slug.com slug.com

6 4

More of me Thinking out Loud - a response to someone on FB calling for a reinterpretation / nullification of our 2nd amendment.

Jefferson would be shocked by a lot of things in this century. I have heard the arguments stating that the US Constitution is a "living document". I believe Jefferson and most other men who signed that document would scoff at that idea.
Boiled down to its most basic elements that idea means the Constitution is or can be pretty much anything a ruling politician or political party wishes it to be at any given moment. It basically nullifies the codification of Rule of Law and puts everything into a container of whimsical and arbitrary rule - which is to say Gov't itself would function exactly like a Monarchy.
The "law" would be whatever the ruling class wants it to be at any given time.
The SCOTUS seems to disagree with your views on the 2nd amendment. No need for me to say anything further about that.
Where you and I might agree is that people ought to know better than to carry firearms while carrying out their 1st amendment right to demonstrate.
The finer point here is not "what the law says" because you and I both know that we all - you, me, certainly politicians - try to bend it (the law) according to our own personal ideas and wants; no the finer point is that our "God given Rights" indeed our very privileges as Citizens of USA come with a burden of personal responsibility.
That is to say we hold the responsibility to act as Americans first and foremost and above our impulses to carry on as a bunch of self identified special interest groups. I think that would be appalling to Thomas Jefferson. I think Jefferson would be shocked to see people actively trying to destroy USA by eroding its moral character - or at least the set of morals upon which Jefferson et al attempted to use as a foundation upon which to codify a "Just" and righteous Nation of by and for The People.
I think the people who carry firearms while demonstrating SHOULD BE BETTER - KNOW BETTER. But like the people who choose to trample on our Flag; "take a knee" during the singing of the National Anthem, Say the most outrageous, libelous, hateful things about the POTUS (or anyone with whom they disagree politically) I disagree with them but I defend their constitutional Rights to do so. Just because a person has a Constitutional Right to do something does not make it a good idea to do certain things in certain places at certain times.
One thing I learned fairly early in life is that "common sense" really is not common - at all. Too many people operate on and act on their emotions all too often - IMHO more often than not.
I agree with you and others who worry that sooner or later "something bad" is likely to happen when people carry firearms while demonstrating. But I don't think it's a good idea to nullify the 2nd amendment over things that "might" happen.
Short of a condition of legally called Martial Law I do NOT think it's a good idea to disarm the American People. Gov't overreach, and abuse of gov't power are always prescient. I am reminded of the tragic shooting at Kent State back in 1970 (?) - that is a perfect example of a politician making a grave error in judgement. But more importantly, it is a perfect illustration of how quickly the Gov't - our own Gov't officials can and WILL turn violent against We the People. Which is really at the heart of why the 2nd amendment exists in the first place.

iThink 9 May 6
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

The only thing saving the world at the minute is the US president and the second amendment, they have all gone brain dead here, don't let them take your guns, it's the only line of defence the people have against total control.

0

In some ways it IS a living constitution--and was intended to be--and in other ways its a written structural design for where general sovereignty is absolute and where State sovereignty is limited. The BoR adds additional limitations (or, more correctly, clarifications on the idea of absolute) on the general sovereignty, especially with the 9th and 10th. Most people will agree that an amendment wasn't required to establish the Air Force, though the constitution only provides specifically for raising an army and maintaining a navy. There is some interpretive flexibility assumed, and I'm fairly certain it was intended as written and ratified.

0

Convention of States! Restore the pre-1942 Constitution, and vacate the 17th Amendment.

Would you be supporting that if most state legislators were democrats?

@Pand0ro, Yup. Of course they have so much to lose that they will fight it ferociously.

Sorry, what I meant was would you support it if most state legislators were democratic and had the power to select only democratic candidates?

@Pand0ro, It would mean a less direct approach, but yes, I would and do push for CoS. In Colorado, which has a Democrat Governor straight out of the Gavin Newsom mold, I am working as best I can to push for it. With enough states, and enough support, it will not matter if Democrats oppose it.

1

It is a living document. They are called amendments.

3

I have to respectfully disagree. To me rights are like muscles, and if you don't freely exercise those muscles, you lose them.
Protesting while exercising your 2nd amendment rights. Reminds the tyrants in government why and how this country was founded.
I think our founders would be ashamed of how apathetic we have become.
Our founders would already have taken up arms and tried a second revolution.
25 trillion in debt. Taxed 2 and 3 times for the same money. Federal reserve, income tax, property tax, Patriot act, NDAA. Not to mention social security, and Medicaid.
They themselves reminded us that every so often we should water the tree of liberty with the tyrants blood to secure and keep our freedom.
When people are scared of the government it's tyranny. Which is what we have today.
By your own admission you are scared the government will commit violence against people protesting while carrying guns. That's the exact reason why we should do it
When government is scared of the people. That's liberty.
Being able tonpwn and carry guns is the only reason we are as free as we are. Which isn't so free anymore

Be careful what you wish for. The implementation of your ideas in search of liberty will make us another Afghanistan where we will be free to do what our local warlord tells us to do, or die.

1

Have you seen this article? Facebook ‘Supreme Court’ Packed with Anti-Trump, Progressive Figures[breitbart.com]

Facebook has released a list of the first 20 members of its “Oversight Board,” a semi-independent body the social network is setting up that will have the power to decide whether content banned by Facebook stays banned or is restored on appeal. Members include the former editor-in-chief of the Guardian and a “human rights expert” who is part of George Soros’ Open Society project.

No surprises there then...

Who are the other 18 members and what are their political leanings?

All of that just hastens Facebook's inevitable march to irrelevance.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:95500
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.