Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

dksuddeth · 04-28-2006, 01:01 PM

not to get too far off the first amendment and in to the second, but...

There is nowhere in the constitution that declares the people the right to overthrow the government. The only thing that even comes close to that is a line in the declaration that says - "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - and this only refers to removing themselves out from under the rule of king george.

the whole point of the constitution and bill of rights was to declare that the people had natural rights and the government was given certain powers and authority to govern on behalf of, and by the power of, the people. The government does not have rights, neither federal or state, they only have powers that were given to them by 'we the people'.

The first and the second amendments are rights that the people have that 'pre-exist' the constitution. That means that they aren't granted by the constitution. They are supposed to be protected by the constitution, but that hasn't seemed to work out quite like it used to. The 'free state' that the second refers to is us, 'we the people'. It's not virginia, new york, or massachussetts, because states are only entities run by us, we the people. We are the militia that provides that free state. The right to keep and bear arms is 'supposed' to prevent the government from overreaching beyond the powers it's been given by us, we the people, and disarming us, hence the term 'shall not be infringed'. When a government extends its power beyond that which it is authorized, it is 'we the people' that have the right, the duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. this refers to ousting those that sit in the government and not the type of government, the representative republic, and putting new members in its place.

Those that put the 'individual right' interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the 'wrong' category are relying upon tyrannical opinions and decisions handed down by circuit courts that have either seriously misinterpreted the history and intent of the second or have colluded with branches of government intent on removing our rights and extending their power.

As far as no documentation to support the intent that the second is an individual right, unless you've been completely ignoring every one of my posts, i've posted them all there. I have yet to see any evidence that indicates the founders, framers, originalists, or ratifiers claim, denote, or even suggest that the right does not belong to the individual but to the state. Until such time as that evidence showing that it's a right of the state to arm itself instead of the people to arm themselves, you're flat out wrong.

now, back to the first amendment portion, of which this thread is titled.

04-28-2006, 01:01 PM	#16 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	not to get too far off the first amendment and in to the second, but... There is nowhere in the constitution that declares the people the right to overthrow the government. The only thing that even comes close to that is a line in the declaration that says - "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - and this only refers to removing themselves out from under the rule of king george. the whole point of the constitution and bill of rights was to declare that the people had natural rights and the government was given certain powers and authority to govern on behalf of, and by the power of, the people. The government does not have rights, neither federal or state, they only have powers that were given to them by 'we the people'. The first and the second amendments are rights that the people have that 'pre-exist' the constitution. That means that they aren't granted by the constitution. They are supposed to be protected by the constitution, but that hasn't seemed to work out quite like it used to. The 'free state' that the second refers to is us, 'we the people'. It's not virginia, new york, or massachussetts, because states are only entities run by us, we the people. We are the militia that provides that free state. The right to keep and bear arms is 'supposed' to prevent the government from overreaching beyond the powers it's been given by us, we the people, and disarming us, hence the term 'shall not be infringed'. When a government extends its power beyond that which it is authorized, it is 'we the people' that have the right, the duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. this refers to ousting those that sit in the government and not the type of government, the representative republic, and putting new members in its place. Those that put the 'individual right' interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the 'wrong' category are relying upon tyrannical opinions and decisions handed down by circuit courts that have either seriously misinterpreted the history and intent of the second or have colluded with branches of government intent on removing our rights and extending their power. As far as no documentation to support the intent that the second is an individual right, unless you've been completely ignoring every one of my posts, i've posted them all there. I have yet to see any evidence that indicates the founders, framers, originalists, or ratifiers claim, denote, or even suggest that the right does not belong to the individual but to the state. Until such time as that evidence showing that it's a right of the state to arm itself instead of the people to arm themselves, you're flat out wrong. now, back to the first amendment portion, of which this thread is titled. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."