The difference between a citizen and a subject

"The armed man is a citizen. The unarmed man is a subject."

Statements like this have been the rallying cry of pro-gun advocates including people like Wayne LaPierre, Charleton Heston, and just about every other NRA member and devotee.

Yet on the opposite side of the coin, these people are depicted as violent, backwards thinking individuals, by liberal opponents of gun rights.

Let us take a look at some of the interesting points to this debate. Starting in earlier history with the foundation of the United States, the Constitution of the United States, and more specifically the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution, are an explicit documentation of the natural rights of a human being as defined by the United States. They are, as follows in a brief summary:

1.) Right to freedom of speech, property, congregation, press, and religion (see Amendment 9)
2.) Right to keep and bear arms and a well regulated militia
3.) Protection from quartering of troops. (Private Citizens do not have to surrender their homes to the military to shelter troops)
4.) Unlawful search and seizure (Private homes and property cannot be searched or confiscated without due cause and a proper warrant)
5.) Right to Due Process, Protection from Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, and Eminent Domain
6.) Right to a trial by jury (as well as Miranda rights as outlined in the case Miranda v. Arizona 1966)
7.) Right to a CIVIL trial by jury
8.) Prohibition on excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment
9.) Protection of rights not specifically enumerated. (Right to freedom of religion, etc.)
10.) Powers of the States and People (All powers not expressly given to the Federal Government are given to the individual states)

So why were such important rights debated over? Well the answer is that the rights themselves were not debated over. Both Federalists (people who opposed the Bill of Rights) and Anti-Federalists (people who supported the Bill of Rights) agreed on most of the freedoms outlined here. The question that divided them was a matter of implicit rights versus explicit rights.

In the English Commonwealth that America had so recently left and defeated (less than a decade before), there was no, and currently IS no explicitly enumerated constitution. The English version of the Constitution stems back to the Magna Carta signed by King John in 1215. Ever since that point, no other real major constitutional documents have come forward that included those rights as well as others, instead, dockets are created with centuries of court and legal precedents set out as constitutional law.

The Federalists wanted to follow this precedent from England, and allow rights to simply be 'understood'. Men like Alexander Hamilton argued that explicitly stating laws and rights such as this would limit people to only those expressly stated in the Bill of Rights, and thus actually constrain the rights of the people.

The Anti-Federalists including Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry argued that since the rights were not implicitly stated as they weren't in English commonlaw, they could easily be forgotten or removed at the whim of the government.

History shows us that the Anti-Federalists compromised with the addition of the 9th Amendment and the Bill of Rights was approved and added to the United States Constitution.

Skipping ahead to the Reconstruction Era of American History (1865-1877), the NRA was founded in 1871 by Union Colonel William Church, and General George Wingate. The first president was former Union General and Rhode Island Senator Ambrose Burnside. Sorry southerners, the NRA was a Yankee creation.

Skipping ahead a bit further to more modern times, the NRA has changed its focus since 1871, which started as the training of people to improve marksmanship into a more educating organization, focusing on gun safety, education for hunters and gun owners, and even more recently since 1975, legislative action. This latter fact cannot be understated as George Stephanopolous (former Bill Clinton Spokesperson said), "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their Congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."

Does this mean owning a gun is part of being a good citizen? Not necessarily. Plenty of people write, lobby congress, vote, and they've never owned or even touched a gun before. But is gun ownership critical to a person being allowed to be a citizen? Yes. But how can I say this? This is so blatantly pro-gun! Let us look around the world to another country and their gun laws.

Germany in 1928 passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition which overturned a previous 1919 law that banned outright all private firearm ownership. However, the 1928 Law moved from an outright ban to strict registration and control measures approved by the government. In 1933 when Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power, they extended and modified this law in 1938 to restrict firearm ownership to "... persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show need for a (gun) permit." People who expressly could not gain permits? Jews. People who were exempt from permits? Government workers under the Nazi Regime, Nazi Party members, and those holding hunting permits. November 11th, 1938 saw the passing of the "Regulations against Jews' Possession of Weapons." A very convenient way to disarm your political enemies, arm your political supporters, and regulate everyone in between who was not expressly one way or ther other.

In Russia under Stalin and Lenin, the laws were very similar, though indeed they were more honest as you had to be a party member to even own a gun. The Red Bolsheviks who fought the Russian Revolution against the White Armies wanted to ensure their power despite their numerical inferiority.

So why is gun ownership necessary to so many United States citizens? Why is it such a hot button topic? Why do we Americans need guns?

That topic goes into a long discussion regarding more modern phenomena including use of force in arrests, police brutality, excessive force, and other such periphery issues. But let us look to United States examples in the more modern day.

2005 marked one of the greatest disasters our country (United States of America) has ever seen with the landfall of a Category 3 hurricane, Katrina, slamming into the city of New Orleans.

In the wake of this horrific event, anywhere from fifteen percent to thirty three percent of the New Orleans Police Department went AWOL. The rest were stretched thin and often powerless to prevent the rape, murder, vandalism, looting, and brawls that occurred throughout the ruined city of New Orleans. This presented police with a real problem, and indeed, it presented Mayor Ray Nagin with a huge problem: What to do with the remaining police?

So what did Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Eddie Compass do to help crack down on gun problems? They played their hand on the wrong side of the bench. Rather than go to the dead center of the city where these crimes were happening, and getting tough on crime, Ray Nagin and Eddie Compass sent the officers out to the higher surrounding land where crime was not occurring, and ordered people to surrender their guns.

Wait-what?! Instead of tackling, shooting, and/or arresting criminals who were only contributing to the horrors of Katrina and the aftermath, they go after law abiding citizens on the outskirts of town? People like Patty Konie, a frail, 58 year old (at the time) woman found out just what that meant. Especially when Patty Konie, who by this video photographs I'd estimate to be around 100 pounds (and that's a pretty liberal estimate). Gets tackled and bodyslammed by a police officer weighing easily more than twice her weight when she displayed and dropped an unloaded handgun, putting it on the floor in front of her after Police asked her if she had any guns in the house.

This was a 58 year old woman in a house on dry land with a decent stockpile of food who was in her home owning a legally licensed and registered gun. Police did NOT have a search warrant and were acting under directorship of a Police Superintendent and a city Mayor. They entered this woman's home, and assaulted her. Meanwhile across town, we can't truly say how many rapes, murders, beatings, or other such illegal activities were going on in the center of New Orleans.

Moral of the story? Take it away Ben Franklin!

So why do we need guns? Why do Americans feel the need to own a gun to protect themselves? Because of people like Mayor Ray Nagin. One city Mayor gave the order to violate one of our oldest national laws, the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and did he get away with it? In a manner of speaking, yes he did. Because while US District Court Judge Jay Zainey ordered an immediate cease to the seizure of legally owned firearms and the immediate return of confiscated weapons to their lawful owners, the bureauocracy of New Orleans has since prevented the return of these weapons. The NRA filed suit against Nagin and his government appointees for contempt of court for violating the consent order which was handed down to return those weapons to their owners and cease confiscation. Two men, two conspirators, took advantage of a crisis and circumvented Federal law, resulting in the disarming of innocent, law abiding citizens in favor of allowing the criminal element to wreak havoc on the innocent citizens of New Orleans.

Thankfully, in the years since these incidents, states such as Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana have passed "Katrina Laws", upholding the Second Amendment freedoms from local authorities like mayors, county officials, and others that might try to remove a citizen's right to bear arms.

The question remains however, does a gun allow a man to be a citizen? Does a weapon allow a man to be more than a subject? It does. How? Well let's go up and enumerate what was violated in the case of Patty Konie.

1.) Second Amendment Rights obviously.

2.) Fourth Amendment Rights (Police had no search warrant or probable cause to enter or seize the weapon or Ms. Konie. Even under Martial Law in the United States, only Habeus Corpus (producing the body of evidence for imprisonment) is suspended. New Orleans was not under Martial Law at any time during Hurricane Katrina).

3.) Tenth Amendment Rights (The State in this case violated an expressly enumerated right of the Federal Government, also contradicting the Maysville Road veto legal precedent of 1830)

4.) Fifth Amendment Rights (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation)

5.) Fourteenth Amendment Rights (The 14th Amendment specifically enumerates that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.", effectively reinstating the 10th Amendment and Maysville Road Veto ideals).

Five of her Constitutional rights have been violated in one way or another by a City Mayor and a Police Chief.

When faced with the tyranny of a tiny minority such as the radical left wing Mayor Ray Nagin, it is the only defense of the law abiding innocent civilian. Police and military power rest with the executive branches of government. If we are concerned about our rights as human beings, remember that our Bill of Rights is just that, a billet of RIGHTS, not privileges, then we must be prepared to defend ourselves against the possibility of the government stepping in to separate people from their rights.

Does everybody in the world need their own fully automatic version of an M16 for home protection? No. Does every citizen need to have a stockpile resembling a US Armed Forces Armory? No. Does every citizen need to be prepared for the eventuality where they might need to defend themselves against a criminal or against governmental corruption and tyranny? Yes. How does one defend oneself from these nightmares? A gun.

There's a reason that the Samuel Colt .45 caliber Army revolver was known as "Peacemaker".