Santa, Jesus, and black hats

Not my cake, but my gun!

Of late, a few individuals claim that everything I’m writing in Ricology is antiquated information, useless in today’s world, and part of the reason no one wants to read it. I cover issues everyone is already knowledgeable of or versed in regarding constitutional understanding. Things taught in school, needless to rehash in a modern society, as the subject matter is already general wisdom of thought. Except, if they truly believe their words are the case, why is the country in such disrepair and devolving?

Anyway, I’ve always enjoyed cowboy lore, and thus guns. So, from my earliest memory, I religiously sported the wearing of a six-gun on my hip with holster and belt. Albeit for the years I did, the “revolver” only fired caps. Then one year Santa delivered my first 500 shot repeater bb-gun and the die was cast. Even though I now no longer wear nor carry one, to this day, I enjoy the feel, the weight, the design of a revolver or lever action rifle in my hands. I consider them works of art along with being defensive weapons, developed for a purpose, to defend. So, from single-action to semi-automatics, short or long, guns were meant to be a part of American culture. And part of the Framer’s inherent intent and constitutional design, to maintain freedom from oppressive government overreach.

As well, I enjoy watching westerns. Especially the early series I watched on television in my youth. On the surface; analogous, depicting life issues, yet each was also different. Outlaws, Indians, cavalry, guns, death, or the fear of, and the good guy usually won. Only, the surface of each show belied the real message being relayed underneath: politics. Yes, the bane of our society. What no one wants to discuss, but some try to distort, or better, twist. Yet as a people, we desperately need to understand and grasp the politics behind the issues we currently face as a nation.

Example: Before the American Revolution, America was ruled via unending oppression. The king, with a willingness to wantonly destroy livelihoods, pursued a forced submission which eventually caused revolt. His option chosen; de-arm the populace. Yet, through the lens of oppression and war, a body of men resisted. Their desire, a new version of government. The antithesis of rule by one, giving power to WE THE PEOPLE.

Coincidentally, I was raised in a home where one person ruled, Mom. Her mode of authority, theocracy: God is going to get you! She even kept on prominent display the plaque of Jesus for a multiple of purposes. Trust me, I was confused. Between the three of them (God/Jesus/Mom), I never knew who top tier was or held the actual power. Because in the day-to-day if one was suspected of doing something wrong, Mom’s words while holding her earthly divine intervention tool (wooden spoon): Put your hand on Jesus and swear! Guilt or innocence? Then, whose power actually delivered the well-intended consequence if required?

Mom before becoming Mom at her confirmation.

Additionally, being the good Catholic’s we were, every Saturday evening we attended church so we could also go to confession and then catechism on Sunday. Always having to be well dressed, I tried to wear my gun. My thought being, if God was going to get me, I wasn’t going down without a fight. As I’d walk out of the house, Mom would always point me back in to remove my gun, belt and holster. She alone would always single-handedly take away my Right to protect myself. No 2^nd Amendment at home: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One of the original ten amendments, part of something the Framer’s (Federalists) never intended, a Bill of Rights. Except the Anti-Federalists demanded them, for a purpose. So, based on events today, which group was more right? The Framer’s belief: The Constitution itself a Bill of Rights, the government unable to control what it had no power to control. Limited government! Or the Anti-Federalists: No to the Constitution without major revision, and never trust a federal head, ever. Absolutely protect against tyranny. Yet, the 2^nd amendment, two parts of one sentence. Often misquoted, misinterpreted, and, I believe, wholly misunderstood. Especially the trailing half of the sentence, even though the first half had its purpose. But, in reality, the 2^nd had nothing to do with original constitutional intent:

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. In spite of all the nominal powers, vested in Congress by the constitution, were the system once adopted in its fullest latitude, still the actual exercise of them would be frequently interrupted by popular jealousy. I am bold to say, that ten just and constitutional measures would be resisted, where one unjust or oppressive law would be enforced. The powers vested in Congress are little more than nominal; nay real power cannot be vested in them, nor in any body, but in the people. The source of power is in the people of this country, and cannot for ages, and probably never will, be removed. (A Citizen of America – Noah Webster – 1787)

Now, read the last two sentences above again, then imagine: a government that - kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislatures; affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power; quartered large bodies of armed troops among us; [then,] protected them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they committed on the Inhabitants of these States. (Declaration of Independence)

In life, a fine line exists. The line itself, the only separation between good and evil, easily crossed, especially when man’s heart, desirous of power, is allowed the opportunity to act upon it. Conversely, the same line applies to government, whereas the Anti-Federalists possibly understood this better. Yet, when the Constitution was adopted, the nation was thirteen States, more independent and divided than united. The desire, a country more united than divided, the Federal protecting the entirety, an Army and Navy part of the package. But the Anti-Federalists: No need for an army in peace, only in war. But both sides strongly agreed: maintain an armed populace! 

The States though, each uphold a Militia, to protect against insurrections, and repel invasions, including its own government: “should at any time the government form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This … the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it” (Federalist 29), but.

A 1940's Buck Jones and a 1920s pump bb-gun. Both for kids.

The Framers also knew a well-regulated militia, composed of individual State citizens, “would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss, [and] would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of people, would not fall short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States.” Further, “to attempt a thing would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured” (Federalist 29).

A full-time militia, composed of individual State citizens in paucity, equipped, trained, ready, but for those, working regular jobs: little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped (Federalist 29). The Framers understood but remember: Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the State governments; and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. (Federalist 28)

The Constitution, with no wording on gun control, and the 2nd, manifests a dilemma in the government’s unconstitutional attempt to regulate, legislate, or impose restrictions upon one’s ability to carry, much less procure a firearm. Conversely, based on the premise the Framer’s laid out, government can only legislate what would happen if one unjustly violated another’s “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness.” 

a 1972 Red Ryder re-pop and a 1938 single-shot bb-gun

I love westerns, believing the insights of romance, chivalry, integrity, character, courage, and fear, including when to fight, stand firm, or “draw,” was presented through the magic of Hollywood. The representation of cowboys; why the west was the west, good was good, but bad, black hats, well-dressed, and “forked tongues” were both feared and fearful. I’ve also learned what Hollywood presented wasn’t truth, like government prevarications, a deception. But an oxymoron did present as truth can manifest through the belief of what might be but isn’t. And, if anyone thinks the westerns of yore have nothing to do with the right to bear arms, the overreach of government, its desire for ultimate power, or being corrupted by it, inclusive of the fear instilled in the masses to blindly accept government security and protection, I suggest watching: Rawhide: Incident at Gila Flats and Wanted Dead or Alive: The Tyrant.

In closing, study history and never trust a legislator whose desire is to change constitutional intent on the supposed premise of safety. America is declining both socially and morally while the government itself pushes the envelope deeper into disarray. Why? Thus, including the current trend to de-arm citizens, thereby reducing the ability to defend against overreach, something is amiss. There’s a line from the Rawhide episode mentioned apropos to the obfuscations incited by all three branches today: We fight them with a weapon they cannot see: Their own fear!