I would like to expound on a discussion I brought up on Facebook that was inspired by a Freedom Feens podcast under a thread self-titled THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE “RIGHT” TO VOTE. This short article is also my rebuttal to Mike Rowes recent article titled "Mike Rowe: Encouraging Everyone to Vote Is Like Telling Everyone to Buy a Gun"

Being Able to Vote is Not a Constitutional Right.

Voting was never given as a Constitutional right of the American citizen. Wait! What did this crazy fool just say? Yeah, that's right. It is not a Constitutional right. A few of the framers of the Constitution referred to a right as “natural law”. This, too, is how I see it.

We are not born with the innate desire to be ruled by others simply by electing someone to rule over us. Voting to be governed, as the French judge, author, and founder of modern day political philosophy Etienne de Lo Boetie defined it, is “voluntary servitude”. Voting is part of a statist system. The system that desires to brow beat you in to place, take your home through the law of imminent domain, influence your children to become statists in the public school system funded by the government, refuse to release truths and instead release lies to further their agenda… Ooops, I have digressed. Sorry.

Allow me to get back on track by quoting from a very informative website ran by Steve Mount here that will explain the very poignant fact that voting is not a right given to an American citizen by the Constitution:

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the ‘most numerous branch’ of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by ‘the People,’ and who comprises ‘the People’ has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that the ability to vote can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the ability to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

Let me take this argument toward the subject of speech for just a moment to make a point. The framers realized that expression and speech are natural rights that you are born with. You are born with the innate desire to express your thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc. To withhold this very natural right of being human would be to suppress and break the spirit of the being within the human. However, if we withhold the ability for you to vote we break no natural connection in human freedom and voting.

Being allowed to vote is not a natural right as speech or expression is. Being allowed to vote is a statist manufactured false sense of freedom. The statist system allows you to vote so you can have the illusion of being able to “choose” your avenues towards maintaining your “freedom” and have a sense that your vote “counts” for something.

Being allowed this false sense of freedom helps to make the slave-citizen feel worthwhile, productive and useful. All of which helps keep the slave-citizen in check in a way that most of them are not privy to understand. If the government can keep the slave-citizen in check they are much easier to control and can then use the slave-citizen’s productivity for the governments own means.

From my view it is clear this is the case and the views of many greater minds than my own agree on the matter of voting as a false freedom as well.

Bearing Arms is a Constitutional Right and A Natural Right.

Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights states that “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."

The framers were doing their best do to a few things in this amendment. First, was their fear that anti-federalists also held with their “concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.”

It is a right of the people of a free state to be allowed the option to arm themselves in the case that the state of which they reside in were to face certain harm from any source that might cause such harm to the freedom of that state in the form of militarized violence. The anti-federalists acknowledged this as did the framers of the Bill of Rights. If you disarm the citizens, the citizens are useless to protect themselves from “a politicized standing army” if the reason were to arise to do so. On another note the framers were also simply looking for a way to garner support from the existing anti-federalists.

We are each born with the innate desire to protect ourselves by any means necessary. Call it survival of the fittest or call it the desire to live. Each of us is born to live and survive. If it means doing so by the means of protecting our lives than that is the final effect. This is a natural right. Just as it is a law of nature that animals have some way of protecting themselves naturally. People are not so fortunate to be born with a natural ability apart from teeth, fists, feet, ingenuity and more brain matter.

The Second Amendment is not in the Bill of Rights simply for those who like to shoot guns for target practice, hunt animals and feel secure. It was placed for the intent purpose that if a politicized military or militia were to rise up the People would have the means of protecting themselves by returning bullet for bullet. Let that sink in, please, before you read on.

The right to bear arms is more important than the “right” to vote. You cannot protect yourself from voting fraud, the puppeteers who pull the strings on elections or the policies that are voted into law. You can protect yourself, by the stock of a gun, from the aggressor who desires to force you into a political and social situation that is considered an act of aggression; whether the act of aggression comes from your own country or from abroad. You cannot “vote” these situations out of existence. You can stand your ground with one of the few freedoms you are granted and this is by owning a firearm for the protection of home, state and nation.

*Note about the author- The author in no way condones useless acts of violence, gun laws, and/or the use of force at the barrel of a gun or war. The author believes in peace, but understands the importance of protection offered by gun ownership against those who would mean to do great harm. Peace and diplomacy by all means necessary first; protection of self and family when absolutely necessary.