Guns As A " God-given Right"

[Winchester]

That is a crock, because if it were the case, the founders would not have bothered with it in the first place,

There was quite a bit of controversy around the bill of rights because of the very matter I cited, and the constitution was sold as containing very few enumerated powers.

 

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."--Hamilton, Federalist 45. (Not to put too much importance on the Federalist Papers, but it's the most easily quoted.

 

At the risk of quoting too much Kinsella, I link to the following article, which has a great argument and a ton of links to follow. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021701.html

Edited June 13, 2014 by Winchester

[superblue]

There was quite a bit of controversy around the bill of rights because of the very matter I cited, and the constitution was sold as containing very few enumerated powers.

 

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."--Hamilton, Federalist 45. (Not to put too much importance on the Federalist Papers, but it's the most easily quoted.

 

At the risk of quoting too much Kinsella, I link to the following article, which has a great argument and a ton of links to follow. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021701.html

all I know is the Federal Government has too much power as it is, and the States do not exercise their rights and powers as already defined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights but more over when states do exercise their rights such as Arizona dealing immigration what happens, the left and others demonize their decision and the president hops on the bandwagon.  The power was given to the states not the feds. As to protect us from falling into the exact same power that everyone was breaking away from at the time.

 

And actually the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are the best educational documents we have towards our current government and how to handle the issues we are currently facing.

[Winchester]

all I know is the Federal Government has too much power as it is, and the States do not exercise their rights and powers as already defined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights but more over when states do exercise their rights such as Arizona dealing immigration what happens, the left and others demonize their decision and the president hops on the bandwagon.  The power was given to the states not the feds. As to protect us from falling into the exact same power that everyone was breaking away from at the time.

 

And actually the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are the best educational documents we have towards our current government and how to handle the issues we are currently facing.

From a constitutional perspective, the states were not "given" powers. The states delegated certain powers to the federal government. This distinction is important.

 

One doesn't delegate to a superior.

[Credo in Deum]

Opposing sides should settle this debate with pistols at dawn.  Winner takes all. 

[Winchester]

Found it.

[superblue]

From a constitutional perspective, the states were not "given" powers. The states delegated certain powers to the federal government. This distinction is important.

 

One doesn't delegate to a superior

 

 

you are right, I had my thoughts backwards, but the states still do not exercise the power they actually have enough to the point that the feds understand just that. States are far more willing to be paid off instead of putting on their big boy pants.

Edited June 15, 2014 by superblue

[superblue]

Opposing sides should settle this debate with pistols at dawn.  Winner takes all. 

 

 

The South already tried that, it didn't work, had a good run at it, but in the end the North had better help.

An the South didn't even want to take all, they just wanted out of the Union .

[Winchester]

you are right, I had my thoughts backwards, but the states still do not exercise the power they actually have enough to the point that the feds understand just that. States are far more willing to be paid off instead of putting on their big boy pantaloons.

The United States essentially operate as a nation, now. We teach our kids it's a nation, they recite a little prayer in schools telling them it's a nation that is indivisible, and anyone suggesting it's possible to leave the union is branded a dangerous lunatic. It reminds me of the situation an abused spouse faces when trying to leave the abuser.

[superblue]

The United States essentially operate as a nation, now. We teach our kids it's a nation, they recite a little prayer in schools telling them it's a nation that is indivisible, and anyone suggesting it's possible to leave the union is branded a dangerous lunatic. It reminds me of the situation an abused spouse faces when trying to leave the abuser.

Absolutely right,

 

if a group were to form to seriously discuss secession  ( which just any fyi on the white house petition, needing 30,000 signatures for a response such a petition was generated for Florida and other states to be allowed to secede the answer was not only no , but that the states that did petition had no right to secede in the first place ) they would be branded terrorists and probably blown up by a drone in the middle of the night. Or thrown in federal prison . or both.

 

So if a state has what they consider a real reason to secede an creates a formal document stating that no request is needed that the state is simply done an out, and the Federal Government doesn't agree and sends in troops, what does that tell anyone about why we need to keep the 2nd amendment.

 

Hell would freeze over first before the Federal Government allowed Texas or another state to secede, states can hold off federal law for so long but not with out consequence aimed at them by the feds.

Another example of the need for the 2nd amendment, Clive Bundy ( now I don't fully agree with Bundy ) but here is the thing, had those BLM agents walked onto the property with a signed court order from a lawsuit that said Mr Bundy you lost your case against BLM you have to give up the cattle, then fine an fair BLM take it, but they crossed the line when they just arbitrarily showed up to take the cattle, and the need to demonstrate force in number and by use of firearm was necessary to tell the feds to back off. And they did for the time being.

 

The second Amendment is necessary for your average free American to remain free when a bloated federal agent following some bloated unjust law comes waltzing in to take what does not belong to them be it ones property or liberty.

[Socrates]

The state employs aggression, aggression is always evil. I hold to the non-aggression principle. 

 

Is this principle real and objectively true for everybody, or is it merely illusory, like you claim divine law to be?