You Are Here: Home » News » 2nd Amendment » Las Vegas vs. Catalonia: De-centralized vs. centralized violence

Las Vegas vs. Catalonia: De-centralized vs. centralized violence

Las Vegas vs. Catalonia: De-centralized vs. centralized violence

“”If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton,¬†Federalist No. 28″

Alexander Hamilton could have easily been talking about what took place a week ago in the Catalonia region of Spain last weekend when ‘representatives’ of the central government betrayed their constituents who attempted to conduct a Democratic referendum for independence.¬† However, because nearly every government in the world has over time removed the right of their citizens to own firearms, the people have for the most part become slaves to that government without the capacity to implement a final resolution of redress against an ‘elected’ or ‘unelected’ tyranny.

A week ago Sunday, the world had the opportunity to see first hand two separate types of violence.¬† The first occurred when the Spanish government sent in armed military and national guard troops to hinder the people from conducting a referendum vote for Independence.¬† The results were¬†more than 750 injured including old men and women.¬† The second event took place thousands of miles away in Las Vegas, NV where allegedly a ‘long wolf gun man’ with no history of violence fired thousands of rounds at a packed concert,¬†killed over 50 people and injuring another 500.

Yet if you take both of these events at their face value you discover an interesting dichotomy… one act of violence is considered by the courts to be lawful while the other is designated as a criminal act.

Max Weber coined the phrase that governments have a monopoly on violence, and are the arbiters of not only who is allowed to conduct it, but they also have the power to determine which is legal and which is illegal no matter if the death and injury tolls are the same.  And this is the very essence of why a Second Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution because the European history of centralized violence by governments on their people made them virtual slaves if they did not have the power to usurp corrupt and tyrannical governments using de-centralized violence (the right of the people to use guns).

Image result for clinton body bag list

In Medieval times the King made it unlawful for peasants to use weapons such as crossbows because they had the power to defend against armored knights who quite often used violence to rape, pillage, and even kill without impunity on their own orders, or using permission from the government.  And over time innovations such as gun erased the advantages those who conducted centralized violence had over the people.

Whether it is a state intelligence agency conducting illegal wara in Libya, Syria, or Honduras, or a militia like the National Guard killing college students at Kent State, one does not have to be a psychopath or sociopath to use violence to achieve political or personal agendas.  And likewise, one or two sane or insane individuals over the course of a year conducting their own criminal violence on individuals or specific groups of people has no relevance to the 190 million Americans who lawfully own guns, but have never once used them for personal gain or benefit.

Yet in each of these cases the power to kill unlawfully has been made legal for one group and institution, but illegal for the other.  And this is why the Second Amendment was created by the founders because the power to protect, is the power to have liberty.

On Oct. 1 2017 a lone shooter killed close to 60 people.  Since the beginning of the year U.S. funded and led insurgents have killed over 5300 innocent civilians alone in Syria.  Why is one of these events viewed with outrage while the other is summarily ignored, even if the deaths created by each were just as illegal?

Kenneth Schortgen Jr is a writer for The Daily Economist, Secretsofthefed.com, Roguemoney.net, and Viral Liberty, and hosts the popular youtube podcast on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Ken can also be heard Wednesday afternoons giving an weekly economic report on the Angel Clark radio show.


Comments

comments

© 2012 Secrets of the Fed