Originally Posted by robocop10mm
I will get off my soap box now and get back to work.
I respectfully disagree in whole and in part.
The Constitution has never 'morphed'.Its written in plain English that anyone who reads and speaks English at a grade school level can understand.
The Constitution IS NOT
a 'living document subject to modern interpretation'; it does not 'morph' with the 'modern times';it is the Supreme Law of this land AS WRITTEN
and UNLESS AMENDED
As there has been no amending of the Second Amendment since the ratification of the Constitution,all 'infringement' -'regulation','legislation','prohibition'- is illegitimate and illegal.
The only REAL
limit on the rights enumerated are when a person abuses the rights of others.Not when nanny state says so.Not when some pompous politician decides its time for more 'control'.
Our rights are only limited by the rights of others.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
When the Constitution was written,there was never any provision in it denoting '"free, White, over 21 and a property owner".The meaning of 'people' was the American People.Has been and always will be.What was in the Constitution then,is in the Constitution now.Excepting a few amendments,that is.
Unfortunately,when the Constitution was ratified,slaves were not considered 'American people'.The history of slavery and emancipation is a demonstration of our struggle as a people to live up to our ideals as a nation;ideals which are most eloquently described in The Declaration of Independence,where Thomas Jefferson wrote that -
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence
As to property ownership or age being a requirement of natural rights-thats just not true.Founders like Samuel Adams were very poor-yet his rights were fully acknowledged by the Constitution and his peers-the other Founding Fathers.
Many men fought and died carrying arms in the Revolution who were well under the age of 18,and who owned no property.
Yet they were men.With rights.Rights they would rather die defending then surrender to a tyrant.
First,in determining the meaning of our Constitution one must understand the history of our nation at the time it was written.Said the Father of the Constitution-
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
Then,in determining a more appropriate application of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to individual liberty,one must first understand what the definition of 'inalienable' or 'unalienable' is.
Inalienable - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Basically,it means inseparable.
Government can not permanently separate a person from their inalienable,natural rights.
The very attributes of natural rights is that even if government were to attempt to 'regulate' and even 'prohibit' and remove a person of those rights permanently,they are still there.Were born with them.
For example-the right to bear arms.
Even with all the government regulation in the world-people still have guns.Look at Mexico.
Look at the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of the Holocaust-
Even when an evil government (the Nazis) strips its people of the right to arms and then systematically attempts to murder them-they still find a way to arm themselves if they are desperate enough and their hearts are strong.
This is because the right to keep and bear arms is in fact a recognition of the natural,inalienable right to self defense.Our Second Amendment is a recognition and an enumeration of a natural right,an expounded natural state of being that recognizes the natural right of self defense and the proclivities of humans to use tools -arms- to facilitate it.
Government can no more deny the natural right of self defense,'regulate' it or 'prohibit' it,then they can change the color of the grass.
This is why government is told that it may not 'infringe' on the right to keep and bear arms.
This means that IT IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT
"the proper place for the Government to place restrictions on certain liberties when those liberties create other serious problems."
It is the proper role of government to deal with violations of one persons rights by another-NOT
regulate rights that 'create problems'.
Government,by acting to 'preempt' a 'problem' and 'keep us safe',is acting outside of the color of its charter and Constitutional law-government is supposed to be limited,not a baby sitting nanny that endangers the liberties of all over the actions of a few.
By acting this way,government itself becomes a bigger problem than the issues at hand,by circumventing liberty and usurping power where none is granted,it grows to encompass all aspects of our lives to 'protect us' and because it 'knows whats best for us'-until the only liberty we have is to choose which government mandated health insurance premium to pay.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety...."
The specific 'problems' mentioned in making government obey its charter are children buying weapons,convicts owning weapons,and people owning serious artillery.These are actually all arguments used by 'gun control' advocates against the unfettered liberty of the natural right to bear arms in ones self defense.
First,it is the proper role of the parent to deal with their children.Not government.If the parent fails in that role and someone is hurt by that child,then the parent is liable.Its that simple.
No one will ever be able to justify to me the restrictions and possible evils of 'gun control' to keep 'dangerous people' from owning guns.First of all,because it doesnt work-someone contemplating murder or robbing a bank could care less about 'gun charges',second,because laws like this do more to create a situation where government has control of an inalienable right to the point where you literally must beg permission to excersize it-setting a precedent of creating government regulated privileges out of natural rights.
“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
As to people who simply cannot be in a free society without doing egregious harm to innocent people and violating their rights-
Those dangerous people belong behind bars,or otherwise PERMANANTLY
removed from society so that they may not pose a threat.
But heres a paradox-
While removed from society,their rights still exist.BUT.They are separated from their ability to excersize their rights,and if someone is so dangerous as they cant ever be out in public-say like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy-then they must be permanently -LAWFULLY
via individual due process- kept under lock and key.Or executed.
I actually prefer they be executed.Less burden on the taxpayer.Less chance some scumbag politician will let them out because of some misguided altruistic belief in 'rehabilitation'.
They commit heinous 'mala en se' crimes depriving people of their rights,they forfeit their own rights.Including the right to life.
Letting dangerous people out on the streets and telling them its unlawful for them to keep or bear arms will not prevent them from hurting more people,and no matter how many times a slimy politician justifies 'gun control' with the criminal element as their example for its necessity;no matter how many laws they write in their misguided attempt to 'save the children',they will not stop a determined evil doer from doing evil unless they remove that person from society.Period.
When someone does something evil-violates the rights of another person,and government is called on to deal with them-they must deal with the person on an individual basis,not write blanket laws that attempt 'regulation' or 'control' over wide swaths of the natural rights of the people of this nation.
Our Constitution was written by a people who had just fought off the will and total control of tyrants,it was written to form a limited government under law,a Republic,that within its jurisdiction recognized the natural,inalienable rights and liberties that is inherent in all mankind,and formed a government restricted under law to defend those liberties.
The very machinations and manipulations of government to usurp authority to enact 'gun control' are such that they prove it is Constitutionally illegitimate.Government is not there to pre-empt crime by legislating natural rights into government administrated privileges.NO WHERE
in the Constitution is granted the government the authority to regulate arms.Not in the Commerce Clause,and certainly not in the meaning or intent of the Second Amendment.Quite the opposite in fact.
And only via the clever manipulations of statist lawyers has that 'power' been 'granted'-in other words,criminals have committed treason by usurping for themselves power that they do not lawfully have,essentially.
"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.