being sovereign

 I'm not a gun owner. The reason for that is a simple one, I have no use for one. I do not hunt, just don't find that activity fun or exciting. I am not interested in shooting at targets. The simple fact is, I just don't want one because I have no place to use one. If I lived in the wilderness somewhere I would most likely own several. If I lived in the city or a high crime area, I would have one by my bedside, or on my person. That being said I fully support the second amendment to the constitution. 

 Here's the truth. I took an oath when I was eighteen years old to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That meant the entire constitution and all its' amendments. I didn't get to choose which portions or paragraphs I would support, I promised to support the entire document. The second amendment is crystal clear in my opinion. The ability to own a firearm "shall not be infringed." That's what it says. It doesn't say I have to own one, only that I can choose to own one. Although I retired from active duty service in 1993 I have never retired from my oath. I will defend that constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today I do so at the polls, not in uniform, but the obligation is the same. 

 John Adams said, "our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." That is the simple truth of the matter. Interesting to note is John Adams wasn't in favor of the second amendment at all, his feeling was it ran contrary to  the constitution. His reasoning was it was the purpose of the militia to defend the country and to enforce the laws. Individual citizens should not have such a right. I have to respectfully disagree with John Adams in that regard. The right to bear arms, to defend oneself, is a basic human right. 

 The constitution was indeed made for a moral and religious people, the government was not! Governments actions are not to be based in moral or religious beliefs. That is why the separation of church and state. The premise Adams presented, our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, presupposes that is what people will be. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case.   More so today than perhaps at any time in our national history that is the case. A lack of moral and religious behaviors by the citizens. You can call it mental illness, that is the politically correct way of defining that lack of moral and religious belief. This nation was founded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is those traditions/beliefs that Adams felt should only be enforced by an armed militia. IE: By government. A government of the people, a moral and religious people. A government that would punish those that act neither in a moral or religious way. Meaning anyone that doesn't obey the law. 

 The purpose of Congress is to make law. Those laws are supposed to be a direct reflection of the will of the people. That is what we vote for. The intent is to elect those officials that will support and enact legislation in accordance with the will of the people. That's why they are called representatives. The Bill of Rights were added, an amendment to the original document, to expressly delineate the rights of the individual! The other 17 added since confer power to the government. Should we remove that individual right and hand it exclusively to government? Do you trust the government with your personal safety? Do you trust the government to respond, in an instant, to your defense? Take a good look at governments throughout history that retain that right to themselves. 

 The constitution establishes the citizens of the United States as SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS. The meaning of such a term has changed and morphed over the centuries. I take it to mean, as the founders thought it meant, each person is responsible for themselves. No government should have absolute control over an individual. As such, every individual has an absolute right to defend themselves. If a firearm is required in that defense, you have an absolute right to own that firearm, that right shall not be infringed upon! The government doesn't get to decide if it is necessary or not! Of course, it was also expected that everyone would act in a moral and religious manner. If they did not, the law would address that. The removal of a right would not be the reaction, the reaction is to punish the offender. 

 Guns and gun ownership is just one example. It is in the forefront at this time. But the removal of rights is an ongoing process. There are those in government that would take from one group to give to another. They are calling it a wealth tax. Basically, it is saying I have a right to make as much money as I want, but I don't have a right to keep it! The government can decide just how much I'm allowed. There are those that are proposing another amendment to the Constitution, one that guarantees the right to kill the unborn! Is that a sovereign right? Sovereign means one. Does one have an absolute right to kill another? Does the government have the absolute right to kill whomever that government chooses? A moral and religious people? Or is it simply, insanity? It's insane to believe that any government can control the people, the people must control themselves. This is generally accomplished by moral and religious beliefs, not by law. Being sovereign means being personally responsible! It isn't the job of the government to control your actions! It is the job of the government to punish you for wrongdoing!