Tuesday, June 9, 2009


By Ron Ewart
President/ National Association of Rural Landowners
© Copyright June 7, 2009 - All Rights Reserved

Radical national and international environmentalists, the United Nations, the European Union and the U. S. Congress have all adopted the policy commonly known as the "Precautionary Principle", which goes like this: "..... if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action."
The principle implies that there is a responsibility for the government to intervene and protect the public, or the environment, from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a "plausible" risk (that could be anything folks) in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. (If they screen at all) The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation (but new scientific findings are never found). In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law. (Clever these Europeans. We saved their butts, twice, and they are still trying to convert us to their distorted, socialist ideology.)
Nevertheless, we can virtually guarantee you that even if new scientific evidence emerged to make a law, limits or prohibitions unnecessary, there would be no desire on the part of politicians to undo the law. One only need look at the increasing science against man caused global warming. In spite of the mounting evidence against it, the United States Government is still moving ahead to enact CO2 emission limits and cap and trade legislation.
Here is another principle in politics: "Once a law, always a law." Laws don't get repealed unless the "people" force the politicians to do it.
But this so-called precautionary principle, isn't a principle at all. It is an irrational policy by government to do whatever it damn well pleases, under the guise of taking or preventing some action, usually in the form of a new law to control the people, even if there is no compelling evidence that such action, or preventing such action, is necessary. They just arbitrarily do it. CO2 emission limits and cap and trade legislation to slow down or stop the fraud that is man-caused global warming, are two of the more glaring examples of this "principle". Much of environmental protection passed by the U. S. Congress under the Environmental Protection Agency, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Restoration act, the Marine Mammals protection Act and the Salmon Recovery Act etc., fall into this irrational category. International environmental treaties have been ratified by our Congress using this insane rationale. So essentially, the United States has done what the European Union has done and has incorporated the "Precautionary Principle" into American law. The American people had absolutely no say in the matter.
However, the Founding Fathers had a different version of the Precautionary Principle and it was embedded in the Declaration of Independence in the second paragraph: "..... that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness ....... and ..... then the Framers codified their all-encompassing precautionary principle into the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, wherein it states: "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 Founding Fathers not only believed that government would increase its powers over time, but had 2,000 years of history to prove that it has happened in virtually every culture. Thus, their precautionary principle against government increasing its power to the point of tyranny, was to make sure that Americans would be armed in such event. So why then would government, whose sworn duty is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, be in such a hurry to relieve you of that right and take your guns away, or make gun ownership impotent by taking your ammunition away, or making it too expensive? They are doing it for the simple reason to strip you of your power, contained in the Founding Father's precautionary principle, so as to increase their power and have nothing to fear from you.
If we allow government to repeal the second Amendment by whatever means, the American People's Precautionary Principle, our only recourse against rising tyranny may be what the colonials had to do against the dictatorial rule of King George the III. It is our firm hope that it never comes to that, but like all alternatives, the least desired alternative must be considered as a final course of action, if all other alternatives fail.
If you would like to learn more about the "Precautionary Principle", we encourage you to read a 1999 article in the Reason Magazine entitled "Precautionary Tale". You'll get an idea on how the environmental movement has been and is using this so-called principle to effect law and legislation in every country on the planet. The following paragraph is an excerpt from the article:
"At this year's (1999) annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim, California, in a symposium titled "The Precautionary Principle: A Revolution in Environmental Policymaking?", environmental advocates and academics insisted that a principle of ultimate precaution should trump all other considerations in future environmental and technological policy making. They pointed out that the Principle has already been incorporated into several international treaties, including the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, which require developed nations to cut back dramatically on the burning of fossil fuels to reduce the putative threat of global warming. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is already using it to help guide its promulgation of new regulations on synthetic chemicals."
Access Reason Magazine article at: http://www.reason.com/news/show/30977.html.
All most all governments, including the U. S. Government, have bought into this environmentalist scam, hook, line and sinker. That is why it is still absolutely necessary, if freedom is to prevail, that we perpetually maintain and protect America's older version of the Precautionary Principle, the Second Amendment as a precaution against, well you know ...........
Ron Ewart

No comments: