I saw a headline where a federal judge, writing his opinion piece, stated there is no value in studying the constitution. His opinion was basically that 18th century men could not have any knowledge of the 21st century. This is an argument I hear all the time. It is especially used in the gun control debate. The argument being that they didn't have AR-15s' and the like. Well, yes they did, sorta. Their muskets or whatever they had were their AR-15s' ! To them, that is exactly what they were. They couldn't know what the future would bring that is true but the argument is invalid. Not long before that time, less than a hundred years, matchlock guns first appeared. They are what was used in the revolution. Before that it was a sword ! I'd say a gun in a sword fight is pretty awesome.
I get annoyed with those that try to use that argument. We can now guide a bomb to its' target. Does that make that bomb any more deadly than one just dropped on your head ? More accurate certainly, but more deadly ? Nope. The whole thing reminds me of when we were children. We would have imaginary weapons and mine was bigger or better. Then you would just imagine yours was bigger and better than mine. When you are inventing the future all things are possible. When looking at the past the answers are easy. That whole line of argument is just ridiculous. But set that aside for just a moment or two. What we are talking about is the constitution and whether it is a valid document today.
Just what is it that the constitution addresses ? I submit it addresses the state of man. That condition has not changed since man first appeared on this earth. The constitution was written in response to the tyrannical manner in which we were being treated. Yes, it is a living document. The premises stated in that document and the bill of rights are just as valid today as they were when it was written. For a federal judge to say there is no value in studying those documents is ludicrous. Those documents contain the very idea of what America is supposed to be. If you can not understand that, you have a serious issue. You certainly shouldn't be a judge !
Let us think about the elephant in the room right now, the second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A straightforward statement easily understood. That is what it says and exactly what it was intended to say. There are no caveats to that. It was explained to us by the very men that wrote it. That right is a protection against our enemies whether they be foreign or domestic and that includes the government ! It stands to reason that the ones defending have the same weapons as the ones attacking. Do you really think if the government should ban certain weapons the government will in turn dispose of theirs as well ? Would we disarm our army of the modern rifle and set us back to matchlock ? Oh, but its' the army. Yes it is, and the army works for whom ? It is an agency of the government. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed why ? The army just might try to take over an unarmed populace. Wouldn't be the first time in history that has happened. The framers of the constitution were all too aware of that. It is only modern man that has forgotten. Ask a few of these refugees from the middle east about government oppression. Ask them about freedom and what rights they were guaranteed.
The very thought that any judge would utter such nonsense infuriates me. For some absurd reason he feels that we should rewrite that document to suit whatever agenda is proposed today. Why he or anyone else would think they can read the mind of the dead is beyond my comprehension. They are quick to say the founding fathers couldn't have known about the technology of the future, that is why we should rewrite it. How is it that you feel you can know the mind of someone that has been dead for two hundred plus years ? I hear that all the time, I know what it says but that isn't what they meant. I say poppycock ! What they wrote is exactly what they meant. Why they had a delegation to write it and it took them 116 days to do so. I think a bit of thought went into what they were writing. Now this judge says, it isn't worth studying ? What arrogance. When I and millions of others joined the service we said these words, I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Notice it says, defend the Constitution of the United States. Why ? Because the Constitution is the government, a government of the people, by the people. You don't get to rewrite that !
I get annoyed with those that try to use that argument. We can now guide a bomb to its' target. Does that make that bomb any more deadly than one just dropped on your head ? More accurate certainly, but more deadly ? Nope. The whole thing reminds me of when we were children. We would have imaginary weapons and mine was bigger or better. Then you would just imagine yours was bigger and better than mine. When you are inventing the future all things are possible. When looking at the past the answers are easy. That whole line of argument is just ridiculous. But set that aside for just a moment or two. What we are talking about is the constitution and whether it is a valid document today.
Just what is it that the constitution addresses ? I submit it addresses the state of man. That condition has not changed since man first appeared on this earth. The constitution was written in response to the tyrannical manner in which we were being treated. Yes, it is a living document. The premises stated in that document and the bill of rights are just as valid today as they were when it was written. For a federal judge to say there is no value in studying those documents is ludicrous. Those documents contain the very idea of what America is supposed to be. If you can not understand that, you have a serious issue. You certainly shouldn't be a judge !
Let us think about the elephant in the room right now, the second amendment. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A straightforward statement easily understood. That is what it says and exactly what it was intended to say. There are no caveats to that. It was explained to us by the very men that wrote it. That right is a protection against our enemies whether they be foreign or domestic and that includes the government ! It stands to reason that the ones defending have the same weapons as the ones attacking. Do you really think if the government should ban certain weapons the government will in turn dispose of theirs as well ? Would we disarm our army of the modern rifle and set us back to matchlock ? Oh, but its' the army. Yes it is, and the army works for whom ? It is an agency of the government. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed why ? The army just might try to take over an unarmed populace. Wouldn't be the first time in history that has happened. The framers of the constitution were all too aware of that. It is only modern man that has forgotten. Ask a few of these refugees from the middle east about government oppression. Ask them about freedom and what rights they were guaranteed.
The very thought that any judge would utter such nonsense infuriates me. For some absurd reason he feels that we should rewrite that document to suit whatever agenda is proposed today. Why he or anyone else would think they can read the mind of the dead is beyond my comprehension. They are quick to say the founding fathers couldn't have known about the technology of the future, that is why we should rewrite it. How is it that you feel you can know the mind of someone that has been dead for two hundred plus years ? I hear that all the time, I know what it says but that isn't what they meant. I say poppycock ! What they wrote is exactly what they meant. Why they had a delegation to write it and it took them 116 days to do so. I think a bit of thought went into what they were writing. Now this judge says, it isn't worth studying ? What arrogance. When I and millions of others joined the service we said these words, I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Notice it says, defend the Constitution of the United States. Why ? Because the Constitution is the government, a government of the people, by the people. You don't get to rewrite that !
No comments:
Post a Comment