[gmaster456]

What is this I don't even...

The sheer ignorance in this article is astounding. Hold on to your seats boys (and girls). This ones a doozy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/oh-ye-of-little-faith-the_b_1889553.html

Some of the only people left defending the constitution are now apparently against it, in this twisted, backwards liberal world we live in.

[locutus]

And from Mr. Horowitz, Sarah Brady's lapdog, you would expect...........what??

[bkt]

The author is an idiot.

The Founders were telling the world that this brilliant new system of government -- this social compact -- would secure individual rights on a scale previously unknown in the civilized world. They protected liberty not by creating a libertarian society where every citizen was in it solely for himself, but by establishing a strong, energetic government and stressing civic responsibility.

You can't protect individual rights by establishing a strong government. Those are contradictory concepts. In fact, government was comparatively weak vis-a-vis other governments of the day.

Our system of government, as defined by the Founders, is far, far more libertarian than anything either democrats or republicans embrace today.

Civic responsibility is apart from government. Individuals should help others in need. Government should not have a hand in requiring individuals to help others in need. To do so leads to...well, where we are today.

In the face of this history and the plain terms of the Constitution itself, it is amazing to see modern insurrectionists like Judge Roy Moore, the controversial former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, write things like, "Liberty and freedom are gifts of God, and not the government. The means by which we secure those gifts are ultimately in the hands and the 'arms' of the people." It's as if Moore is totally unaware of all the robust protections for individual rights spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The idea of liberty may be a "gift of God," but the Framers knew it could only be safeguarded if a robust government was in place to arbitrate private disputes and guarantee that each citizen has an equal voice in the affairs of the nation.

Mr. Horowitz doesn't seem to grasp that our system of government bears no resemblance to the current operation, size and scope of government today. It is not our system of government these people are objecting to, but the degree of liberty, if you'll excuse the expression, government has taken.

The constitution defines the responsibilities and limitations of the federal government. Arbitration is not among its responsibilities, nor is it solely to ensure we each have an "equal voice". It is to ensure we all have unlimited freedom with the exception that none may injure another physically or through coercion or theft.

I could go on, but why waste the time? Horowitz is a tool of the left. A firm, fruity tool.

[Dillinger]

Originally Posted by bkt

The author is an idiot.
Horowitz is a tool of the left. A firm, fruity tool.

Much like a banana. Found firmly planted in the tailpipes of many leftist motors for change.

[rocshaman]

Well you guys are right, this guy is a lefty hack who obviously hasn't read enough of Wayne LaPierre's opinions, thoughts, treatises, etc. to even form a valid opinion about the man's depth of concern for our individual rights and the liberties granted our nation as a whole.

I like this line:

Pro-gun leaders like NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre would have us believe that "the guys with the guns make the rules" in our democracy.

No, the senators and congressmen make the laws in this country and they may not be "packing", but they sure have people with guns to back them up, from the military to the police.

I could post more but you guys are right, it's not worth the time of day. But I will say this, guys like this irritate the bejesus out of me, sort of like a fly buzzing around your head that won't go away.

[CA357]

Ignorant bastards.

[c3shooter]

I believe the term is "Educated beyond his intelligence". The BOR lists things that a "strong central government" is NOT allowed to do.

[TekGreg]

This is really quite amusing, and bkt has done a wonderful job of cutting it up for us, but I'll just add that the founding fathers would have never approved of what we've become. They wanted states to govern themselves and the fed to be a small part of helping to resolve disputes between states. The first two amendments they considered the most important because any citizen should be able to speak against government, and if that doesn't work, the citizenry should be able to remove corrupt government...IF ALL ELSE FAILS. The purpose would not be anarchy, but to restore government to what the people want.

. Nonetheless, Moore is far from alone in his belief that only private violence can be trusted to "secure the Blessings of Liberty."

"Private violence" has nothing to do with this discussion and just more proof the writer has no concept of what the founding fathers intended for America.

By the way, reading literature on what the founding fathers DID intend is a great way to blow these idiots out of the water every time you see them. Stephen P. Halbrook is a great author and one of only two publishers read by the Supreme Court on the issue in his book, "The Founder's Second Amendment: Origin of the Right to Bear Arms" http://amzn.com/1566637929 which kept us from losing that right. Well worth checking out if you want verbal and intellectual ammunition.

[Blueguns]

I think I just threw up in mouth after reading that.

[kryptar19]

My IQ score just dropped.