Phoenixphire
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Robin47 wrote:
Most all of us here agree with you.
The problem is that the courts often hold that what the Constitution states, isn't what it really says.
I personally subscribed to that belief myself. Then I actually started reading some of the history of where the Constitution came from. It was a plain wording text, written to be understood by common people. That was it's very purpose, to protect the rights of the INDIVIDUAL common man. Government doesn't need protection from itself. Why would there need to be a Constitution, with rights and limits prescribed?
What has happened is that legal scholars and such have been allowed to pervert the original intent. They have over-analyzed, scrutinized, and, in doing so, "watered-down" the purpose. Instead of a clear, easy to read document, that requires little or no interpretation, those who profit from being Constitutional experts have convinced society that we need Constitutional experts to understand the "intent" of the language.
So, now, instead of: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
We are left with: "A free State, using a Federally provided National Guard, shall be hopefully preserved by the State, and the people shall keep and bear a limited number of arms, to be determined randomly at the whim of the State, and may be infringed if there is some "common sense" legislation available.
Do you really think that those who just fought a revolution against a standing army, to overcome tyranny, wanted us to only have M1 Garands and 1911s with 10 round mags, to stand against a fully modernized army?
Robin47 wrote:
Well, that is fine.
Most all of us here agree with you.
The problem is that the courts often hold that what the Constitution states, isn't what it really says.
I personally subscribed to that belief myself. Then I actually started reading some of the history of where the Constitution came from. It was a plain wording text, written to be understood by common people. That was it's very purpose, to protect the rights of the INDIVIDUAL common man. Government doesn't need protection from itself. Why would there need to be a Constitution, with rights and limits prescribed?
What has happened is that legal scholars and such have been allowed to pervert the original intent. They have over-analyzed, scrutinized, and, in doing so, "watered-down" the purpose. Instead of a clear, easy to read document, that requires little or no interpretation, those who profit from being Constitutional experts have convinced society that we need Constitutional experts to understand the "intent" of the language.
So, now, instead of: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
We are left with: "A free State, using a Federally provided National Guard, shall be hopefully preserved by the State, and the people shall keep and bear a limited number of arms, to be determined randomly at the whim of the State, and may be infringed if there is some "common sense" legislation available.
Do you really think that those who just fought a revolution against a standing army, to overcome tyranny, wanted us to only have M1 Garands and 1911s with 10 round mags, to stand against a fully modernized army?
