Section 6: Preparing to Execute Your First Constitutional Militia Right
Sections 1 through 5 of this code explain executing your first militia right requires there be grievances contesting legal injustices that government office holders have ignored, unreasonable for any sane persons to continue tolerating.
However, to be willing and fully capable of executing that constitutional militia right of yours requires that you have a little bit of education on the analytical side. Some of which consists of the following:
A. Analysis of Alexander Hamilton’s Reasoning on Government Necessity
“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.” Alexander Hamilton [Quote: from the Federalist Paper 15, published Dec. 1, 1787].
Hamilton’s reasoning invites three analytical considerations: (a) dictates of reason, (b) dictates of justice, and (c) without constraint. A good example of the first (i.e., dictates of reason) is: asking if it’s reasonable to harm someone who is not attempting to harm, or else, is harming you? To answer that question honestly you must think in terms of being the victim and victimizer. Accordingly, from a victim’s viewpoint it’s unreasonable for someone to harm you who you’re not harming or attempting to harm. But from a victimizer’s point of view, it would be reasonable for you to harm someone who isn’t harming or attempting to harm you providing that you achieve a benefit that – otherwise – would not be available. For example, robing a person to buy heroin is something people do to harm another person because they’re addicted to the drug and need it to avoid excruciating withdrawal symptoms. Just to make the point that: a lot of people have what they feel are good reasons to harm another person. Regardless of their method or the reward they’ll receive the motivating factor for them to do the harm is always, “the benefit they intend to get out of it.” A good example of the second (i.e., the dictates of justice) is: to insure their success at harming another person and benefitting from it, prior to them committing the act, they’ll try to eliminate the consequences. Finally, the third (i.e., without constraint) involves: Law and enforcement of law. Both, necessary to establish which acts a person commits within the society they’re living are punishable and to what degree by a select group of individuals who become elected and appointed, “government lawmakers and enforcement officers.” In other words, no constraint – that is – the victimizer’s lack of moral convictions, respect for the law, and no one else’s intervention is what encourages them to commit criminal offenses against others.
B. Analysis of James Madison’s Reasoning on Absolute Government Power
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the difficulty lies in thist: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." James Madison [Quote: from the Federalist Paper 51, published Feb. 6, 1788].
Madison’s reasoning presents two outcome situations: (a) what will be the outcome if the citizens of a society give a select group of individuals among them absolute government authority and power to control them? and (b) what will be the outcome if that select group of individuals fail to administer their absolute authority and power to control themselves? Our analysis given of Hamilton’s reasoning effectively answers these questions. Yet, a more precise way to explain it is: The outcome will result with the citizens of that society becoming victims and their government lawmakers and their police officers becoming their victimizers.
C. Analysis of John Locke’s Reasoning on the Legality of Citizenry Revolt
In 1690 John Locke wrote, “Two Treaties of Government.” Within it, (paraphrased here), he reasoned: “If legislature took a path of tyranny they would put themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.”
Locke essentially reasons that: when government law makers (i.e., legislators) invent laws that usurp a fundamental right that belongs to the citizenry of a society, or else, which, oppresses them, effectively terminates the “compliance of authority agreement” existing between the citizens, their government legislators, and law enforcement officers before the law maker's exceeded the authority and powers the original contract afforded them.
Under those circumstances war ensuing between the citizenry and government becomes imminent because even though the lawmakers exceeded the authority of their office and powers towards the citizens injury their law enforcement officers have been trained to use police force to make those injured citizens comply with whatever their superiors demand. Consequently, the citizens are forced to engage in a defense battle against their law enforcement aggressors.
D. Analyzing Your Willingness to Execute the First One of Your Constitutional Militia Rights
The reason citizens have had to be fed up with what their state and federal government office holders are doing is essentially because: no citizen has agreed to pay them taxes for legal wrongs and human injustices to be done to them by those government office holders; also, because: it’s depressing to feel helpless to do anything except tolerate the legal wrongs and human injustices government officer holders commit and go unpunished for.
Accordingly, the underlying question is: 1. Has the tyranny of government officials and police become insane enough for us to no longer tolerate it? 2. Are we upset with them bad enough to take the first step in executing our constitutional militia right to petition against their oppressive acts of tyranny? And 3. How much worse must their insanity become before you’re willing to personally take that step?