JDBoardman
Member
"Isn't the 2nd Amendment "written permission"? In what way is this possibly Constitutional.."
^ NO! The 2nd Amendment is an affirmation of a right, NOT permission granted by another human.
This is incorrect on BOTH accounts. We all need, as first principle, to understand that the Constitution is not a guarantor of our rights. Our rights derive from natural law, that is, from the condition of being a living, breathing human being. The United States Constitution, perhaps the most brilliant document ever written, is a series of limits on the actions of the Federal Government. The Constitution, from Article I to the 27th Amendment, restricts what government is allowed to do. We, the people, are not 'allowed' to own weapons, the Federal Government 'shall not infringe', that is, RESTRICT, our naturally existing right to keep and bear arms. We need no one's 'written permission' to exercise these natural rights - we can only surrender these rights, and even in doing so, we merely forego the ability to exercise these rights - the right itself does not cease to exist.
Now this of course presupposes a moral government, one that lives within its Constitutionally defined limits. This is something we no longer have, so by extension, our government has breached its covenant with its citizens, and we are no longer morally obligated to live within the dictates of the government. Since the government will then resort to enforcing its dictates by force (or threat of force) what we now have is no longer a Republic but Tyranny.
^ NO! The 2nd Amendment is an affirmation of a right, NOT permission granted by another human.
This is incorrect on BOTH accounts. We all need, as first principle, to understand that the Constitution is not a guarantor of our rights. Our rights derive from natural law, that is, from the condition of being a living, breathing human being. The United States Constitution, perhaps the most brilliant document ever written, is a series of limits on the actions of the Federal Government. The Constitution, from Article I to the 27th Amendment, restricts what government is allowed to do. We, the people, are not 'allowed' to own weapons, the Federal Government 'shall not infringe', that is, RESTRICT, our naturally existing right to keep and bear arms. We need no one's 'written permission' to exercise these natural rights - we can only surrender these rights, and even in doing so, we merely forego the ability to exercise these rights - the right itself does not cease to exist.
Now this of course presupposes a moral government, one that lives within its Constitutionally defined limits. This is something we no longer have, so by extension, our government has breached its covenant with its citizens, and we are no longer morally obligated to live within the dictates of the government. Since the government will then resort to enforcing its dictates by force (or threat of force) what we now have is no longer a Republic but Tyranny.