Polygamy Day'
On August 19, 2017, UCAPs (unrelated consenting adult polygamy supporters) are noting and celebrating "Polygamy Day 17" – the seventeenth year of annual Polygamy Day ® celebrations.  


2017 Aug 07
Finding Polygamists 'Guilty of Polygamy' Pushes Canada Backwards
After anti-polygamy law deemed "constitutional" to criminalize in Canada, one lone judge finds two leaders of Bountiful group "guilty of polygamy," even as case involved only adult women and no other real crimes.


2017 Jun 25
Pro-Polygamists Glad that Fugitive Lyle Jeffs was Caught
"It's like déjà vu all over again." Mark Henkel, National Polygamy Advocate and founder of the TruthBearer.org organization, responds to the news and is available to media for comment.


2017 Feb 01
Supreme Court Declined to Hear 'Sister Wives' Polygamy case
SCOTUS denied even hearing the Brown v. Buhman petition, letting the appeals court's reversal stand, not even hearing any of the pro-polygamy merits, and bringing the whole issue back to the status quo.


Read More
From the Archives of
Pro-Polygamy Articles

Subscribe

Media or Pro-Polygamists

© Copyright 2003 - 2018       ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
"Pro-Polygamy.com" is an exclusive legal Trademark of Pro-Polygamy.com ™.