Welcome to Licentia Loquendi, founded January 2009. L2 is a team blog that focuses primarily on political, military and Constitutional issues with a Conservative Christian slant. We are two college students, a Navy corpsman, an Army sniper and a Vietnam era Army veteran.

Each writer has free reign over postings. One writer's views are not necessarily the views of all writers.

30 June 2010

The Right To Protect All Rights

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, at the last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government.

- Thomas Jefferson

Ah yes, another post on guns. Well, it's about time for another one and I see that nothing has really changed since the last one. At least, for the better. Just the other day, the supreme court gave their ruling on the 2nd amendment. It just squeaked by. The allegedly unbiased supreme court, whose only purpose in life is to determine whether or not a law is permitted by the constitution, voted on the constitution as being constitutional? Let me rephrase that, the supreme determined that the constitution was legal. I must really be out of it, I never thought that the constitution was up for debate. I was always under the impression that the constitution was untouchable, beyond amending it. You want to hear the best part? The vote was 5-4 in favor of it being legal.
Providing that you own guns, like guns, or couldn't care less, you see that it passed 5-4, that's good it passed. That in and of it self is the problem. Nine people, nine, that all they have to do is read a bill and then read the constitution and give it a go or no go, based on if the constitution permits it. Honestly it sounds like quite an easy job. So if it is clear and concise, and everyone knows it, then how can it only squeeze through by one vote? I'm quite certain that the vast majority of English speaking Americans are aware of the second amendment.
In what is known as the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, apply to all, and are based on the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So in 1791, 4 years after the constitution was written, the Bill of rights was ratified, to prevent the infringement of rights that they knew as common sense. The second one of course was to keep and bear arms. The SECOND! not the third, not the tenth. It is second because they believed that only religion and free speech were more important. If they thought that it wasn't that big of a deal, don't you think it would've been an after thought? maybe just got in the bill of rights as the tenth amendment? Instead, the second thought was the great equalizer. There is an old, old saying: God created man, Sam Colt made them equal. The second amendment guarantees us life, and liberty. If you are like me the pursuit of happiness is a loaded gun, but that's neither here nor there. It is through the second amendment that the rest are assured to us.
Now what if this was about a different amendment, lest say, the repeal of the 21st amendment. What then? There would be mobs out for blood, the American people would be outraged. But, well it's only the 2nd amendment, we don't need that. These are the ignorant people that think that Obama's statement about the backwoods people clinging to their guns and religion is because they are Amish backwards and need to step into the 21st century.
Considering how he is idolized today, they probably quit teaching this in schools long ago, but Franklin Roosevelt tried to stack the supreme court in his favor because they ruled voted down numerous of his "New Deal" plans. (Which if you know anything about them it's a wonder that they even made it that far) The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 was proposed by Roosevelt so as to allow him basically to do whatever the heck he wanted. This would've allowed him to appoint 6 more justices. This would mean that the court would be in his favor and he could get away with murder. Now why exactly am I bringing this up? Because the supreme court is more corrupt than Chicago on a Friday night. They are supposed to be unbiased and tell it like it is instead of making up a far fledged interpretation of something that is as plain as day, to fit an agenda. That is how something, so simple, so clear, could ever come to pass by one vote under the pretense that it is constitutional because of freed slaves. Yes that was one justices reasoning's as to why it is legal. I don't think that that was the intention of our founders when they wrote that, considering at the time we still had the institution of slavery.
Really this is sad. Where have we gone wrong? In the mean time, I will continue to hold what is dear to me, just as it was to our founders, my religion, and my guns.

No comments:

Post a Comment