Originally Posted by robocop10mm
OK Josh...when you missed the point in the first sentence, I pretty much quit reading anything you posted.
I never said the Constitution had morphed. I said the definition of "people" had morphed. But, since you brought it up I contend that it has. Have you never heard of a Constitutional Amendment? Of course you have. You have heard of the 2nd. There are a few more that have been ratified over the years that have CHANGED the Constitution. Is that not one of the definitions of "Morph"? Hell, they had to "change" it with the first 10 Amendments just to get it ratified in the first place.
Trust me for the most part you are preaching to the choir when trying to convince me of the importance of the Bill of Rights, ALL ten of them!
If you want to take the hard line and advocate "Nukes for Newborns", then you are not going to get much support even with NRA Life Members.
I'm not trying to offend you,dictate your position to you,or direct my posts at you personally.You certainly dont have to read anything I say.But I am in the habit of pointing out very strongly where I believe the 'system' as it is, is in fact a 'corrupt,bastardized form of government'- and I tend to do that when the lines of what is legal and legitimate Constitutional Government and what is not get 'lost in translation'.
Please excuse my vehemence.
There is a fine line between lawfully amending the Constitution, and the 'living document' lie,which is a legal fabrication of no use to anyone but in 'finding' newfound authority for the central government.
One is clearly legal,one is clearly not,as one is provided for in the Constitution as the proper way to change the law,the other is a fabrication of those that wish to circumvent and violate the Constitution.
The 'morphing' of the definition of any part of our understanding of the Constitution - like the meaning of people,or rather-exactly who the Constitution applies to- is directly related to that illegitimate manipulation.
'People' has never meant a 'privileged class' of 'citizens with rights','landowners' a specific race or a monied elite in American Constitutional law.
'We the people' has always meant people within the legal jurisdiction of our government,and to this day still means the same.What this means is that the inalienable rights of all men are not only granted to citizens by their being born here-but that within our jurisdiction the inalienable rights of ALL people must be observed by government.
The relationship between American Citizens and people LEGALLY within the jurisdiction of America and the government is the same,because the necessity of government to obey the Constitution is the same.
The relationship between the government and the Constitution does not change with regard to who the government is dealing with,and this is because the Constitution is the supreme law that EVERYONE,even -and most especially- the government,must obey in America.
America has struggled with this especially in regard to slavery,but no man and no nation is perfect.
I would contend that 'slaves' were people who SHOULD HAVE had their rights recognized all along,but that the errors of state and of law denied them wrongfully these rights.
The United States government and all governments within the jurisdiction of the United States are bound by law to respect the inalienable rights of man.
It is both erroneous and wrongful for the government to assume any authority over the inalienable rights of mankind in America-we still struggle with this reality today.
In effect-the meaning of 'people' is less important than the meaning of the role of government in relation to its authority over ANYONE LAWFULLY within its jurisdiction.
My point is this-the Second Amendment was never amended,it means what it says and says what it means,it is a direct prohibition on government perpetrating any 'infringement' of the right to keep and bear arms.
Over the years,many clever schmucks with law degrees have managed to carve out power for the government to regulate arms where that power simply doesn't exist-the Commerce Clause for example.
The commerce clause is there because the preceding form of government,Americas first government as a nation -Confederacy-
did not provide proper control over trade between the states,and problems with outlandish tariffs arose.Its purpose,and un-amended utility from the ratification to today-is simply that-to provide a regular form of trade between the states and with the nation as a whole,there is no other purpose or meaning for it except that carefully crafted by those who would make it mean something it most certainly was never meant to mean.
The all-encompassing nature of government today believing everything under the sun is 'commerce related' including your health care plan is a direct result of the bastardization of government power by those misguided into believing big government can fix all woes.
I believe 'gun control' is also falsely 'justified' via the "new and improved interpretation" of the 'commerce clause'.
Because guns travel in interstate commerce,the government can tell you who can own what,and make you ask permission to buy each individual item,essentially regulating the Second Amendment into the government controlled oblivion of what is it?
Why have enumerated duties clearly listed in the Constitution which specifically define the role of government in the first place,if the government was to have such unlimited power?
Why even have a Constitution to define the role of government when it seems so ready and willing to do that for itself?
Please read the following-
Endless Power and the Death of Freedom
In the 1942 case, Wickard v Fillburn, commerce was applied to a farmer who did not even move his wheat off his farm or even sell it, under the logic that consuming his own wheat affected interstate commerce. Had he not grown it he would have had to purchase wheat, which would have affected the price thereof. This distortion created a precedent that flawed every other Supreme Court decision with regard to commerce since then – and reversed the Founders’ definition by 180 degrees.
The word “commerce” has wrongly been interpreted by the Supreme Court to cover “every species of movement of persons or things, whether for profit or not; every species of communications, every species of transmission of intelligence, whether for commercial purposes or otherwise.” Put simply, every person that moves.
No government can be trusted with that kind of power.
I appreciate that you support the Second Amendment,and that I'm 'preaching to the choir'-but it goes far deeper than just that amendment,and there is a reason why.
Not only does the Second provide the last defense against tyranny-but naturally,it is the first inalienable right that a tyrant would wish to dismantle,because if the people have no arms,they have no defense from the tyrants use of force to demand obedience to his will.
If the Second goes,and as the Second has been distorted and demeaned from inalienable right to government administered privilege,so goes the whole Republic.
As the Second Amendment has become a government regulated and administered privilege,so has every other once-inalienable right we cherish.
As to the nuclear weapons for kids argument-thats nowhere near my position on the matter.
The whole nuclear weapon argument,the "well without gun control my neighbor might have nukes" is a total straw man argument based on the fact that entire nations have trouble acquiring these weapons based on sheer cost and technological knowledge-mister Jones next door wont have a nuke if the government is put back in its place,and neither will his child-you can rest assured.
I'm actually more concerned with bio-weapons,as they are cheap,easy to buy equipment for,and almost anyone with a bachelors degree in related fields can produce them.
And guess what?
No 'gun control' law will be able to solve that problem.
Perhaps we need to all live in houses with see-through walls so government can monitor our every move,lest we deign to plot mischief?
As to my 'taking a hard line'-"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice,and moderation in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue."
And I'm not an NRA member.Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership - Homepage