A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Well first let me bask in the glow of you stating that I do actually possess a right to bear arms.
The reason I have the right to bear arms is not because there is a 2nd Amendment. I have the right to arms because no power was ever granted to the federal government to allow it to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen. The 2nd Amendment does not grant or create the right, it merely recognizes it and redundantly forbids the feds to exercise powers it was never granted (an exception to powers never granted).
To remind you, there was a debate over whether to even add a bill of rights. There was a couple years when there was no recognition of any rights, is it your contention that the people had no federal rights between December 7, 1787 and December 15, 1791?
I do not claim my rights emanate from any supernatural being, just that they are inherent in humans simply because of our capability of reason.
Because only the USA was established on the following foundational constitutional principles . . .
a) all governmental power originally resides in, and is derived from, We the People
b) government possesses only the limited powers specifically conferred to it by, We the People
c) all powers not surrendered by We the People, are retained by them (rights) and there exist certain powers over one's self that are too important to ever be surrendered to another person (un/inalienable rights)
d) government only exercises those limited powers with the consent of We the People, to perform only the specific duties assigned to it
e) if government violates the compact it is no longer "the government established by the Constitution" and has lost the legitimacy to govern
f) when that occurs the government is subject to We the People rescinding our consent to be governed and reclaiming the powers once conferred -- with violence if necessary
The right to consent to be governed is a meaningless concept if the right to rescind that consent isn't actionable . . . And that is what the 2nd Amendment secures.
METH!
Nordberg (12-27-2017)
I don't have any problem with saying that bearing arms means their use in organized battle.
You think that only encompasses one's duty in an official militia in service of a functioning government . . . But to say one has a "right" to fulfill a duty is kindasorta stupid.
I believe that it is a "right to bear arms" which means, as I wrote just above, to use them if and when we rescind our consent to be governed and retake the powers we originally granted to government. No doubt, the mass of armed citizens working in unison in conflict would meet any definition you could conjure of bearing arms.
Madison spoke of the armed citizenry fighting the federal armed forces. He said that the largest "standing army" that could be maintained would only amount to 1% of the total number of souls. He said then in a nation of 3 million, that would give the feds at most a force of 25,000 to 30,000 men. Madison said that those troops would be "opposed" by "500,000 citizens with arms in their hands".
In modern times we have expanded on Madison's 17 to 1 ratio to about 25 armed citizens opposing each member of the active and reserve "standing army".
I say that's awesome and that ratio is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was "intended" to preserve.
Yep, the US Constitution is the "supreme law of the land."
That said,
The PA. Constitution was ratified September 28, 1776.
The US Constitution was ratified by all 13 states by 1790.
(The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.)
If that's true, tell us, oh knowledgeable one of all things constitutional, why would the state of PA. (along with the others) knowingly ratify any Constitution or the Bill Of Rights for the country that would in any way dispute it's own constitution?
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Bookmarks