Changing the definition of something is a Machiavellian and evil machination used by neo-Leninist politicians to mislead the citizenry into believing something that deprives us of our constitutional rights is good for us. That is exactly what malicious politicians and the corrupt organizations operating at their beck and call are doing in their commitment to deprive us of our Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”
Let me explain as simply as I can
.More @ WND
"...mislead the citizenry into believing something that deprives us of our constitutional rights is good for us." Especially when the "neo-Leninist" politicians" HAVE AND KEEP FOR THEMSELVES of what they would deprive us!! Who, in their right mind, would think it a good idea that they should be deprived of something someone else is not also deprived??!!
ReplyDeleteThat's utter insanity!! It seems that almost no one thinks about that! --Ron W
It seems that almost no one thinks about that!
DeleteUseful Idiots.
As Shelley had shown, the monster should turn upon its creator as much as against the townspeople. Some, for so decrepit are they, would not warrant the .308. Therefore, the .22 Or, at least a punji.
DeleteRick
Anything that will accomplish the mission. :)
DeleteI stay out of gun free zones when at all possible since those who post them are prejudiced and bigotry toward me anyway. And they are, at best, ignorant accomplices of criminal murdering perps. --Ron W
ReplyDeleteNothing in common, at all.
DeleteThis morning I read an article by Joe Mathews. Mathews argues beware of creating the leviathan of the state to war against federal powers. The state, in this case the fifty states, should become more powerful in order to defeat fedgov. Yet the state, ie fifty states, become so powerful that they too become like the Leviathan. And the state cannot be trusted to protect and preserve the liberties of the people.
ReplyDeleteMr. Mathews draws heavily upon the book, Liberty and Coercion: The Paradox of American Government, by Gary Gerstle.
Yet, while Mathews parrots the warning of giving increased powers to the states, he argues for at least the diminution of nothing less than the U.S. Constitution. Mathew actually says, when speaking of the office of President, it is wrong to invest "so much power into one man".
My point here is that it is not solely the ever changing definitions of terms but the conflation of what seems reasonable with what in practice would be disastrous to the Republic. Oh, those wily bastards.
By the way, I logged on to the computer today simply because the thought had crossed my mind that I must thank Brock for hosting this blog. I am in debt. Seriously. Do not argue, take the accolade.
Rick
but the conflation of what seems reasonable with what in practice would be disastrous to the Republic.
DeleteGood point.
======
take the accolade.
Compliments will get you everywhere....:)
"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, AND EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right.... T he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
ReplyDelete--Tench Coxe, the leading interpreter of the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms in the first four decades of the republic. His writings on the Constitution earned the approval of James Madison, wordsmith of the Constitution and his services to the young American republic earned him important positions in the subcabinets of each of America's first four presidents.
--Ron W
Excellent. Thanks.
DeleteAnd that is why the 2nd Amendment sentence begins with a subordinate, explanatory clause re: the "militia", since it must grammatically agree with "the People" in the main clause. "Militia" references Article I, Section 8.15-16 enumerating the delegated powers to the Federal Government restricting it to "governing such part of them "the militia" as may be EMPLOYED in its service. Therefore, the fedgov has NO delegated power re: "the right of the People to keep and bear (carry) arms--but ONLY those it EMPLOYS! They've been talking about "the rule of law" recently, so there it is on the gun issue! --Ron W
Deletethere it is on the gun issue!
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Fear the Government that Fears Your Guns
ReplyDelete--Ron W
Probably every one. :)
Delete