reply to post by bknapple32
Sorry bknapple32 but your statement itself is to simplistic and inaccurate.
The 2nd amendment was not made in time of war. It was made after the war was long over. This Consitution of the United States is the second government
we have had here after the failed Articles of Confederation which was in effect for some 10 years. The Articles failed precisely because they were
feudal in nature and had no checks and balances. They did not protect the rights of individuals but only the feudal power of government. This is a
history not often taught in public schools next to the significance of it. The revolutionary war was over when the Constitution of the United States
The Second Amendment and others were in fact put in there as a result of what the British had done in the Revolutionary war...the Third Amendment
too...quartering soldiers in a persons home without thier blessing. Search and siezure..fourth Amendment. Forced to bear witness against ones self.
Fifth Amendment. Inability to peacably assemble..First Amendment.
Nonetheless these are all limits on government.
All attempts by governments..state. local, and federal have been to chip away at these rights..slowly and sometimes imperceptably...piece by piece..by
regulating them ..eventually till they are in name only and you then have the Law of the Soverign. Mischief has taken place by the Wisdom and Sophism
of Learned Men...Men of Letters. Except that by then the Rights no longer exist ..except on some museum piece of a paper.
None of this will be taught in public schools next to the significance of what it means to the public..but only what Government ..financing of public
education desires to be taught.
I take it that you also know that polls have been taken amongst our soldiers ....if they would be willing to enforce law by gunpoint against our own
people. The polls failed miserably. If this is going to be done here it will most likely be done by foreign soldiers ..operating under the UN
If only the far leaning could see that this gun legislation is just to control it for safety and nothing more.
to control something means you can change the rules as necessary ..and for whatever reasons. The most untrustworthy entity ever has always been
government...no exceptions. This is historically demonstratable.
Dear sir, gun rights are not GOD GIVEN. They are given to you by your government. God did not write the constitution, MEN DID. The United
States OF America gives you your right to a gun, no one else. And anyone saying otherwise is delusional.
bknapple32..the quote above ...is delusional...simply because of what is stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution...
Inalienable means not given by men...not able to be taken away. THey were there before the document was written...the documents only reiterate what
Life liberty and the persuit of Happiness..inalienable rights..
Persuit of Happiness means the right to own and acquire private property. Guns are private property.
When you state that these rights are given by government and men...you make certain men ..demigods...Feudal Lords..and you are back to LoneWeasel's
position. Demigods is a religion as is Feudalism. Some men Lording over others..by rank and privelege. Totally against the charter of this government
and American principles.
How do you misinterpret a simple concept as written..inalienable rights??
The founders went on to catalogue these inaleinable rights as limits on government Mischief..in the Bill of Rights...particularly the first 10
Amendments. All of them limits on government..not the people.
Congratulations, I have not read the works of Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense". I have, some years ago, read the Federalist Papers by Hamilton,
Madison, and John Jay.
I have also been under tutorage of the Constitution of the United States by Elders who did not totally sucumbed to public education standards.
I think you completely misrepresent the way my "sovereign nation" works - but frankly that's irrelevant to this topic. I don't think the
British and American attitude to individual rights are quite so different as you imply - even if our antiquated judiciary to some extent supports your
Our laws come from two different origins...while not totally different..what is significant is the concept of Admiralty Maritime law....suits at
Admiralty. This has to do with priveleges not rights.
Admiralty Maritime Law has its origins in Feudalism..priveleges granted by the Sovereign...not rights.
More and more as time trasnpires here in America ..more and more laws and regulations are done on the basis of Admiralty Maritime Law principles.
Priveleges granted by the Sovereign..in this case the government.
Priveleges are very different from rights.
I have not misrepresented the way the laws work. One is the appearance of rights but are actually priveleges granted by a Sovereign. Priveleges can be
removed...revoked at the will of the Sovereign.
The other has to do with inalienable rights not granted by men or a government but already were in existance before the government ever was.
As I've also already said, my own personal convictions are not relevant here, except in as much as they supply me with understanding of the
undeniable train of logic behind those who would ban private ownership of weapons.
This is double speak. Logic does not trump rights...unless you are trying to mix rights with priveleges like a Pharisee...as they superimposed the
traditions of men over the Law of Moses as if it was the Law of Moses ...when it was in fact no such thing.
A counterfit LoneWeasel..is not the opposite of the real thing..but as close to the real thing so as to pass for the real thing and substitute itself
for the real thing when it in fact is not ...the real thing.
Logic and reason is not the same thing as inalienable rights. Thinking people know this..emoting people do not.
Are you like Homer Simpson in the opening credits to the Simpsons, then (who says I don't have a grasp of American culture)...
I dont watch the Simpsons. I watch little television as I find most of it insulting and debasing. Homer Simpson is not a good grasp on American
Culture nor is television.
My point in mentioning my occupation is to get you to understand that in my line of work..we do not live to emotions or drama...to do so can get one
badly hurt or killed. When we go to work we must live in the real world..not the world of second hand values or thinking...and most certainly not
drama. Drama queens will not survive this line of work.
Mind you now..this does not make us better than others..only different.
But it also makes many of us well aware of the nonsense of government and those who would push a government position in the trust category.
It makes us well aware that we need to be very dubious about the real position and tendency. of government....Feudalism.
One of the faults of Civilized humans ..especially in affluent cultures...and especially us Americans ..is that we live very vicarious lives today.
We live second hand television/movie lives.
I have noted among my Fellow Americans a marked tendency to measure and describe a moral principle or concept in terms of some movie or television
program they have watched. Their thoughts are television and movie thoughts...someone elses thoughts. It is stamped out like on a xerox machine. They
have movie and televison emotions too.
I have noted here in America that the programming on most of television is very poor...the commercial appeal is actually more original than the
television programming. And that is quite pitiful as I find much of the commercial appeal just as insulting and debasing as the programming.
Hope this helps to clarify LoneWeasel.