(Quotes are from “Shield of Achilles” by Phillip Bobbitt, unless otherwise noted)
While discussing the philosophy of Neo-Realism, the doctrine of Dean Acheson, Mr. Bobbitt says “…international law is created by a society of states that draws its constitutional power from its constituent members, and thus cannot impose rules that undermine the constitutional vitality and survival of the states themselves.” Also “a state always has the right to act on behalf of its vital interests”. He defines “vital interest” as that “without which [the state] would cease to be able to perpetuate its society’s way of life.” What does that mean to me, the sovereign citizen?
Let us look at the United States of America first. It would appear that, as a sovereign state, the United States of America has a pre-existent right to self-defense. It can take action to prevent attacks upon its people, its infrastructure, and its sovereignty. That action can include a myriad of actions including sanctions, tariffs, border control, and military action, just to name a few. But the key is self-defense, not annihilation of another State. Indeed self-defense is a sacred right which is embodied in the Oath of Office administered to its leadership and military members, an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” Therefore every State MUST provide for its self-defense or it ceases to be a State. The question must be asked, is warring in foreign nations self-defense or self-deception? Are open borders self-defense or self-destruction? To answer these questions we must ask a third, since the United States government exists as a Sovereign State because its sovereign citizens created and perpetuate it, granting it only the rights they wished to grant it, self-defense being the number one reason for government, to protect life—does that State cease to exist when it fails to fulfill its sacred duty?
Self-defense, Gun Control and the Second Amendment
We have now established that a State has the right to self-defense, recognized by international law. It logically follows that the sovereign citizens of that state who have granted that State the right to self-defense on their behalf, must first have had a pre-existent unalienable right to self-defense. Whether that right is perceived to be God-given or nature-given, it exists independent of any political structures created by Man. One can defend one’s life because one lives. Mr. Bobbitt’s statement above could be paraphrased thusly “an individual (or his duly and freely elected representatives) cannot impose rules that undermine the survival of the [sovereign citizen himself].” Under this theory, it could be posited that gun control laws violate the basis for international law—that is, the right of self-defense. A sovereign State cannot remain sovereign if its individuals are not sovereign. If a State, or an international body of States , seeks to destroy the right of self-defense within any given state, it is not a collection of sovereign States working together to solves international disputes, it is a dictatorship seeking to disarm sovereign citizens so they are unable to defend themselves against the tyranny. It is the entire point of the Second Amendment, which has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with self-defense against tyranny. I refer you again to the Declaration of Independence. Read it slowly and thoughtfully. You will be amazed at the correlation to the situation in which we find ourselves today. Think hard and think twice before you vote for another candidate that believes in gun control and open borders. He or she is not interested in personal or State self-defense.
Declaration of Independence (1776): www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm.
While discussing the philosophy of Neo-Realism, the doctrine of Dean Acheson, Mr. Bobbitt says “…international law is created by a society of states that draws its constitutional power from its constituent members, and thus cannot impose rules that undermine the constitutional vitality and survival of the states themselves.” Also “a state always has the right to act on behalf of its vital interests”. He defines “vital interest” as that “without which [the state] would cease to be able to perpetuate its society’s way of life.” What does that mean to me, the sovereign citizen?
Let us look at the United States of America first. It would appear that, as a sovereign state, the United States of America has a pre-existent right to self-defense. It can take action to prevent attacks upon its people, its infrastructure, and its sovereignty. That action can include a myriad of actions including sanctions, tariffs, border control, and military action, just to name a few. But the key is self-defense, not annihilation of another State. Indeed self-defense is a sacred right which is embodied in the Oath of Office administered to its leadership and military members, an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” Therefore every State MUST provide for its self-defense or it ceases to be a State. The question must be asked, is warring in foreign nations self-defense or self-deception? Are open borders self-defense or self-destruction? To answer these questions we must ask a third, since the United States government exists as a Sovereign State because its sovereign citizens created and perpetuate it, granting it only the rights they wished to grant it, self-defense being the number one reason for government, to protect life—does that State cease to exist when it fails to fulfill its sacred duty?
Self-defense, Gun Control and the Second Amendment
We have now established that a State has the right to self-defense, recognized by international law. It logically follows that the sovereign citizens of that state who have granted that State the right to self-defense on their behalf, must first have had a pre-existent unalienable right to self-defense. Whether that right is perceived to be God-given or nature-given, it exists independent of any political structures created by Man. One can defend one’s life because one lives. Mr. Bobbitt’s statement above could be paraphrased thusly “an individual (or his duly and freely elected representatives) cannot impose rules that undermine the survival of the [sovereign citizen himself].” Under this theory, it could be posited that gun control laws violate the basis for international law—that is, the right of self-defense. A sovereign State cannot remain sovereign if its individuals are not sovereign. If a State, or an international body of States , seeks to destroy the right of self-defense within any given state, it is not a collection of sovereign States working together to solves international disputes, it is a dictatorship seeking to disarm sovereign citizens so they are unable to defend themselves against the tyranny. It is the entire point of the Second Amendment, which has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with self-defense against tyranny. I refer you again to the Declaration of Independence. Read it slowly and thoughtfully. You will be amazed at the correlation to the situation in which we find ourselves today. Think hard and think twice before you vote for another candidate that believes in gun control and open borders. He or she is not interested in personal or State self-defense.
Declaration of Independence (1776): www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment