by Howard Nemerov
hnemerov@netvista.net

What a wonderful document, the Bill of Rights. Is it a coincidence that the first two Amendments stated what they did? They succinctly lay the foundation for a free society, and for the rest of the Bill of Rights as well.

Some people today think they are better than our Founding Fathers. They would have us believe that the right to keep and bear arms is only for the common good, and for organizations such as the National Guard and military. Whether these folks are simply misguided or malicious in their attack on the Second Amendment, I see disturbing parallels with history.

In the Middle Ages, the ruling elite believed that arms were to be held in the public trust by the military. These cultures enabled the ruling elite to maintain absolute control on wealth and freedom of speech: the royalty had all of it. Serfs - the rest of us, so to speak - had no right to speak out against conditions which held them in abject poverty from birth to death.

It was also a time of unrestrained lust for the royalty. For example, if there was a woman in their domain who caught their fancy, be she somebody’s wife or daughter, the lord would simply exercise what he considered his divine right. If the people resisted any of the lord’s desires, the military, which was nothing more than the lord’s strong arm, would suppress any desire for rights and freedom by the people.

It wasn’t until the advent of the use of the precursor to firearms, the bow and arrow, that serfs found a way to participate in war, gaining some recognition of value from their lord, and gaining access to a weapon that also gave them some protection against the depredations of the military class. This was the first great equalizer, and serfs began to gain rights that made them more like citizens.

Now we forward to today’s world.

Bill Clinton, one of the most aggressive enemies of the Second Amendment in recent times, believed he was his own Bill of Rights. Like the royalty who preceded him, he acted with unrestricted lust. If he wanted to have sex with any woman he desired, he would. When caught, he had no compunction against lying to the American people. He also used his executive powers to pardon drug dealers, who are the most likely to use guns illegally to protect their business, and pardoned the biggest tax evader in the history of the U.S. in exchange for money and more sex.

Meanwhile, his twin in the Justice Department, Janet Reno, was busy violating rights. This was the era of Ruby Ridge and Waco, where the FBI, BATF, and other government agencies declared war on people who had not yet committed aggressive acts. I do not mention this because I support David Koresh or Timothy McVeigh, but only because I see a parallel between the desire to strip the people of their only means of self-protection and the use of that same technology to act in a predatory manner against the people. Clinton and Reno acted in a manner which showed disregard for both the First and Second Amendments, much like the old royalty.

Now we have the UN wanting to force the U.S. to disarm the people so we can all devolve to the lowest common denominator of freedom - or lack thereof - that people in other countries suffer under.

Is this a gun-nut reactionary statement, as our own liberals and the political mouthpieces in the UN would have us believe? I would first have them explain the following:

• In Afghanistan, the ruling Taliban, which gets a vote in the UN, restricts the right to own firearms for self-defense. Lately, women there have had enough of their lost freedom and are engaging in a massive hunger strike. In their actions, they are declaring "Give me liberty, or give me death."   
• During the later years of the Cold War, many Central American countries, each of which gets a vote in the UN, also controlled all the firearms and left the people with none. If the people tried to use freedom of speech to cry out against oppression, the ruling elite, much like the royalty-sponsored thugs from the Middle Ages, dispatched death squads, and those hapless people who spoke out would disappear, never to be heard from again.   
• Why is it that in other countries, those who control the economic and political power do not like us and want to destroy our freedoms, while the people of those same countries want to immigrate here in order to enjoy greater economic opportunity and personal freedom?
• Why is it that dictatorships and autocratic governments, each of which gets a vote in the UN, and control their populace by controlling firearms, think it is so important that we disarm millions of law-abiding citizens in this country?   
• Why are these same governments, since World War II, also guilty of murdering over 56 million defenseless people they were supposed to protect?   
• Why do the people of these countries not have the freedom of speech that is an everyday right in the U.S.?   
• Why does the International Crime Victims Study indicate that those countries with the strictest gun control, such as England and Australia, have the highest incidence of violent crime?

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform is currently winding its way through Congress. The politicians would have us believe this bill is a victory for the people against special interests that allegedly affect elections. A closer examination of the bill is in order.

Buried in the bill is some interesting verbiage. If passed, a wealthy individual could donate money directly to an office holder for use in operating expenses. In other words, the rich elite would be able to directly purchase the services of a Senator or Congressman under the McCain-Feingold legislation by financing their office staff and expenses.

Remember that the rationale around destroying the Second Amendment is that firearms are only for the general public good, and therefore it is okay to restrict individual citizens. Now let us substitute the same logic for the First Amendment, and assume that the right to free speech is only for the general good. Therefore, it is acceptable to restrict individual use of this right. Of course, who is determining when and how to restrict this right? The politicians, who, if McCain-Feingold passes, will come more and more under the direct influence of the wealthy.

Why should we believe that politicians, who benefit from acquiring vast amounts of money and political power under the current system, would want to shut down their gravy train? Better we should let the wolves decide how the chicken coop should be protected.

The ignorant want to believe that while the Second Amendment can be abridged, the First is inviolate. Well, folks, the First is now under attack. Should things continue as they are, we will end up in a country where the ruling elite is controlled by the economic elite, meaning the wealthy become the new royalty. Our rights of self-defense will be removed, and we will be right back in the Middle Ages.

The naïve among us will want to scoff that I am being an extremist. Then first explain the following:

• Larry Ellison is head of Oracle - one of the second wealthiest men in the world. He has an ongoing battle with local airport regulations over his desire to use his private jet whenever he wants. Mr. Ellison, being self-appointed royalty, believes his special status gives him more rights and privileges than the commoners, and his desire to fly outweighs their need for sleep.
• If McCain-Feingold passes, the official news outlets, all owned by large corporations, will be the only sources of election information. Wealthy corporate owners, the new royalty, would have complete control in shaping public opinion. An aggressive attorney general like Janet Reno could use vague wording in McCain-Feingold to bludgeon anybody they want for alleged campaign funding violations, strangling any voice that does not say what the ruling elite want to hear.
• International regulation is being considered regarding the use of the Internet in crime, of which the U.S. government is a participant. If passed, it would allow law enforcement to tap into anybody’s internet activity if they suspect wrongdoing. Thus, if you exercise your First amendment, law enforcement has the right to violate your Fourth amendment rights without first determining probable cause.   
• Why is Andrew McKelvey, founder of Americans for Gun Safety, another gun control group, donating so much money to John McCain? McCain not only leads the charge with the finance bill which would give billionaires like McKelvey unrestricted access to Congress, but McCain is also behind the new "gun show loophole" legislation, which is a law McKelvey wants passed. So we have a tidy package where the two are in the middle of destroying both the First and Second Amendments.

It is blatantly and urgently apparent that we the people stand up for both the First and Second Amendments. They are so interwoven that were they written by the Founding Fathers as one Amendment, its truth would have been self-evident.