The Declaration of Independence told Great Briton "I quit" and then went on to explain why (i.e. listed grievances). It was an open letter to GB (and it's King) but also to the rest of the world outlining the new US thinking about what government really was, where human rights actually emanated from (G_d, not man), and provided guidelines on when it was and was not appropriate for a subordinate government to break out and live under its own rules.
In contrast, the constitution explained how the new government would be run.
So we had the "why" explained to the world in the Declaration of Independence and then the "what" this new government could do/not do and how it should be done was given in the Constitution. The constitution is very short, like something you could write up in a day if you wanted to.
Later on we got the bill of rights which are really just the first 10 amendments to the constitution. I think the bill of rights was one of the biggest mistakes that our founders ever made. And the main aspect of this mistake was to ever allow it to be called the bill of rights.
The reason this was such a huge mistake is because a HUGE percentage of the population believes that this is where we get our rights from. The establishment has worked long and hard to create this false perception as well. And the reason is simple: if government gave us our rights then, whenever they felt it is the interest of "the chillllllldren" or whatever bullshit excuse they make up, they can curtail or eliminate said rights.
Yes, even died in the wool "gun nuts" stupidly repeat over and over that we have to "fight for our rights, don't lose the right to keep and bear", etc. What the founders should have done was to create a bill of PROTECTIONS, not a bill of rights. Why? Because that is actually what the bill of rights is. It does not grant rights! It simply promises that government will not infringe upon and will in fact step in to protect if needed, the G_d given rights of people to, for example, keep and bear arms given that guns are a prerequisite to freedom. Likewise if someone is limiting your free speech, government should stop the bully from doing that.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Liberals try to read between the lines on this in order to create confusion and to cast doubt on what the founders actually meant by adding this amendment. But there is no way to read this that says it grants rights to keep and bear. The only question is whether it specifically denies government the option of infringing on people's G_d given rights. This is a very key point that I don't see anyone discussing. But if we got rid of this amendment it would clearly NOT suddenly give government the right to grab guns. AT ALL. All such removal would do is end the debate on whether it is part of the governmental mandate to NOT infringe on our G_d given rights.
A properly written bill of protections would state at the top of each protected item that the item is a G_d-given right which government has no authority to hinder or take away, and the only thing that the bill of protections does is to agree that government has the responsibility to protect the specific G_d given rights from bullies who might try to steal them.
It is for this reason that I think we need to start a new national push which says, abolish the 2nd amendment, I don't need government to help protect my G_d given right to keep and bear arms. Lack of the 2nd Amendment is not lack of the right to keep and bear arms and to defend ourselves against all threats, foreign and domestic. Remember this because life in the next few years is going to be very different than it is today.
By the way, all of this talk is kind of a moot point. If they ever come for our guns we patriots of the US do not intend to hand them over. If they credibly threaten us with violence, we will respond in kind. Fools and idiots actually believe that the US government can overpower the armed conservative patriots of this country. They state that having a military with fighter jets, helicopters, cruise missiles, air craft carriers, submarines and of course nuclear weapons means that the US military is unbeatable. The only problem with that is that ex-military people like me who have had classroom military training know the truth: our military is built around the notion of projecting power. It is highly tailored to conquering other nations and occupying their lands. It has barely any domestic applicability at all.
Think about it. They can drive tanks in the streets but they really can't shoot their main guns at people without doing more overt damage than 911. Those weapons simply cannot be used for urban warfare on the domestic population because doing so kills the energy source for the military effort. Besides, the Taliban just proved that even a bunch of ragtag fighters kicked the US out of their country in a long war of attrition and as soon as we left, they were large and in charge again, only waaaaay stronger than before because of all the gear we left behind.
The US military is useless in a domestic civil uprising where instead of bringing signs and megaphones to protest, the people bring AR15s, sniper scopes, night vision and body armor to take back our country.
No comments:
Post a Comment