Gun Rights vs Gun Laws
There are millions of gun rights advocates who are upset about the gun laws proposed by this new government. The gun rights advocates complain that the Second Amendment protects citizen gun rights and the Courts are in violation of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
I am not so sure; what if it were to be considered that the government and the courts are actually following the Constitution, what then would constitute a reasonable explanation of what seems to be a clear violation?
It all has to do with words - the use and meaning of words, especially when used by politicians, comparing what they say with what they write. If people have rights, what are those rights, but what most people miss is any consideration as to who it is that constitutes the people. If people have rights do those rights also apply to citizens? What is the difference between a citizen of the United States and the People of the United States? If this seems like a silly question to you, then you really need to think again!
A careful study of the Preamble to the Constitution, the wording of the First Article of the Constitution, the wording of the Constitution as a whole, the wording of the fifty some rough draft amendments proposed by the general population of the Thirteen States back in 1787-1791, the wording of the Bill of Rights, and the wording of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments back in 1866 and 1868, will reveal some mighty curious contradictions.
The political status, "citizen of the United States" is no where clearly defined in the Constitution but seems to refer to naturalized persons in Article One of the Constitution, in the disparity between the age of a candidate for the House of Representatives and the number of years required to be a citizen of the United States (25 vs 7).
However, in 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment clearly defines a citizen of the United States to be a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In 1787 there was no suggestion that anyone then present was under the political dominion of the Federal Government., to have even suggested such a dominion at that time would have caused another rebellion similar to the one of 1776.
The wording of the Fifty proposed amendments in reference to gun rights clearly indicates that the intention of the common persons who wrote them that such rights were intended to be protected to everyone with no consideration of political status or citizenship.
Why were any amendments needed so immediately after the Constitution was presented? It was because the general population rejected the Constitution and demanded that the protection be added in order for it to be accepted. Why did
the Original writers of the Constitution not include any of such basic protection in the body of the Constitution?
the Original writers of the Constitution not include any of such basic protection in the body of the Constitution?
Read the words of the Preamble, it is "We the People of the United States who are securing the blessings of liberty "to themselves and their posterity". Then, the very same men who wrote the Constitution rewrote the Fifty amendments proposed by the common persons of the Thirteen States, wherein the "Former Aristocrats". used the word "People" in the five most critical of the First Ten Amendments. No where in the "Bill of Rights" will we find any mention of the rights of mere citizens!
"Citizen of the United States" is a second class political status with no rights other than what the CONgress feels inclined to grant. People of the United States is a superior political status, this is precisely what it is that constitutes a republican form of government!When these matters are considered in this manner, everything that is happening to our freedom makes sense. Until we come to an understanding of political status we are going to continue to be treated as second class persons.
Please convince me that I am wrong.
Eric Williams, Yellville
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.