Statists Use Twisted Logic To Attack The Bill Of Rights

10 Shares
78485928

In the war for the continued existence of our Nation’s Constitutional principles, I had long wondered whether statists were simply confounded by the Bill of Rights and ignorant of its function or whether they were maliciously inclined, knowing exactly what it means but seeking its destruction anyway. In recent years, I have decided it is a combination of both faults.

Statists are people who view every aspect of society through the lens of government power. If you want to know the primary difference between Constitutionalists and anti-Constitutionalists, you have to understand that some people in this world only want control over their own lives, while other people desperately clamor for control over other people’s lives. Why do they do this? Usually, it’s fear. Fear of the persistent unknowns in life. Fear that they do not have the intelligence or the will to take responsibility for their own futures. Fear that they will be forced to take care of themselves. Fear that their ideologies will be found lacking. Fear that if others are allowed freedom, they will one day indirectly suffer for it.

This fear makes statists easy to manipulate by the establishment and easy to use as a tool for the expansion of government dominance. Because statists are so weak-minded and fainthearted, they become very comfortable with the idea of other people making their decisions for them; and they will always attempt to answer every perceived problem with more government control.

When confronted with a proponent of liberty, the statist typically reels in horror. He has so invested himself in bureaucracy that he sees himself as a part of it. To attack the bureaucracy is to attack him. To deny the validity of the bureaucracy is to deny the validity of his existence. His very personality and ego are tied to the machine, so he will spit and rage against anyone who refuses to conform. This is why it is not uncommon at all to find a wild collection of logical fallacies within the tirades of the average statist. Statists act as though they are driven by reason; but in reality, they are driven by seething bias.

A perfect example of this insanity is the article “There Are No Absolute Rights,” published by The Daily Beast.

Let’s first be clear about the kind of rag we are dealing with. The Daily Beast was launched by Tina Brown, a former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker who was also a British citizen until 2005. I would say she’s a kind of female Piers Morgan. For anyone who might take that as a compliment, trust me; it isn’t. Brown and Morgan are European collectivists who immigrated to America just to tell us how our Constitutionally conservative heritage of independence is outdated; meanwhile, the EU is in the shambles of failed socialism. We used to drive such people into the ocean, and now they breathe our oxygen while telling us what is politically “fashionable.”

In 2010, The Daily Beast merged with Newsweek, a magazine notorious for its statist crush on the Federal government (and now out of print). To say that The Daily Beast is a socialist platform and a mouthpiece for the Administration of President Barack Obama is an understatement, but I would point out that the website also tends to agree with politicians and judges on the right that also promote a “living document” interpretation of the Constitution. Whether right or left, if you believe that the Bill of Rights is up for constant interpretation and revision or outright destruction, then you are the bee’s knees in the eyes of The Beast.

The article focuses on gun rights and how silly conservatives foolishly cling to the idea that some lines in the sand should never be crossed in terms of personal freedom. In a rather mediocre and rambling analysis, The Beast uses two primary arguments to qualify this stance, essentially asserting that:

  1. Compromises have already been made to the Bill of Rights; therefore, nothing is sacred.
  2. Even some Republicans agree with compromises to the Bill of Rights when it comes to other Amendments, so why are we being so childish about “reinterpreting” the 2nd Amendment?

First, the revisionist methodology of the Bill of Rights consistently ignores the history of its writing. The colonists and Founding Fathers of our Nation, having successfully triumphed in a bloody revolution against what many then considered the most advanced elitist military empire on Earth, had absolutely no trust whatsoever in the concept of centralized government. Many of the colonials were anti-Federalists who believed that an overly powerful central government was a threat to future liberty. They felt that an immovable and unchangeable legal shield had to be created in order to ensure that a tyrannical system never prevailed again.

Thomas Jefferson said: “[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”

This statement includes modern governments as well. Technological advancement does not change the rules surrounding timeless inherent moral principles, as much as statists would like to argue otherwise.

The colonials demanded the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution as a prerequisite for the establishment of the Federal government. This means that the Federal government owes its entire existence to a very strict agreement made on the Bill of Rights. By extension, if the Bill of Rights is politically diluted or denied, then the legitimacy of the Federal government must also be denied, for it has violated the very charter that gave it life.

The writer of the article, Michael Tomasky, lists numerous transgressions against our Constitutional protections; but he does not do so in the spirit of activism. Rather, he lists them as examples of how “compromise” on our freedoms is necessary (or somehow inevitable) in the name of the collective good. He claims Republicans are perfectly willing to sacrifice certain liberties, like freedom of speech, privacy or even Miranda rights, in the name of political expediency.

I wholeheartedly agree that our civil liberties have been whittled away by the establishment. I also agree that many so-called Republicans have betrayed the founding values of our culture and even voted to diminish or destroy the 2nd Amendment. But let’s think hard about the faulty logic behind Tomansky’s position. Do two wrongs or hundreds of wrongs really make a right? Tomansky is saying that because we have failed as a society to fully protect our freedoms and because our government has been successful in criminally neglecting them, we should simply give in and relinquish all freedom.

He would respond to this accusation by claiming that he is not calling for the relinquishment of all liberties, only the liberties he thinks are dangerous to society. The problem is, that is not how the Constitution was designed. Amendments can be made, yes. But amendments contrary to the Bill of Rights are not Constitutional as per the original agreement made after the revolution. The Bill of Rights was meant to be sacrosanct, untouchable — period. No Federal law, no State law and no Amendment can be enforced that violates those protections. The Bill of Rights was not created as a rule book for what the people can do; it was created as a rule book for what government cannot do. Once you remove hard fast restrictions like the Bill of Rights from the picture, you give the government license to make its own rules. That is how tyranny is born.

As far as Republican attacks on the Constitution are concerned, Tomasky has obviously never heard of the false/left right paradigm. He finds solace in the totalitarian actions of neocons because neocons are not conservative; they are statists. Ultimately, there is no right or left. Only freedom and decentralization, or slavery and collectivism exist. There are those who revel in control and those who rebel against control. The rest of the debate is nonsense and distraction.

Tomsky opines: “Imagine what conservatives would think of a group of liberals who insisted, while threatening an insurrection, on a pure and absolute interpretation of the Fourth or Sixth Amendment–and imagine how ridiculous they would look to average Americans.”

Actually, any true conservative would be standing right beside those liberals, as many of us in the liberty movement have done in the past in activism against the transgressions of fake conservatives like George W. Bush or Mitt Romney, with his dismal anti-Constitution voting record. Frankly, who cares what “average Americans” think about our battle for what is right? Does Tomasky base all of his personal convictions on what happens to be popular at the moment? I think so.

What statists also don’t seem to comprehend is that there is a factor in the fight over Constitutional law that goes far beyond the Constitution itself.

The Constitution, as a document, is not what we as Americans and human beings obtain our rights from. The Constitution is only a written representation of the inborn freedoms derived from natural law and inherent conscience. We are born with a sense of liberty and that includes a right to self-defense from any enemy, foreign or domestic. No amount of political gaming, twisted rationalizations or intellectual idiocy is ever going to change these pre-existing rights.

Tomasky insists that: “[T]he idea that any right is unrestricted is totally at odds with history, the law, and reality.”

He uses the tired argument that some restrictions on personal liberty, including restrictions on gun rights, are “reasonable” given the circumstances of the times. And, it only follows that he and other statists should be the ones to decide what is reasonable.

I disagree, along with millions of other Americans; and believe me, this is a serious problem for statists. If Tomasky and The Daily Beast want to impose their collective worldview on the rest of us and dismantle our individual freedoms guaranteed in natural law and the Bill of Rights, then I’m afraid they’ll have to fight us for them. In the end, legal precedence is irrelevant. Political precedence is irrelevant. Political party is irrelevant. Historical precedence is irrelevant. The theater of words is irrelevant. Statists need to understand that there is no alternative. There is no “silver bullet” argument that will make us forget what is fundamentally true. There is no juxtaposition of logic that will muddle our resolve or confuse our principles. Some rights are indeed absolute; and we will not yield them, ever. The statist “reality” is a far cry from what actually is; and soon, I’m afraid, they will learn this lesson the hard way.

–Brandon Smith

Brandon Smith

is the founder of the Alternative Market Project, an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for barter and mutual aid. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the unstable mainstream system and build something better. You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

  • Jeff

    Actually, the way I remember it, you right wingers were not right alongside the liberals in the 60s and 70s when Constitutional fights were over the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. Only when it’s the 2nd Amendment do you guys even learn how to say “unconstitutional.” The problem is you see the 2nd Amendment as somehow wholly inviolable, as if no other rights can ever conflict with it. No other amendment is interpreted so purely, and the 2nd won’t either. Even this most conservative of Supreme Courts will not agree that you have a personal right to an arsenal capable of taking on our armed forces. The 2nd Amendment was written before there was a standing army and before people really thought of themselves as Americans – when we really were still a rather loose confederation of States. The 2nd Amendment was meant to insure that Virginia and New York had the means to defend themselves. The States were given the right to control “arms” (i.e. the well regulated militia). Remember, in 1790, the U.S. Constitution was not binding on the States. Congress could pass no law abridging the freedom of speech or religion, but the States could except where prevented by State Constitutions. The Bill of Rights wasn’t ruled to bind the states through the 14th Amendment until 1961. But if you read the 2nd Amendment, it clearly indicates the regulation of guns is left to the states.

    In a rational world, we would read the 2nd Amendment like we read the 3rd – as a relic of a bygone era. We now have a standing army and the militia language is obviously quaint. If you think Thomas Jefferson or any other founder was crazy enough to envision a gun culture like we have in some places in this country – grown men playing dress up, wandering around like fat Rambo-wannabes, with their guns identifying them as mental defectives – you’re even crazier than I think you are. The modern world is nothing like the world of 1790, and modern weapons are certainly nothing like they were in 1790. Do you really think Jefferson would let stand a status quo under which virtually any idiot can get his hands on killing power it would have taken 1,000 soldiers to match in his day?

    • vicki

      “In a rational world, we would read the 2nd Amendment like we read the 3rd – as a relic of a bygone era.”

      In a rational world we would not need to have a discussion about possessing firearms. Rational beings know full well the value of them. Just looking at how governments have treated their own people in RECENT history makes it clear to a rational being that the 2nd Amendment is just as relevant today as it has ever been. Proof in how hard government is trying to get rid of both it and our firearms.

      The rest of Jeff’s argument to ridicule ignored.

      • JeffH

        Somebody needed to take 47D’s place on the board…congratulations to Jeff for stepping up.

        • vicki

          Good point. What ever happened to 47D anyway?

          • JeffH

            Not sure but if I had to guess, he talked his way into a corner he couldn’t get out of and Bob L finally had enough…exit stage left…OR…the nut house he was in cut off his computer privileges.

          • WTS/JAY
          • JeffH

            Jay, thanks for the link…always interesting sorting thru these things…more truth than fiction.
            I had that website in my favorite list and had completely forgotten it.

      • Don 2

        GUN CONTROL – Made the Holocaust possible – NO MORE NAZI GUN CONTROL LAWS
        jpfo.org

        • Jeff

          If you weren’t such a willful ignoramus, you might be worth arguing with. If you’re going to bring up a completely irrelevant subject, at least know what you’re talking about first.

          • JeffH

            Look in the mirror unhinged and fearfull Jeff…off topic & irrelevant subjects as well as a lack of knowledge would be stareing back at you.
            ad hominem duly noted

          • Don 2

            Take it up with the Jews pal. They know more about it than you.

            And just to enlighten your little mind a bit Jeffrey Boy, the Jews were disarmed by Hitler, and that did make the Holocaust possible.

          • Jeff

            Don:

            Do you think the gun ownership rate among Jews is higher or lower than among non-Jews? And where are you getting your info about Hitler disarming the Jews? Gun control was in place before Hitler came to power, but do you really think the mass of people in Nazi Germany could have stood up to the SS and its machine guns? Your gun will do you no good at all in a fight with the Government, but it is a handy tool for killing innocent, unarmed people like school children.

          • Don 2

            11-November-1938
            Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons
            http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

        • WTS/JAY

          You could be right. But guess who were the biggest proponents for strict, gun-control laws prior to Hitler’s ascension? The very same who advocate for gun-control laws here, in the US; Jews!

          http://www.jtf.org/israel/israel.why.jews.must.oppose.gun.control.htm

          • Don 2

            Some people never learn. All nationalities and races have stupid people lacking common sense. Here, we mostly just refer to them as Democrats/Communists.

          • Jeff

            Where are all the Nazis in Western Europe and in Australia. Hitler and the Nazis were a once-in-a-Milennium evil and if you continue to insist on making policy based on the assumption that everyone you don’t like is Hitler, you’ll make a lot of bad policy. If you think the Jews in Germany being armed like you are would have prevented the Holocaust or World War II, I think you are sadly mistaken. What made the Holocaust possible was that the non-Nazis went along with every anti-Jewish move made by the Nazis. There was tacit approval for a crackdown on “the liberal Jews” who “betrayed Germany” in WWI. It was nonsense then and it’s nonsense now, but you boobs bought it before and you’re buying it again. Hitler was Glenn Beck times 1,000. Assault the liberal intellectuals as pointy-heads and criticize all modern thought in favor of the “simple truths” of your youth: women knew their place; the Blacks weren’t so uppity; gays were in the closet. That’s what that appeal is all about. The good old days that weren’t so good if you weren’t a well-off white, Christian male. Every time somebody who isn’t a WASP male makes a gain, you see it as being at your expense.

          • Don 2

            Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons – 11Nov1938
            http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

          • Don 2

            You say, “Hitler and the Nazis were a once-in-a-millenium evil.” Are you for frick’in real, or what? Try googling “dictators” and see what comes up. Hitler wasn’t even the worst of them. I’ve known a lot of really stupid people, but you take the cake.

          • Bill Henry

            I was a poor white trash little sob and they were the good old days compared with the boobs we have to live with today.

      • Jeff

        My guess is if you measured the intelligence of the average gun owner vs. the average non-gun owner, you’d come up a bit short. Just witness the yahoos who give guns to their kids or leave the guns laying around for the kids to play with. Quite a bunch of rocket scientists and brain surgeons in your group. Now you and JeffH can tell me about some smart guy you heard about who has guns. Well, most don’t. Do you think there’s a reason for that?

        • JeffH

          POLLY WANT A CRACKER? baaarrraaaccckkkkkk!

        • Don 2

          BENEFITS OF GUN CONTROL:
          CONCENTRATION CAMPS
          KILLING FIELDS
          GULAGS

        • Don 2

          Actually, it is my experience that many anti-gunners are either not permitted to own a gun themselves due to a past criminal conviction or mental impairment (this includes politicians), and therefore, do not want other law-abiding citizens to own guns, or, they are career criminals whose jobs are easier and safer, when their victims are unarmed and helpless.

          • vicki

            Here is an amusing example

        • vicki

          “My guess is if you measured the intelligence of the average gun owner vs. the average non-gun owner, you’d come up a bit short.”

          This is why we don’t trust your guessing ability.

        • WTS/JAY

          Jeff: My guess is if you measured the intelligence of the average gun owner vs. the average non-gun owner, you’d come up a bit short.

          You have the “guess” part correct, and a very bad-guess at that.

        • Bill Henry

          Taught my kids before I would let them handle one, that if they touched them they would get the worst punishment they could imagine. When they turned 12 I took each of them out and taught them gun safety and demonstrated what a gun could do to a person, in the form of a tree, and demonstrated it by shooting the tree until it fell over. That was to illustrate to them that they were never, never, never to point a gun at anyone unless they intended to shoot that person, and what it would do to that person. That was rule number one. Rule number two was that every gun they saw was loaded, regardless of whether they had emptied it or not, and that every gun of mine was loaded they could be sure of that, because an unloaded gun is just a club, and if they touched mine my previous warning stood. When they demonstrated that they knew what I had taught them, I would take them hunting with me. When they turned 14 I bought them a single shot shotgun to hunt with. If one of them broke the rules I would break their gun. They never broke the rules, and each of them have grown into responsible citizens with kids of their own, except one who isn’t married. I left the decision to own firearms up to them, but they know they have the right to them. Whether they do or not is their business, not mine nor yours nor the federal governments. I am of an age now that my only fear is that they will be left in a world people by jerks like you who think that everything in the world is hunky dory as long as you are feeling good about it. If you get your nose out of the clouds you will know that it isn’t so. I just wish you would come to where I live and I could prove it to you. You would need have not fear of me, even though I will be armed, but where I take you will scare the bejesus out of you, then you would learn that there are places in this country where folks are afraid to walk. That shouldn’t be the case for a free people, and it is a tragedy that it is that way, but who is going to get control of it?? You? The federal government. The state government? The police? Nobody? What a shame, and who protects the people who have to live in those areas? Even they are afraid to walk their own streets, and if you ask them why, they’ll look at you like you’re crazy and tell you the same, because they can’t believe how ignorant of the state of affairs you are. I carry a gun because I refuse to be afraid. I am not afraid to die, but I will do it standing up and shooting when it comes, none taken, none given.

    • JeffH

      You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

      Jeff lives in fear of guns and gun owners like they are some kind of boogeyman, otherwise his obviously uninformed & infantile rants wouldn’t keep parroting the same thing over & over again like a broken record.

      A little lesson for you Jeff…if you can get past your delusions and fears long enough to read this.

      After the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

      The Court reasoned that the Amendment’s prefatory clause, i.e., “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” announced the Amendment’s purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Moreover, the prefatory clause’s history comported with the Court’s interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists’ concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.
      http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html

      The pressure cooker did it!

      ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

      ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

      Join the NRA, GOA, SAF and the rest of us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

      STOP IT

      STOP IT NOW

      • Flashy

        Yes…heller ruled the opwnership of a dangerous weapon for defense in the home is within the 2nd. It did not address whether types of weapons may be limited, nor care and storage, and whether the owner would need to show knowledge and skill for the weapon.

        Even Scalia has stated the 2nd may be limited and is not absolute.

        • Capitalist at Birth

          Scalia is wrong.

          • Flashy

            OK CB…you are more knowledgeable on your Constitutional Law than a Supreme Court Justice….

          • http://www.facebook.com/CapitalistAtBirth Greg Murphy

            You got it. It is his opinion. He is “Liar” (short for Lawyer.) They claim to have all of this knowledge. B.S. I have a great deal of reading comprehension, and can figure out what the documents say, on my own, thank you. You on the other hand evidently need people dressed in robes to tell you what to think.

          • Smilee

            Regardless the man & women in robes have the power to enforce their words, you on the other hand can offer only meaningless words, in other words his words have power yours do not. Eat your heart out!!

          • Kuurus

            Scalia and any Justice who says they have the right to limit my rights is wrong, including the moron who claims I can’t shout fire if there is none.

          • vicki

            Obviously. He knows the meaning of “….shall not be infringed.”

          • WTS/JAY

            You are assuming that Scalia is more knowledgeable than CAB…? How about you? Is Scalia more knowledgable than you? And if he were/is, how would you know, unless you were on par…? But does a robust knowledge of something guarantee that the possessor of such knowledge be in possession of ethics in equal measure? Did you know that the Devil understands the Bible better than any preacher you could name?

        • JeffH

          Yeah, right Falsy and pigs can fly too!

          Care & storage? What a joke! Knowledge & skill?
          It’s no wonder why your credibility here is just south of zero.

          What Scalia did say in an interview after the ruling in “District of Columbia v. Heller”… He emphasized the “bear arms” point to say that while owning a gun is perfectly legal, owning a cannon is a different story. However, he noted that there are certainly handheld weapons which can do a fair amount of harm, and said when such a case comes before the court, he would have to make a legal call based on what were understood limitations at the time of the Founders.

          Yeah, that’s why we don’t own real “assault weapons” commonly defined as machine guns, tanks and missle launchers.

          I’ll repeat it very slowly for you Falsy what Scalia did rule on correctly and is absolute is that…”the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          Don’t forget that the pressure cooker did it!

          ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

          ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

          Join the NRA, GOA, SAF and the rest of us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

          STOP IT

          STOP IT NOW

          • http://www.facebook.com/CapitalistAtBirth Greg Murphy

            Scalia has been a great disappointment, to say the least. Almost as bad a Roberts.

          • Jeff

            How, exactly, are you being punished if background checks for the purchase of firearms are extended to gun shows so it’s a little harder for the next Adam Lanza to get his hands on weapons?

            How, exactly, are you being punished if clip or magazine sizes are limited so the next Adam Lanza has to reload a few more times to shoot up a school, thereby giving more kids a chance to escape and increasing the likelihood he can be stopped while reloading?

          • JeffH

            DUH Jeff! As has been said before, you talk about what you don’t know!

            It’s good that you constantly ask questions…but you need to accept the facts provided in the answers, not ignore them because they don’t conform to your twisted and emotionally charged ideas.

            Background checks, even at gun shows by gun dealers, is the law…that means that all Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) are required to request background checks on prospective firearm transferees and the transferee must pass the background check before the transferee can take possession.

            I am being punished because I haven’t broken the law and I am not a criminal…why must people like you punish the innocent when it is the criminals that don’t comply with and break the laws. I realize that’s to simple of an explanation for you.

            No gun law would have stopped Lanza or any other mass shooting…because criminals ignore the laws.

            Punish the criminals, it’s that simple and stop trying to make criminals out of the law abiding and innocent people.

            Remember this, The pressure cooker did it!

            ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

            ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

            Join the NRA, GOA, SAF and the rest of us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

            STOP IT

            STOP IT NOW

          • Jeff

            You answered the first question but not the 2nd. And your “answer” I consider absurd. Most of the wingnut arguments against background checks talk about paranoid stuff like the camel’s nose, black helicopters, and secret gun registries although they are banned under the legislation at issue. But you don’t bother with the fig leaf arguments. Background checks are “punishment” in your mind because you don’t want to undergo one. So, anything society demands that you dislike is punishment? Like wearing clothes? Stopping at stop signs? Registering your car? Paying for parking? Paying taxes?

            Your argument is completely backward. You are entitled to a presumption of innocence so whether you may have done anything wrong is irrelevant. The background check is meant to prevent people like Adam Lanza from getting guns in the first place. Were it a punishment, we wouldn’t be talking about background checks but about lifetime bans, imprisonment, commitment, etc.

            Were the 26 killed in Newtown “punished” under your definition? If their deaths resulted from overly lax gun laws allowing people with mental issues to have guns (and guns with high capacity magazines), wouldn’t their deaths qualify as “punishment” for no crime under the JeffH standard? Or is it only your personal slight inconvenience that matters? Because in weighing 20 minutes of your valuable time vs. the lives of many potential victims of the next Adam Lanza, I think I’ll side with the real victims.

          • JeffH

            Tell your emotional problems to someone that cares.

            I could give a rats azz what you think or say because your emotions control your irrational thoughts and arguments.
            Your arguement are just a stupid now as they were a month ago…you don’t know what you’re talking about…especially when you use the anti-gun rhetoric of “lax gun laws” as a talking point.

            You’re a victim in your own mind! Seek some professional help Jeff…lord knows you need some!

            MOLON LABE

          • Jeff

            I thought you might be capable of an intelligent discussion if only once. I see I was mistaken. The victims I spoke of are those shot by guns in the hands of wackos. That does not include me. I am communicating in English; you’re using some form of Anger Gibberish. Go shoot something. It’ll make you feel better about your shortcomings.

          • JeffH

            LMAO at you unhinged Jeff and your need to keep posting ignorant comment after ignorant comment.
            Forrest Gump was right, “Stupid is as stupid does!”
            Boo! The gun boogeyman is gonna get you!

          • vicki

            “How, exactly, are you being punished if clip or magazine sizes are limited”

            I’m glad you asked.

            I have no interest in dying to protect your sensitive feelings

          • Bill Henry

            Who’s going to stop him and with what? Scissors? That one was a real harhar. Maybe you can be there and negotiate with him with you apparent brilliant mind(at least in your opinion). How long did it take the police to get there? Besides that the guy used pistols. Gun buyers go through a background check when they buy a weapon. I haven’t bought one yet that I didn’t fill out the paper work on and and have the guy call the number provided to him to see if I had any derogatory statement that would disallow me having it. That is not the intent of this legislation, or didn’t you hear fienstein? If I could I would say hand them all in americans. Capitalization deliberately missing, she has nothing that important to say.

        • vicki

          You’re essentially correct. Heller decision only answered the well known question “is it an individual right?” Now we just need to get them to rule on the well known meaning of “…shall NOT be INFRINGED” though that might be a bit more difficult since President Clinton raised the question of the meaning of “is”

      • Jeff

        I have no fear of you and your idiotic gun fetish. But it is true that the more guns we have, the more shooting deaths we have. I know math isn’t your strong suit, but one logically follows the other. The Supreme Court decided Heller. I think they were wrong and that a future court may decide differently, but even under Heller, the Court never said the type of weapon an individual can own can’t be limited. I see nothing in Heller that would prevent Congress from passing meaningful limitations on ammo type or magazine/clip sizes.

        Plus, as I understand it, the Heller decision involved a D.C. statute, not a state statute. A state statute might be treated very differently by the Court.

        • JeffH

          Coming a little more unhinged with every post uh Jeff?
          http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/Hattles1/library/#/user/Hattles1/library/?sort=3&page=1&_suid=136795057306106182120194673174
          The only person you’re fooling here is yourself…and that’s not saying very much. You have nothing to fear but those little dangerous yet responsible law abiding gun owners dancing in you head

          Your ineffective ad hominem is duly noted.

          You said this Jeff: “Plus, as I understand it, the Heller decision involved a D.C. statute, not a state statute. A state statute might be treated very differently by the Court.”

          Jeff, all you show is just how much understanding you don’t have about anything related to the Constitutional ruling in the Heller decision or any other Supreme Court ruling for that matter…MINOR V. HAPPERSETT comes to mind.

          • Jeff

            While I think you have misread and grossly misinterpreted Minor v. Happersett, I think you will find there is a difference between a federal enclave and a sovereign state with respect to the degree of deference accorded its laws by the Supremes. I don’t know for certain their interpretation will differ, but it well may. And yes, both Obama and Ted Cruz are qualified to be President.

          • JeffH

            Well Jeff, this road has been traveled before…and NO, I haven’t misread or misinterpreted the Heller decision or Minor v. Happersett…your ignorance is based purley on the fact that Obama is POTUS because of the lack of vetting and turning a blind eye by the states. It’s called corruption…the same as if Cruz or Rubio were nominated for POTUS.
            ______________________________________
            The court opinion is very clear and easy to understand.

            WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court

            SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

            88 U.S. 162

            Minor v. Happersett

            Argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875

            The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

            “The Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

            The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be
            natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were
            familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents [ *this means both mother and father] who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. [these would be 14th Amendment citizens]. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

          • Jeff

            As has been explained to you previously (and not only by me), the fact that the Supreme Court wrote those words in 1875 does not mean it so held. That statement about both parents being citizens is what is called “dictum.” The Court was recognizing that it is clearly true that where both parents are citizens that the child is a natural born citizen. It did NOT say both parents MUST be citizens in order for the child to be a natural born citizen.

            A good analogy would be: Saying all men are mortal creatures is not the same as saying all mortal creatures are men.

            The issue in Minor was a woman’s right to vote, so any statements the Court might make unrelated to that issue are necessarily dicta. In 1875, they might have said women or Black men were less intelligent than White men. That would not have been a holding either.

            If someone is telling you the Minor case held anything concerning who is or is not eligible to be President, he is lying to you.

          • JeffH

            DUH says Jeff. What I have been telling you for quite some time and what you just don’t want to believe is that the MINOR opinion stated very clearly who could be and who could not be a “natural born citizen”.

            Why the definition in Minor v. Happersett of a “natural-born citizen” (as a person born in the US to parents who are citizens) is binding legal precedent. The answer is in the Court’s holding that Virginia Minor was a US citizen…because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens. That part of the actual holding is listed in the official syallbus of the case.

            The syllabus for MInor v. Happersett states:

            “1. The word “citizen ” is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.

            2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.”

            The US Supreme Court did not hold that the Constitution granted voting rights to men while denying such rights to women. The Court in Minor held that the Constitution did not grant anybody a right to vote, man or woman.

            But in doing so, the US Supreme Court first had to determine if Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. The Court’s holding states that she was a US citizen because she was born in the US to parents who were citizens.

            The Court in Minor did make a direct holding that Mrs. Minor was, in fact, a US citizen. The Court established her citizenship by definining the “class” of “natural-born citizens” as those born in the US to parents who were citizens. Then the Court included Virginia Minor in that class thereby deeming her to be a US citizen. And they did this by specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment and by specifically construing Article 2 Section 1.

            Before moving on to the issue of whether citizens have the right to vote, the Supreme Court in Minor stated their holding as to the citizenship of Mrs. Minor (and therefore as to all women and men):

            “The Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore,” the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the (14th) amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the state, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States, but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption.”
            You can whine and twist this anyway you want but it does not change the fact that this case did indeed set a precidence on the “natural born citizen” issue. In other words, by the very nature of the SC defining “natural born citizen” in the MINOR case, presidence was set as to who could and could not be a “natural born citizen”…that definition is explicit to the citizenship qualifications for the office of president.

            Read it and weep!

          • Jeff

            What if the opinion said anyone weighing 350 pounds would definitely be legally obese? Would that mean someone at 300 couldn’t be? Minor is not binding precedent for anything at this point. Thank goodness you’re not on the Supreme Court or the decisions would be even crazier than Scalito’s.

          • JeffH

            No “what if’s” except the denial of unhinged Jeff.

            Why Jeff, because you say so? It is what it is whether you continue to bury your head and hide from the reality or not.

            FYI, denial ain’t some river in Egypt either.

            Like Forrest Gump said and I have to agree, “stupid is as stupid does”.

        • Don 2

          A GUN IN THE HAND – IS BETTER THAN A COP ON THE PHONE.

        • Drayke

          If you honestly think not being able to defend yourself with the best weapons available is worth the slight chance that you might be able to prevent some random act of violence then I cant help you. You want to live in world were there isnt any evil, and that world just doesnt exist -and history teaches us its not going to suddenly exist just because the general populous is unarmed. You cant create that type of Utopia with regulations, only morals and teaching. I wish you the very best of luck, but should you truly achieve it you still wont need my armaments(which I will then happily be using just for target practice because its fun).

          And no, Im extremely unhappy with ALL of the erosion that has happened to the Bill of Rights. Destroying our right to assemble with the ridiculous permit system cities around here have needs to stop. City code enforcement? Those bastards piss on the 4th, the 6th, the 7th and the 8th amendment(100 dollars for a cobweb hanging off your bumper is an excessive fine MAYBE?!) regularly. I have not turned a blind eye to that -trust me! I can ring your ears off about how stupid everything has gotten if you really want me to.

          The only reason you here such an outcry over the 2nd is that its pandora’s box. People will put up with their other rights being chewed upon because its not a matter of life and death. You can afford to fight those battles in court, but when deprived of your right to self defense? You can lay down and take that “for the greater good” if you feel like it, but many of us wont join you. Its unnatural.

          • Drayke

            “..about how stupid everything has gotten..” …”here” …yup proving my own point with bad grammar one post at a time XD

          • Jeff

            What does any of that have to do with background checks or limiting magazine sizes? How much fire power do you need to chase a burglar from your house? How is it I’ve lived almost 60 years and never had the slightest need or desire for a gun? I think your “self defense” argument is grossly exaggerated.

          • Bill Henry

            Where do you live Jeff? Can you walk anywhere you want to? Just innocent questions. I don’t need your address, just city.

        • vicki

          Jeff: ” But it is true that the more guns we have, the more shooting deaths we have. I know math isn’t your strong suit, but one logically follows the other.”

          We can presume that logic isn’t your strong suit either. More guns have no causal and little correlative relation to deaths where tool= gun. First evidence in that you offered no proof of your bald assertion. Second evidence: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

        • Don 2

          Statistically, with 80,000,000 gun owning citizens, you are 1200 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman, than the gun owning population in general.

          • Jeff

            So, does owning a gun make you more or less likely to be accidentally shot (either by Claudine Longet or) by a police officer?

        • WTS/JAY

          Jeff: I have no fear of you and your idiotic gun fetish. But it is true that the more guns we have, the more shooting deaths we have.

          Actually, the annual death-rate by guns in the US is declining, while the possession of firearms is rising. Which means, the more guns the less number of bold-criminals…?

          • Jeff

            Name a civilized country with a gun death rate remotely comparable to ours.

      • Jeff

        Remember that Heller was a 5-4, “party-line” decision handed down by the most ideologically conservative Court we’ve ever seen – certainly since the 1930s. The Scalito Twins, Thomas, and Roberts won’t be on the Court forever although it seems like it’s been forever already. There will eventually be a sane interpretation of the 2nd Amendment not authored directly by Wayne LaPierre!

      • Jeff

        Rest assured I don’t live in fear of you any more than I live in fear of the lion in the zoo. The people I associate with pity and laugh at people like you who are so hung up on your guns it impacted your development. Well beyond middle age and you’re still trying to prove how tough you are. You’re not fooling anyone except maybe yourself. How do you decide which gun to sleep with and do the other get jealous?

        • JeffH

          Unhinged and bizzare Jeff…your comments are so far out there that I’m beginning to think it might be hate that’s driving you to make such bizzare comments…no rational thought, just hate.
          Help me out here…I’m supposed to be “trying to prove how tough I am”? ROFLMAO…is that reaching for the stars?
          That’s a new one and it’s just an irrational comment made by an emotionally charged and irrational person.
          Seek help Jeff!

    • Native Blood

      Spoken like a true statist. Your references to the right wing are a typical example who truly believe there is a difference between the left and the right. Historically, as you stated, there was a difference but they now work for and serve the same master. They serve the corporate owned and lobbyist controlled agendas and the all too powerful military industrial complex.

      • Jeff

        And if you succeed in weakening the state, whom will you have empowered? The little guy? I think not. If the state can’t regulate business, then big business will own the state. That system is at least a first cousin to actual fascism, where the people have no say whatsoever.

        • vicki

          How will big business own the state?

        • WTS/JAY

          Jeff: I think not. If the state can’t regulate business, then big business will own the state.

          If only that were true. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. It is big-business that controls government. Who do you think gave the green light to move America’s industrial-base off shore? So how is it that Government controls big-business…? Ridiculous!

          • Jeff

            So, your solution to the problem of big business being too powerful is to weaken Government’s regulatory power even more, thereby strengthening big business? In the late 19th Century, Government had almost no regulatory power at all. Business was free to do as it pleased. The result was a few very rich people with the vast majority their de facto slaves.

            Enter Teddy Roosevelt and anti-Trust legislation and Government was able to break up Standard Oil and restore some measure of competition to the market. The government didn’t exactly make John D. Rockefeller a pauper as he remained the wealthiest man in the world, but he no longer controlled every drop of oil in the country.

            In the same era, Upton Sinclair wrote “The Jungle” about the deplorable working conditions in the meat-packing business and the unsafe manner in which meat was processed and stored. Out of that came a regulatory regime that protects the quality of our food today.

            We started deregulating around 1980 and ever since, we’ve had growing inequality. It wasn’t sufficient for CEOs to make 30 times what an average worker made. Now, it’s more like 300 to one. Profits are way up, worker productivity is way up, but salaries for all but the top 1% have been flat for decades.

            You can’t just scream “they’re all corrupt.” You have to choose whether you want the balance of power to favor Exxon and the Koch Brothers or the Government’s ability to regulate some of their activities. With the Government, you at least have some say.

            When people on these blogs repeat the lies about climate change being a hoax, they are doing the bidding of the wealthiest business interests in history. I know what Exxon gets from our inaction; what do you get? We are now crossing 400 ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It hasn’t been this high in nearly a million years, and there’s no indication it’s slowing down.

    • Capiralist at Birth

      Did you imagine a conversation with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison? Or are you trying to imply what you would like to think they would think? You need to do some more reading.

      • Jeff

        I think they would be flabbergasted at the nutcases who invoke their names in support of every idiotic notion concerning guns and “freedom.”

        • JeffH

          Jeff, you have this obviously idiotic notion that all lawfull gunowners are criminals as well as a very twisted sense of what freedom actually is. I do kinda understand though…you being shackled by fear 24/7 only makes me question whose the real nutcase here…seek some help Jeff!
          http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/Hattles1/library/#/user/Hattles1/library/Hattles%20Monty?sort=3&page=1&_suid=136795062389805664784576072444

          • Jeff

            Your misreading of Supreme Court “precedent” is exceeded only by your erroneous “analyses” of your opponents.

          • JeffH

            Opponent? I’m just LMAO at that stupid, idiotic remark!

            “analyses” ?…learn how to spell – it’s a-n-a-l-y-s-i-s genius.

            FYI, my “analysis” was spot on! Seek some help Jeff!

        • Don 2

          GUN CONTROL MEANS USING BOTH HANDS

        • vicki

          Argument to ricicule

        • WTS/JAY

          I disagree! I think that unlike you, they would not think all “notions” concerning guns and freedoms to be idiotic, and would probably breath a sigh of relief knowing they left something of substance to the American people, in the gift of the Constitution. Remember, idioticy is in the eye of the beholder, and is usually nothing more than projection.

    • WTS/JAY

      Why are left-wingers so hyper-obsessed over the 2nd amendment? What is it about the 2nd amendment that frightens you lefties so? I was under the impression that neuroticism was condition exclusive to the right-wing…?

  • Breeze13

    Very good article.

  • RevNowWhileWeCan

    In today’s United States, the Constitution is a historical document of which we are not party to……….

    http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/the-real-history-of-the-united-states-of-america/

    • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

      So what do you propose? The 10 planks of the communist manifesto?

  • skeeve

    based on the logic used, because we have failed to prosecute some murderers, murder is acceptable.. is this the sort of fallacy we wish to base our nation upon?

  • ToughGuy1

    Great article!

  • Flashy

    first off…as we will no doubt be deluged with those who will insist the Constitution is somethig meant only for those half a step into the lunatic asylum…applying a definition totally ridiculous and insane…claim it stands for an idea only they believe…

    How many Rights are there in the Bill of Rights? Go ahead…how many…My guess is that with all those who claim to “know” the Constitution..won’t be able to cite the answer Bear that in mind..those who are claiming to be Consttional experts don’t even know the most basic of of our Constitutional history.

    Interesting. Smith first out defines what the extremists are and what flag they follow. He outlines the TP Trilogy and the mantra of the American taliban nicely …

    “you have to understand that some people in this world only want control
    over their own lives, while other people desperately clamor for control
    over other people’s lives. Why do they do this? Usually, it’s fear. Fear
    of the persistent unknowns in life. Fear that they do not have the
    intelligence or the will to take responsibility for their own futures.
    Fear that they will be forced to take care of themselves. Fear that
    their ideologies will be found lacking. Fear that if others are allowed
    freedom, they will one day indirectly suffer for it.”

    Fear, anger, ignorance…The TP trilogy. Yes, there will be those posting today who will attempt to deny this. they will stand steadfast in such claim. yet, time after time, issue after issue, their opposition is based upon that very principle. And time after time, those posting today claiming such is false, will base their opposition exactly on those fears, angers, and ignorances.

    That is not to state this fear is not present on the Moderate side. But it is not as pervasive, not as complete, not as ruling as it is in completely driving the extremists on the Right.

    As to Smiths premise that the Bill of Rights are absolute. Clearly they are absolute in concept, yet in practice the Right of the Individual is constrained by that of society. And the government is less than that of the individual and of society. In every case that a “Right’ has been restrained…i each and every one, the test is that the goal of society is forwarded with the most minimal restraint on the Right involved. And there is not one Right that is not constrained by the society and its Right. Not one. You cannot falsely yell “fire!’ in a crowded theatre for instance. (Go ahead, name one that has not ) …

    And when the Rights clash (and they do) then one or the other must be minimally constrained.

    That is the test. Outlined throughout our history time after time. It is nothing new, not a unique concept of recent history.

    As for Smith’s ridiculous and ignorant claim that”But amendments contrary to the Bill of Rights are not Constitutional as
    per the original agreement made after the revolution. The Bill of Rights
    was meant to be sacrosanct, untouchable — period.”

    The Constitution was adopted and the First Congress seated in March 1789. The Bill of Rights legislation was introduced in the Fall of 1789 and ratification completed in 1791.Smith is contending that amendments to the document cannot be undone. Eh? So we could not have taken out Prohibition? So we cannot take out the income taxation amendment? So the original document cannot be, can never be, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED?

    that’s not to say it is not corrupted. that there are forces seeking to use it as a road for their own political power (see eg Tea Party)

    But as what Smith writes? Nice writing, good touch, persuasive to the unknowing and ignorant and those needing the TP trilogy to legitimize their sorry state of existence. But accurate it is not

    • Kuurus

      flashy flashy, that I have chosen to follow some idiotic rule does not imply I will follow all idiotic rules.

    • vicki

      Argument to ridicule. Btw the answer to the number of rights is A LOT (see Amendment 9)

      • Flashy

        Vicki….You made me smile with your mention of the 9th. True…and if you read any of Justice Douglas’s paper on the 9th, you are in agreement with both Douglas and myself (and many others).

        How about “specific rights” ? Good one…I am improessed.

        • Kuurus

          Speech,press,religion,petition,arms,search,and testifying against oneself. to not have soldiers billeted in your home in times of peace.right to jury and legal help.

        • Kuurus

          right to reasonable bail

        • vicki

          It’s not the first time I have brought up the 9th Amendment. :)

    • WTS/JAY

      A ridiculously long-winded ad-hominem…amazing, how one can use so many words, and yet say absolutely nothing at all! Are you on piece work?

  • Liberty Lover

    “I’m afraid they’ll have to fight us for them.” Could this be the reason that Obama believes we need a domestic security force equal in size and strength to our military forces? Could this be the reason DHS is building an unconscionable arsenal of weaponry? Is it possible that the true enemies of this Administration are not Islamic terrorists at all but rather Americans who disapprove of the statist policies of this Administration?

    • Steve E

      I believe you have a good point there LL. And for your reasons stated above, that is why we have the 2nd Amendment.

      • Jeff

        No, it’s not. If the 2nd Amendment was designed to make it possible for you to “take on” the government, why do we have laws against treason? And I do believe such laws were in force and were enforced by the very founders you believe wanted you to influence the President, the Congress, and the Courts at gunpoint. The argument is ridiculous no matter how many times you or the nabobs at the NRA Convention say it.

        The 2nd Amendment was clearly to prevent the federal government from neutering a state’s power to defend itself – from neighboring states, from outlaws, from possible foreign invaders, etc. Now that we have a standing army, those “military” reasons don’t make much sense, so the “need” for the amendment keeps shifting – first it was for hunters, then it was for self-protection, and now it’s for fighting the government. Next you’ll be saying Jefferson wanted all Americans to be armed in case of a Martian attack.

        • Frank Kahn

          Weeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllll, NO

          premise incorrect
          argument invalid
          conclusion not supported.

          Bringing up the term treason is interesting, since you seem to think that this can only be fomented by citizens against the federal government. An act of treason is something that is harmful to the government of the U.S.. It is accepted (by true citizens) that the federal government is constrained (given its powers and restrictions) by the constitution of this country. Since the constitution is the basis for our government, going against it is treason. Now, it is possible that treason can be viewed as actions of the government itself. To demand that this treason stop (even at gun point) is not only our right, but our duty, to protect our government from treason.

          You give credence to the second amendment that is not there. There is another amendment that speaks to the states powers, the second is only the way of enforcing it.

          You are only partially right in the idea of why the states need their militias. It is, indeed, to protect from foreign invasion, even from other states, but it is also against invasion from the federal government.

          Your statement regarding the standing army is totally wrong. The standing army, which is not really provided for in the constitution, is for protecting the nation from attack. It was never designed to protect one state from another, and in fact, is not legally allowed to participate in such affairs. It is the state militia’s that have that responsibility.

          The reason for the second amendment has never changed, it is written in the amendment itself. Maintaining a free state, it does not ever mention hunting. It does not even say for self protection, however, self protection can be applied to protecting one’s self from tyrannical governments.

          And, to your final attempt at ridicule, I am sure that Martians were not on his mind at the time. However, having the ability to defend against foreign invaders would cover Martians as well. Just not sure how effective an AR-15 is against spaceships.

        • Don 2

          THANK GOD FOR THE NRA

          THE 2ND. AMENDMENT AIN’T ABOUT DUCK HUNTING

          P.S. – IT WAS A “STANDING ARMY” THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE WORRIED ABOUT – OPPRESSORS, BOTH FOREIGN and DOMESTIC.

        • Guest

          Our biggest threat to our freedom is our own government!

        • steve Manista

          The 2nd amendment is like cancer treatment for our gov. When treating cancer you don’t sacrifice the patient to cure the cancer you get rid of the cancer. The same goes for dealing with our own gov we would get rid of the treasonous politicians if and only if we have fully exhausted every non-violent means to do the same but we would keep our government structure for we have one of the best government systems in the world. The line in the 2nd A “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE state” means that a properly equipped and functional militia is needed to maintain a free state free being the key word because without a well armed populace we are only as free as the gov lets us. China for example has Free speech and property rights in theory but they don’t have a right to bear arms so the gov easily get away with trampling those “Rights” and for the record if said Martian attack did happen because it would be a threat to “The security of a free state” yes it is also covered by the 2ndA along with any other threat to a free state both foreign and domestic including the federal government if need be.

        • Carl Stevenson

          The federal government has become the tyrannical enemy the founders feared. It is e reason the 2nd amendment was written. This is very clear if you read the federalist and anti-federalist papers to gain an understanding of their views and their reasoning in crafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
          They feared standing armies as the tool of tyrants.

          The 2nd amendment is the answer.
          There was far less crime when firearms ownership, and carrying a gun openly, was commonplace and didn’t cause a stir of indignation from a bunch of wusses who are too afraid of their own shadow to even contemplate taking responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their families and communities.
          The government loves that “the government will protect me” attitude … It’s the source of tremendous power for the politicians and their agents.
          Look at the militarization of our police departments and the growth of the new Gestapo known as DHS.
          Look at the FBI and BATF’s assassination of Randy Weaver’s wife and son at Ruby Ridge and their assassination of about 80 innocent men, women and children at Waco … Study those events and you will see that they were murderd by government agents who not only walked free with no punishment, but were actually commended and promoted as a reward when the dust settled after the cover ups.
          We don’t need more Gestapo, we need for people to get over their irrational fear of weapons of self-defense (a fear that is being indoctrinated into our children in those government indoctrination centers known as public schools … research that on the Internet too).
          People need to realize that, as Ronald Reagan said, “(More) government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem,” and as George Washinton said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
          Protect our right to SELF-defense, take personal responsibility, and stop the cancerous growth of ever tyrannical government power.
          And the founders didn’t negotiate with tyrants, they shot them.

          • Katrael

            Well said Carl. I wonder if many people will have the gumption to actually take up arms against their government or will they cave in and give up their arms like they did in Louisiana during the Katrina crisis?
            I believe in conspiracies. I believe that part of Ruby Ridge, Waco and that incident when they took all of those children away from their parents in Texas all because of a made up story about molestation, were partly tests to see how the public would respond to the actions the government took? If we were to grade the people of this country on how they responded to the irresponsible and immoral use of force by our government I would say they should have received an F.

        • vicki

          ” why do we have laws against treason?”

          So when government agents violate their oath we can arrest and try them.

        • http://batman-news.com samurai

          Way tooooooooooooooooooooo much kool aid today, he Jeff? Let’s see what you think when they come and kick in your door. Here is an article that shows what happens when you try to keep people from arming themselves, a God-given right.
          http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/america-the-beautiful-as-a-constitutional-republic/
          You must take the repercussions for all your decisions. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
          You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves Jeff out.
          “The true Christian is the true citizen.”
          Theodore Roosevelt

          • Jeff

            Who’s kicking in your door? If it’s a local gang, your gun may do you some good. If it’s the Government, good luck with that. Your gun will guarantee you get killed.

        • Katrael

          Jeff, yes there is such a thing as treason but standing up for your rights isn’t. When the government or any group of people, democratic or not, want to take your property, possessions, life under immoral circumstances then resisting those people is the correct thing to do whether it’s considered treason or not.

          Also, you’ve got it all incorrect about guns: the right to bear arms wasn’t just for hunting or it would have said so.
          The people who wrote the Constitution knew full well that eventually our government would become corrupt beyond repair and that it would seek to enslave it’s own population. That is why it was recognized in the constitution that the people already had the right to bear arms even against their own government. After all, those who wrote the Constitution had to bear arms against their government.

          I think that Brandon Smith, without saying it this way, said that people like yourself are irretrievably broken and, this is my opinion, you should be asked to leave this country before you have a chance to do more harm. The government should buy up your assets at fair market value, then buy you a one way ticket to any destination of your choice. If you won’t leave then you should be forced to.

        • MidnightDStroyer

          “…why do we have laws against treason?”

          Look in the Constitution – Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason
          against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
          them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No
          Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

          “levying war against THEM,” as in the States as a Union…NOT against the US Government as a singular entity.

          “adhering to their Enemies,” as in those ignorant enough to believe the lies of the Statists & attacking individual States. One example is how the US Government legislates or Executive Orders violate the Rights & Powers of the States & the People by REFUSING to enforce Immigration Laws in our border States.

          Note that NOWHERE in the Constitutional definition of Treason does it mention anything about resisting or even disbanding the US level of Government, as the People & the States deem necessary to uphold the Constitution itself! Indeed, the Oath of Office required by ALL Officers (on State level & US level) specifies that they MUST uphold the Constitution!

          • Jeff

            I think an attack on the U.S. Government will be adjudged an attack on the United States, even by the Scalito Court. Maybe you’ll make these inventive arguments on the losing side. So, it’s only treason if you attempt to overthrow state governments but not the Federal Govt.? Has LL ruled on this one yet?

    • Guest

      Liberty Lover you are exactly right….DHS, Patriot Act, NDAA, FEMA Camps it’s all right in front of us maybe people are opening their eyes finally. Almost all of our politicians support the new world order and have declared war on us along time ago.

    • Carl Stevenson

      Yes … To all three of your questions.

      The tyrants in the Obama regime and their bankster, globalist cronies are getting ready for the collapse that they’ve deliberately created as an excuse to try to grab total control. It won’t work. There is a growing push towards resistance, and it is not constrained to the fringes – the first mistake the tyrants in DC make is to assume that.
      Practically every militarily significant weapon made in the last 100 years has sold. 4.6 million weapon sales in 30 days and empty ammo shelves is not a panic – it’s battlespace preparation.
      The second mistake they make is to try to assert that this trend is about racism because Obama is half-black. That’s a cop-out used to demonize and divide – It’s an easy excuse to ignore another person’s points, and justify doing bad things to them; it’s an attempt to convince people that those who oppose the regime’s policies and actions are evil or deranged.
      Their final mistake is to assume that the military and law enforcement agencies will follow orders to disarm their fellow Americans. The military and police are a sub-section of the total population, and will break along the same ideological lines.
      Some police and military members will follow orders. Many, probably most, will disobey, desert, and rebel against orders to attack, imprison, or murder their families, neighbors, and fellow patriots to prop up a corrupt and tyrannical regime.
      This has been played out time and time again in human history.
      Statist politicians should not assume an insurrection will end easily, nor that those they’ve demonized will go quietly into the dark night, nor that they personally will not suffer if it blows up.
      Never let your government disarm you and render you defenseless against their excesses.
      It will be up to the American people to solve the problems the tyrants and banksters have created as a means to steal our wealth and strip us of our liberty.
      After the tyrants are removed from power, they and their partners in crimes against the Constitution and the American people need to be tried in a modern day version of the Nuremberg Trials, here on American soil, by American citizens who are loyal to the Constitution, then punished according to their crimes. Treason is punishable by death. Keep the faith, justice will ultimately be served.

      • Jeff

        So, our freely elected governments, which always relinquish power at term’s end, are dictatorial like the Nazis, etc., etc.? No offense, but you are completely nuts and I daresay 95% of the population would agree.

        • JeffH

          Yeah, right unhinged Jeff, and pigs can fly too!

          Our representatives are “freely elected”, our government is not and our “government” doesn’t relinquish any power because there are no “term limits” on government,

          Seek help and quit grasping at straws.

    • http://batman-news.com samurai

      Well said, fellow patriot. Well said. This is one reason for our God-given rights under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Never mind Jeff as he knows not what he is saying. One of the treasonous acts they have committed was at Benghazi.
      http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/benghazi-whistleblower-you-should-have-seen-what-clinton-tried-to-do-to-us-that-night/
      http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/is-this-man-the-mastermind-behind-the-benghazi-cover-up/
      Or how about when our Special Forces were put on ice and kept from going and/or performing their duties?
      http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/benghazi-witness-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi
      I guess that Hitlery will have a lot to answer for. Mike Hucklebee thinks this could be big enough to have Obama bin Laden ousted from office and keep Hitlery running in 2016. We can only hope this comes true. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
      You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.
      “Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.”
      Daniel Webster

  • hungry4food

    Your Rights mean NOTHING with this GOING ON because civil breakdown by this invasion will unleash Chaos that only martial law will contain .

    Once they figure there are enough thugs in place in the USA the dollar will be rejected in the international market of supply’s that the USA and Wall Street need to economically survive and this chaos will breakout .

    The Civilian Army Obama talked about building is being done this way ……

    Julia Davis, a former Customs and Border Protections Officer, was
    falsely declared a domestic terrorist and subjected to retaliatory
    efforts against her by the Department of Homeland Security.
    Her home was raided by a 27 man “special response team.” She was twice
    falsely arrested and imprisoned, but later exonerated. She is now a
    national security expert and has put out a historical documentary titled Top Priority: The Terror Within. She claims that the War On Terror by the Department of Homeland Security is a charade and that the agency seems to be targeting concerned American patriots.

    Davis says her documentary is about her
    time with DHS in dealing with applicants from countries with ties to
    terrorism, who are seeking to come into the United States.

    She says that they had “very specific
    alerts” that on July 4, 2004 that members of Al-Qaeda would be
    attempting to cross the border from Mexico into the US. The land port
    where Ms. Davis worked is the largest and busiest land port in the
    world, San Ysidro Port.
    She says that Islamic clerics say this is the best place to breech the
    US border because of the large number of people coming through.

    She says that she began to input the information into the DHS database,
    which she was required to do as a supervisor, and she noticed that she
    had a high number of people from terrorist countries set to come through
    her port on July 4. She says there were 23 people form terrorist
    countries who were to be admitted into the US on that day. She said the
    average number of people coming from terrorist countries would normally
    be 5-10 per month. So to have 23 in a ten hour span was “alarming.”

    But it goes further. Davis says that
    none of these people were subjected to routine checks that were in place
    for applicants from terrorist countries. According to Davis, “They were
    supposed to be fingerprinted. They were supposed to be asked why they
    left the US, why they were coming back, where they were living… all
    these different procedures that would have taken approximately an hour
    for each person. None of it was done.”

    In fact, in some of the cases, the individuals didn’t fill out the paperwork or provide the documents they were supposed to in order to come into the United States.

    Davis indicated that the Port Director
    was not informed about the situation and that when she went higher up to
    Intel and she said she “nearly fell down” when she found a “closed
    door.” The entire Intel office was “given the day off so that they could
    Bar-B-Q on the Fourth of July.” Ultimately there was no one that she
    could report her findings to. Coincidence? I think not.

    The Port Director wasn’t worried either. He simply told her to put it in their box and they would get to it when they had opportunity.
    This was in direct opposition to what their manual stated was to
    happen, according to Ms. Davis. They were to get the information to a
    joint terrorism task force.

    That night, since she was no longer
    under the Port Director’s orders, she contacted the FBI to inform them
    of the situation. In her mind, she was simply being patriotic and
    informing people who should be able to use the information to deal with a
    very real threat. She simply wanted to make sure that while others were
    barbequing that nothing was going to be blown up in the United States.

    From that time on, every day when she
    came to work she was being investigated for one thing or another. She
    says everything they brought up to here was frivolous and ridiculous and
    she believes it was an attempt to get her fired to discredit anything
    she would say. All of this was because the FBI knew the information and
    DHS was embarrassed that the information came to them the way it did.

    Within a period of two weeks, Davis was
    the subject of 19 investigations. By the time she sued Homeland Security
    there had been 54 investigations! On top of that, she was declared a
    domestic terrorist! My fellow Americans,
    this is a woman that sought to ensure the safety of our border! She was
    vigilant at her job and according to what she is saying, our
    government, if the allegations are true, has acted not only negligently
    against the American people, but criminally against her.

    Davis’ home was raided by a 27 man SWAT
    team in a Blackhawk helicopter. She said they spent more time and
    utilized more man power raiding her home without a warrant than the government used to raid the alleged compound of Osama bin Laden.

    Davis believes that no one dealt with
    the issue she brought forward because either they were derelict of duty
    or, more likely, there was corruption. She said that the Customs
    Department is historically one of the most corrupt agencies, especially
    the land port where she worked. In fact, she said that her border
    crossing had a Port Director who was caught taking bribes to allow
    people to come across. She also said there were intel reports that came
    up later which indicated that Arab nationals were offering $5,000 per
    person to allow individuals across the border without facing any
    scrutiny.

    When asked what she thought about DHS and their priorities, Davis said:

    “It makes me think that he so-called ‘War on Terror’ is
    more of a charade and that the priority of the agency seems to be to
    target concerned citizens and whistleblowers because in my case… they
    sent an airplane to follow me… they had eight agents at a time following
    me… they used airplanes, vehicles, helicopters… they used OnStar to
    listen to what was being said in our cars.”

    As her lawsuit progressed, she says she
    obtained documentation of why DHS said she was a domestic terrorist.
    According to the documentation, DHS labeled David a domestic terrorist
    “for derogatory statements made in her filings and in her articles about
    the Department of Homeland Security.” Well I guess I know what I’m
    labeled then, eh?

    Davis believes that DHS acts in this way so that they don’t have to follow the laws (something people like Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain agree with) and not have to follow the Constitution. Keep in mind though that we are not talking about the DHS under Barack Obama, but the DHS under George W. Bush.

    Since the release of her film, their Fleur De Lis (the producer of the film)
    family stores have been raided by DHS and they are under continual
    surveillance. She also has a number of electronic interruptions as well.
    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audited them along with their attorneys who assisted her as she prevailed against DHS.

    There is more in the video, which you
    will want to see. However, even after she is exonerated, DHS continues
    to hound her. This is not freedom. This is not liberty. This is not
    justice. This is the face of tyranny and yes, it’s here in the US.

    Watch the trailer of Top Priority: The Terror Within below:

  • Wizzardly

    Consider that the Constitution was established as a set of rules to limit Federal control of everything. If it is a “living document”, then it could be “evolved” into a set of rules to enable central control of everything. It can be and has been adjusted through amendments, but not to obviate its original intent. This first principle is simple and obvious and must drive the progs crazy as they thrash and writhe and froth trying to destroy our right to just be left alone.

    • Smilee

      The Constitution gave the federal government control it never had before the Constitution was ratified originally so it was given more rights not less so how can that be limiting it, it defines it . The tenth amendment (often misinterpreted) gives rights to the states only if the Constitution does not give powers to the federal government so federal power supersedes states rights as the SC has ruled in many cases the latest being in Obamacare. Even though that power was there since 1789 Congress did not choose to exercise it until 2010. States rights disputes over states rights and federal control have always been argued but the Civil War for all purposes settled that and thus it is settled despite the fact that some today still wish to ignore that and re-argue pre civil war positions which failed then and will fail now.

      • Capiralist at Birth

        Post ignored, for good reason.

      • vicki

        Government has NO rights. Government has ONLY Powers. This is true for the Federal and State. People have rights and powers. We, the People chose to delegate some powers to government at various levels.

        See Amendment 9 (rights) and 10 (powers)

        • Smilee

          Power = Rights , the 9th & 10th only says if the US has the powers under the Constitution then the states do not so states rights is secondary to the Feds. So the SC court has said many times, recently Obamacare & Arizona immigration laws have proved this. The powers given government is defined in the Constitution and can be changed only by a difficult process of amending it.

          • vicki

            If powers = rights the founders would have worded the 9th and 10th amendments accordingly. They did not. People have rights (9th Amendment) States (and obviously all government) have powers. The powers delegated to state and federal government came from a source. As clearly stated in the 10th. The People.

            http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

          • Smilee

            The founding fathers did not write the first ten amendments the first Congress did. Why do you continuously misinterpret and misquote the ninth & tenth amendments. Read the tenth below and discover the error of your ways. It clearly says that the states or the people only has the powers not delegated to the United States. Fed law supersedes states rights if the Constitution so says. That is how the court ruled in Obamacare and many other cases. What the SC says counts what you say does not.

            Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

            The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          • vicki

            Since I provided specific links to the exact text your claim that I misquoted them is in error. Now let us study number 10. Powers are delegated to the United States (no rights. Just powers) Powers that are not delegated to the United States and that are not denied to the states (coin money as an example) belong to the states or the people. This clearly states that States have only powers. No Rights. States can only get powers from delegation from the entities that have powers. The People. 10 even mentions that little detail. Hence Powers come from The People and are delegated to the State and Federal Governments. Hence People have powers which they chose to delegate. The Constitution is the contract that specifies where, when, how etc.

          • Smilee

            The SC does not agree with you, you are real confused sweetie.

    • Flashy

      Criminey….will you folks read the frippin’ Constitution and some of the major court cases ?

      The Constitution is nothing more than a declaration that government has no power except that which is given it by society. The Amendments restrict society as to what it can intrude upon the individual. The entire premise of our Constitution is that society is the ultimate entity having power. It can intrude upon the individual as it, in its collective decison making processes, decides.

      • Capitalist at Birht

        Post ignored.

        • Karolyn

          If you’re really ignoring it, you wouldn’t post that you’re ignoring it! :-)

          • Capitalist at Birth

            I was trying to set an example for others to follow. I learned a long time ago that there is no point in a discussion with a totalitarian socialist, such as yourself for example. And no, I did not read any of these idiotic posts today, or will I any other day..

      • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Flashy,

        You write: “The Constitution is nothing more than a declaration that government has no power except that which is given it by society.” No. The Constitution is a declaration that the government has no power except those powers enumerated in the document. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-powers/

        If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. –James Madison

        They are not to do anything they please to provide for the
        general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please . . . . Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. –Thomas Jefferson

        It would be absurd to say, first, that Congress may do what
        they please and then that they may do this or that particular thing. After giving Congress power to raise money, and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the “general welfare”, it would be absurd, to say the least, to supersede a power to raise armies, to provide fleets, etc. In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumerations which limits and details them, or they convert the Government from one limited as heretofore supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a Government without any limits at all. –James Madison

        [T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions . . . would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. –Thomas Jefferson

        The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. –Thomas Jefferson

        Best wishes,
        Bob

        • Flashy

          Mr. Livingston….I understand why you tossed in the quotes from Thomas Jefferson…to obfuscate the issue and try and twist what i stated to mean something else.

          I said nothing about Congress. Congress is a creation of the system of government which we, the People, the Society, created.

          Staying focused on what i wrote, under the theory which was used to create our system of governance, society holds the power. It stated what powers it would cede to the government, and the government has no more, nor less, than those ceded. Should there arise a need to give more, or restrict, those powers, the Constitution has a specified method to which that may be accomplished.

          As well, the society specified powers to the individual recognizing rights which are those of the individual, and which were agreed to be protected by society from both society AND the government.

          The recognition and protections of those individual rights may be erased by the same process of expanding or restricting the powers of government.

          Both through the Amendment process.

          If the People, Society, decides that there are too many wackos running around with guns and such is not a good thing, then the 2nd may be erased via a Constitutional Convention or 3/4’s of the states ratifying a change in the Constitution.

          Now..what exactly the Constitution allows both as a legitimate power of government or as an individual right is determined by the SCOTUS.

          Glad to be of assistance straightening out your confusion.

          • Jeff

            Since we are not likely to have another Constitutional Convention anytime soon (and if we did it would be a disaster – Can you imagine Congressional Repugs putting in all kinds of garbage about abortion, voting restrictions, and gun rights while removing the most important protections in the Bill of Rights?), wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on what the 2nd Amendment does, and does not, say? I do not think it is a radical interpretation to say it does not grant the right to armed insurrection no matter what anyone, or everyone, on this blog says. If anyone thinks the 2nd Amendment gives him the right to any weapons the Army has,he is a gun nut. If he thinks the Supreme Court, even this radically right wing Court, will agree with him, he is psychotic.

          • Don 2

            WHEN YOU NEED A COP IN SECONDS – ONE WILL BE THERE IN MINUTES
            BETTER TO HAVE A GUN AND NOT NEED ONE – THAN TO NEED A GUN AND NOT HAVE ONE

          • vicki

            The most important protection in the entire Constitution is the 2nd Amendment. Without it all the others are just words on parchment.

          • http://batman-news.com samurai

            SSDD, eh Jeff? Here is an article describing hidden messages in Obama bin Laden’s speeches.
            http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/rush-obama-sending-secret-signals-to-mexicans/
            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves Jeff out.
            “On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely on salvation on His merits; not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts.”
            Charles Carroll
            Signer of the Declaration of Independence
            Devout Christian

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Flashy,

            You write: “Should there arise a need to give more, or restrict, those powers, the Constitution has a specified method to which that may be accomplished.” Not if it infringes on the rights granted under the first 10 Amendments. The original Bill of Rights was prefaced with the following preamble: “THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses be added; And as extending the ground of public confidence in
            Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” Thomas Tredwell of New York, in making an argument against ratification without a bill of rights, said, “In this Constitution, sir, we have departed widely from the principles and political faith of ’76 when the spirit of liberty ran high, and danger put a curb on ambition. Here we find no security for the existence of our state governments; here is no bill of rights, no proper restriction of power; our lives, our property, and our consciences, are left wholly at the mercy of the legislature, and powers of the judiciary may be extended to any degree short of almighty. Sir, in this Constitution we have not only neglected—we have done worse,–we have openly violated, our faith,–that is our public faith.” In short, the Bill of Rights were meant to be sacrosanct, as Brandon pointed out.

            You write: “The recognition and protections of those individual rights may be erased by the same process of expanding or restricting the powers of government.” A ludicrous and unfounded statement. See above.

            You write: “Now..what exactly the Constitution allows both as a legitimate power of government or as an individual right is determined by the SCOTUS.” While I agree that judicial review has become “accepted” that does not make it the original intent. The framers sought co-equal branches of government. If SCOTUS can determine what is “Constitutional” in the actions of the executive and legislative branches and even its own actions, then the branches are no longer co-equal. “[T]he government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of mode and measure of redress.”

            You write: “Glad to be of assistance straightening out your confusion.” There was none on my end.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Flashy

            Mr. Livingston..you are saying the Constitution may be amended and changed according to the process it specifies. And that Amendments 11-27 may be changed or eliminated pursuant to the processes of the Constitution (actually 26 since the 21st nullified the 18th), but that 1-10 are inviolate and cannot be changed. The Original document and all other Amendments can be, but not Amendments 1-10. Even though 1-10 were adopted according to the specified process.

            Hokayyyyy…and you find this information where? ‘Cause it sure in the heck ain’t in the Constitution nor in any Amendment.

            As for your contention that the SCOTUS is above the other two branches of government….I am stymied following your “logic”. The Congress makes law, the Executive implements them, and the Judicial interprets the Constitution determining if the laws and the implementation are within those powers given in the Constitution (as amended) and, if violated, the proper redress of grievances (damages).

            That’s the way it was done, and continues to be done. If you believe otherwise…then you are confused about the ways and means of our Constitution and our system of government. I suggest you restudy your Constitutional law and our system of government, obviously you have erred in your belief.

        • Smilee

          Your statement:

          “They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

          Article I Section 8 clause one reads as follows:

          The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

          This part of the constitution equates general welfare with common defense. You say Congress can not do anything they please with the general welfare, so are you also saying they cannot do anything they please with the common defense?? You say they can lay taxes for that purpose of general welfare but cannot decide what that general welfare is, REALLY?? This is the clause Roberts used to defend his OK with Obamacare and you are asking us to believe you over Roberts and the majority on the SC?? If Obamacare is ok’d by the SC giving Congress that power in deciding it is general welfare and taxing to pay for it. This is a big contradiction with your position stated above and does not square with either the Constitution or courts rulings. How do you explain Medicare and Social
          Security?? The SC says you are wrong here.

          Best Wishes

          • http://batman-news.com samurai

            We don’t need the SCOTUS to tell us our rights, for the Constitution is plainly written and easy to understand. Obama bin Laden Care was upheld because Obama bin Laden said it was a tax and not a health care plan. Sheesh! We’ve known this for more than a year now, but where has your head been? Here is an article showing how the IRS has expanded Obama bin Laden Care. How could they do this if it was only a health care plan?
            http://www.godfatherpolitics.com/10654/irs-decides-obamacare-is-too-small-unilaterally-expands-it/
            Here is something showing some of our history that atheists would not like to read.
            http://www.godfatherpolitics.com/10650/some-religious-history-atheists-dont-want-you-to-read/
            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
            “Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.”
            Rev. John Dickinson
            Signer of the Constitution
            Devout Christian

          • Smilee

            Lies, lies and more lies that is all you know and you only read these propaganda sites for you info which is almost always false and you buy into their BS leaving you ln the dark. What the Supreme Court says has meaning and its outcomes count,, you however know nothing and what you say has no meaning or any effect on the outcomes. Your one big stupid joke!!!!

      • vicki

        “The entire premise of our Constitution is that society is the ultimate entity having power. It can intrude upon the individual as it, in its collective decison making processes, decides.”

        Um. No. The entire premise of our Constitution is that we as a society or a group or an individual, can only give our government agents a very few powers. And the Bill of rights further restricts society from delegating some powers to our government at any level no matter how many in society want it.

        Our founders explicitly stated that they do NOT trust democracy (your decision making process of your society entity)

        • Smilee

          All in your dreams

          • vicki

            Argument to ridicule? Or just an irrelevant comment.

          • JeffH

            Both! :)

          • vicki

            :)

        • Flashy

          Try again Vicki…if society deems the 2nd to be an amendment which is one which should be eliminated…the process is clearly spelled out in the Constitution how that may be done. A Constitutional Convention or the ratification process.

          Jeesh…THINK once in awhile will ya !

          Under either of those two, any amendment may be eliminated. See e.g. the 18th and the 21st.

          • vicki

            removing the contractual obligation to protect my God given right to keep and bear arms does NOT remove that right.

          • Bill Henry

            Give it a try then. You look at the Bill of Rights to be and integral part of the Constitution. The remainder of the Constitution is an adjunct to the Bill of Rights. It was added to further delineate the powers of government as to what they could and could not change in the Constitution, as related to the freedoms of the people. Explain to me why Diane Feinstein hasn’t started a bill to repeal the Second instead of trying to bully her away around it.

            How far do you expect that a change that removed the Bill of Rights would get in a ratification or a convention? Probably about as far as it would for her to appeal it. You see she suffers under the same delusion that all of you gun grabbers do, that being that she has the power of the public behind her. She actually believes that 90% of the U.S. support her efforts. She has her Senator blinders on, and as you and others of your ilk have failed to do is look at the figures of how many people have bought fire arms since this push started, especially how many new owners have purchased them. Another question would be why have they purchased them? Maybe hunting season? Mayhap so, but those usually occur in the fall of the year. Could it be for personal protection? If so, from what that would cause such a rapid rise in firearms purchases? Perplexing questions. Maybe time will give us the answer. It usually answers a lot of our questions.

      • http://batman-news.com samurai

        Waaaaaaay tooooooooooomuch kool aid today. Well said Bob, fellow patriot. People like Flashy, Jeff, and other members of the 5th colum just don’t understand our Constitution nor the ways of our Christian founding fathers. Here is a site for Flashy and Jeff to look at.
        http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.
        “I recommend my soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merrits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.”
        Samuel Adams
        Founding father
        Devout Christian

  • Smilee

    The founding fathers did not see fit to include the bill of rights in the original ratification of the constitution as apparently they did not see that as important in 1789. It was congress though the amendment clause of the Constitution that voted for them and the states ratified them in 1791. The Constitution can be amended at any time without any restrictions on how we do so. The founding fathers never intended that the Constitution be cast in concrete based on their thinking or acts but left that up to each generation. Once an amendment is ratified it is just as relevant as the orgininal in 1789 unless the orgininal or previous amendment has been changed by a later amendment. We have through the years in acts and amendments improved and added freedoms woman’s suffrage, eliminating slavery, segregation. civil rights, voting rights, abortion, etc and the next is marriage freedoms. We have gained many freedoms since 1789 not lost any, from a government of the white rich male for the white rich male and by the white rich male to many more freedoms for “WE THE PEOPLE” of the people, for the people and by the people.

    • Capiralist at Birth

      What amendment cover abortions? Are you dreaming? Too much acid in your past? I doubt, very seriously that an amendment regarding homosexual marriage (abnormal sexual behavior) would be ratified by 6 states and therefore would fail in the amendment process. Where is the amendment regarding segregation? You obviously lack 6th grade level reading comprehension.

      • Flashy

        “You obviously lack 6th grade level reading comprehension.”

        Applying such to you there CB?

        Guess you never read those SCOTUS cases which clearly define what Right was existing./protected in each of your examples?

        • http://www.facebook.com/CapitalistAtBirth Greg Murphy

          Once again, you prefer to have people dressed in robes tell you what to think. sounds like a fetish. I can logically deduce what is right and what is wrong on my own. I have read enough of your posts to know that you are not very well read. And just because someone says it is so, does not make it truth. It is a legal opinion, pure and simple. While ignoring the rights of the unborn the Supreme Court ventured where it never should have. Those 54 million unborn citizens have had their sovereign rights stripped. Sad commentary on those Justices that ruled that day, and if you agree with that ruling, it shows your lack of understanding of science and morality.

          • Smilee

            This is just an opinion and it is in total conflict with reality therefore your opinion is of no value to the truth

          • vicki

            Much the same as your unfounded opinions

          • Smilee

            Just your meaningless opinion

          • Smilee

            The words of those in robes have power, your meaningless words are totally powerless opinions without any merit as opposed to the words of those in robes

        • Jeff

          If it wasn’t talked about by Limbaugh or Beck, it didn’t really happen.

      • Jeff

        It’s the 9th Amendment, the one you right wingers really hate.

      • Jeff

        Are you seriously asking such basic questions? Sexual behavior is covered by the right to privacy recognized by the Court in Griswold, based at least in part on the 9th Amendment. As for the “segregation” amendment, it was the three amendments following the Civil War – the 13th, 14th, and 15th, particularly the 14th’s due process and equal protection clauses. Of course, because of the intransigence of people on your side of the spectrum, those amendments may as well have been locked in a vault for 100 years after passage.

        • vicki

          Abortion is not a sexual behavior. Abortion is murder.

      • Smilee

        Did you ever attend school? Interpretations of the constitution by the SC become the law of the land as in segregation and abortion. Even through it specifically does not mention either it is irrelevant and this applies to Obamacare as well but they all fall within the framework of the Constitution so that makes them covered under the constitution. You apparently are ignorant of the difference of common law and constitutional law. One has to ignore the the ignorant as they are incapable of discourse with those with knowledge.

        • vicki

          Since abortion is murder there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

          • smilee

            Your opinion not supported by the SC so you opinion has no value in truth

          • WTS/JAY

            Is the SC infallible? If so, then truly my opinion doesn’t matter. Btw, 1 billion Catholics believe the pope to be infallible. Ain’t that a kicker?

          • vicki

            Actually my opinion is directly supported by the SC so my opinion has more value then your attempt to invalidate it.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
            Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment
            extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must
            be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests in regulating
            abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women’s health.
            Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a
            pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy.

            ————————————————————————-
            Note specifically the state interest in protecting prenatal life.

          • Jeff

            And what are you willing to do to lessen the need for abortion? Simply making it illegal will only return us to the pre-Roe situation where women got illegal abortions. Do you favor real sex education? Access to birth control? Have you offered to adopt a baby in order to prevent an abortion from occurring? Or are you just interested in shaming young women for having sex?

          • vicki

            There is never a need for murder though I am pretty certain that murderers would disagree.

    • vicki

      “The Constitution can be amended at any time without any restrictions on how we do so.”

      The fact that you carry this thought as to how the Constitution is to be amended tells much about your knowledge.

      • Smilee

        It says more about your lack of knowledge as my statement is true

        • Kuurus

          The process is very specific !

          • vicki

            The process is indeed very specific. That is why Smilee’s comment is so amusing.

          • Smilee

            I never said it was not specific because it is, never the less it certainly exists and can be changed under thee specifics. Please do not put words in my mouth.

          • vicki

            Your exact words are right up there for all to see (I even quoted them in my original post). Deny to your heart’s content if you wish.

        • http://batman-news.com samurai

          Talking about ourselves again Kang? Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. Tell me where you can find references to God and Jesus in the Constitution. Yes, his comment is amusing Vicki as smilee believes that his interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one. Here is a video showing a woman, who was raped, turning into an activist for the 2nd Amendment.
          http://www.conservativevideos.com/2013/05/from-rape-vicim-to-2nd-amendment-activist/
          This will blow smilee’s dense libturd mind. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
          You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves smilee out.
          “I do not consider atheists to be citizens, nor do I consider them patriots. This is One Nation Under God.”
          George H. W. Bush
          41st U.S. President

          • Smilee

            It is I whom agrees with the SC it is you who does not. I accept their decision you do not then you inject your interpretation as being right when it is wrong. I never use my own interpretation and use the courts decisions to point out the error of your ways. Remember Obamacare above where you specifically do that as one example and as usual you are dead wrong. You always point out other peoples opinions as proof when none of these opinion have any effect what so ever in law. You use them to support your misguided ad false conclusions and thus your depth of ignorance is exposed,

  • FreedomFighter

    When you people realize many elites, the power brokers, those that decide what clothes are in style, what you see on TV, plan your life to their goals – don’t give a rats arse if you live or die and are Satanists dedicated to bringing about Lucifer’s rule upon the earth what’s happening in the world will never make sense.

    If one accepts the premise above and looks again…the senseless happenings in the world focus into clarity the pieces begin to fit together – but you still wont believe it – its just not real, not possible. Then again.

    Laus DeoSemper FI

    • http://batman-news.com samurai

      If you see what is going on around you, the country, and the world, you will see that these things and the Bible go hand in hand. Here is an article showing an American being arrested for possible terrorism in America. Can’t trust anyone of the 5th columners.
      http://www.freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/minnesota-man-arrested-on-suspicion-of-plotting-terror-attack/
      The 5th column strikes again. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
      You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.
      “A patriot must be a religious man.”
      Thomas Jefferson

  • $8012302

    Must we endure the 19th century again. Abolitionists
    (socialist neocolonials) were the instigators of the civil war with a theme of
    freeing the slaves. Those same revolutionist became what is known to American history as carpetbaggers who were
    sent to the south to reorganize their freedoms. Socialist appointed do-gooders
    that wanted to regulate the freedom of the people (today’s democrats) and felt
    that freedom was that equality of living as determined by them and paid for by
    someone else. That someone else became the taxes that we still pay today.
    Slavery is the scourge of mankind that has existed since before written history
    and will continue until total individual freedom is recognized by what is now
    an uncivilized world. Collective freedom is regulated freedoms, inherent personal
    freedom is a moral freedom. Knowing how to live without imposing your wants.
    wishes or needs to be someone else’s responsibilities. Moral freedom is self sustaining freedom in which we by our own
    actions determine our style of existence. Work hard, live well. Don’t work,
    live in poverty. Be thy brother’s keeper by teaching him about moral freedom
    with its responsibilities , not collective (socialist welfare) freedom.

    • Jeff

      So slavery is a scourge but those who endeavor to end it are socialist carpetbaggers?

      Your little diatribe might get a passing grade in a 10th grade class, but your entire rant leaves out the importance of a society. We are not simply a collection of individuals all making rational decisions about work and rewards. We live in a complex society where some are inherently more able than others, whether physically or mentally. Some are born into situations requiring minimal effort for great rewards; others have to work extremely hard just to achieve a minimal level of comfort. If we, as a society, determine that citizenship (or residence) means a minimal living standard, it is perfectly legitimate, but such an arrangement doesn’t even fit your little two-dimensional description. Instead of trying to impose your simplistic idea of what society should be, why not first take a look at the complexity of what actually exists?

      • vicki

        “So slavery is a scourge but those who endeavor to end it are socialist carpetbaggers?”

        Kinda depends on the methods and motives of those who endeavor. There are good and bad ways to accomplish good ends.

  • Stuart Shepherd

    It constantly makes me completely sick, when reading Mr. Smith’s articles, to realize how much wisdom he has and how young he is at the same time! God must have screwed his head on his shoulders in one simple act, instead of slowly over time like the rest of us! Thank you, Mr. Smith.

    • vicki

      It should not make you sick. It should make you rejoice that ones such as Mr. Smith are among us.

      • http://batman-news.com samurai

        Well said Vicki, fellow patriot. We are living in a world with wolves in sheep’s clothing. Here is what real courage is about.
        http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/general-cites-bible-comment-as-real-courage/
        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
        You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.
        “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and NATURE”S GOD entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
        Declaration of Independence
        1st paragraph

        • Smilee

          You do not look very good in sheeps clothing!!!!!!!!!!!

          • http://batman-news.com samurai

            The personal attack. Classic 5th column strategy. If you have some time on your hands, why don’t you do something useful, like get ready for work? Here is a video showing how Obama bin Laden is down playing how big and intrusive our government has become by lying to a graduating class.
            http://www.conservativevideos.com/2013/05/obama-to-college-students-reject-these-voices-that-warn-of-big-government-tyranny/
            I guess with the dumbing down of America to go with this, I guess he doesn’t want anyone to know their God-given rights as are written in the Bill of Rights. I guess the Old Deluder Satan Act of 1640 has not only been trashed by libturds and progturds, but has come true. If our students don’t have a good education, our student won’t know the laws of their state, their God-given rights, nor will they know the scriptures. All are bad for our country, but are good for 5th columners, like you. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
            “Sensible of my mortality, but being of sound mind, after recommending my soul to Almighty God through the merits of my Redeemer and my body to the earth.”
            William Cushing
            First Associate Justice appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court
            Devout Christian

          • vicki

            They use the personal attack and argument to ridicule often.

          • http://batman-news.com samurai

            True that! True that! Keep up the good fight fellow patriot. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in God to be a patriot.
            “Whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government.”
            SCOTUS Case People vs. Ruggles 1811

          • Jeff

            The ridiculous invite ridicule.

          • vicki

            Why yes, Liberals do. Good of you to notice :)

          • Smilee

            I only offered my honest opinion as that is what I think about you, You never tell the truth!!

          • Jeff

            Have you ever read the nonsense you post? The personal insults are the least offensive parts, but a personal insult is ever present.

  • Wiley2

    This is an excellent article that begins at the very heart of the matter, which is the fundamental question of whether we have the right to govern our own lives. Statists believe that some people are so superior that they have the right to subject everyone else to their whims and prejudices, and to force everyone to conform to their views. That’s the essence of the master-slave relationship, and every new power that is granted to the government and taken away from individuals takes us back toward the slavery that so-called liberals and statists claim to oppose.

  • http://www.facebook.com/henry.stumpf.1 Henry Stumpf

    What is it our TROOPS have fought and DIED for ??????????

    • WTS/JAY

      Oil and opium!

  • hungry4food

    Message From God
    Found Hidden Inside DNA Sequence

    this will make
    the deniers scream !!!!!!

    http://dailycurrant.com/2013/02/01/message-god-hidden-dna-sequence/

    • Karolyn

      That is amazing! However, it still does not mean that everything in the Bible is true. Actually, it doesn’t prove anything other than a superior intelligence, which could even be alien in nature, created man. As far as this: “Clearly this means our God is the one true God and that we should exterminate rival religions,” says Frank Page, leader of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention. “Now that we have truth on our side, I think it’s time we start a new crusade.” He’s wrong. It in no way means that the Christian God is the one true God.

      • vicki

        There is but one true God. It is possible that the view of that entity as described by Christians is more accurate than the view as described by Muslims (for instance). You do have a way to determine which view is closer to the actual view.

        Now your comment about alien nature. Did you mean people from other planets? If so then who created them?

        And God knows that I have the same question for Him.

      • WTS/JAY

        Frank Page is not a Christian. Frank Page is a lunatic!

    • vicki

      Just to be sure I checked the publishing date on the article. Feb 1. Now bring on the peer review and lets see if this is repeatable science.

      While looking for that peer review I did find this interesting article
      http://www.ucg.org/science/hey-hey-dna-proving-gods-existence-genetically/

  • Karolyn

    Take a look at this! Alternative Cancer treatment center closed down by FBI and FDA!
    http://www.naturalnews.com/040225_Camelot_Cancer_Care_FBI_raid.html

    • vicki

      Are you surprised? Conservatives have been warning about excess government for YEARS.

  • Incredulous_one

    Excellent article, Mr. Smith. However, I feel it was incomplete. In your opening paragraph, you claim statists are a combination of both useful idiots (afraid of liberty) and those with malicious intents (who want to destroy the BoR.) You brilliantly explained the former, but you never got around to the 1% of statists who lead the 99% useful idiots. When can we expect Part II of this article? I anxiously await…

  • Mark Are Reynolds Ⓥ

    Natural
    law is not complicated. There is near universal consensus that stealing
    people’s stuff, beating them up, raping, or killing them is wrong.
    These are natural crimes. Laws enacted by legislatures are political
    crimes. Individuals who enact and enforce political crimes are
    committing natural crimes against other individuals.

  • MidnightDStroyer

    From the article: “The statist “reality” is a far cry from what actually is; and soon, I’m afraid, they will learn this lesson the hard way.”

    Indeed, history stands witness that those who practice Statist “philosophy” have ALWAYS been learning the lesson the hard way; note the numerous revolutions, coups & outright destruction delivered upon tyrannical governments. Albert Einstein has said, “Insanity: doing the same thing over & over again and expecting different results.” This is true of the Statist because they “revise” history to their own comfort & have selective amnesia when it comes to the historical results of their actions. They consistently use the same strategies & tactics that they’ve ALWAYS used throughout human history & have always meet the same end. The Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the British Empire, they’ve ALL broken down. Statists operating in America have established an “American Empire” through spreading out our military to the degree that they have permanently-stationed bases in nearly all countries around the world…This Empire (AKA: New World Order) will also collapse & it’s the doing of Statists, not the People.

    The only difference is how they use advancing technologies to implement those same old actions…They are not promoting any kind of NEW World Order by any means, only promoting the same failed OLD World Order. As the US Constitution was ratified, it was indeed “The Great Experiment,” in that for the first time in the known history of human civilization. The founding of the USA was the FIRST time that the Supreme Law of the Land was based upon the People being sovereign over the Government…At all other times before, the Government always assumed sovereignty over the People. In this way, the Constitution established the first seed of the true New World Order, because it was the exact opposite of any other Government before it.