Posted on 05/09/2018 4:15:32 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
No it hasn't.
The Constitution, yes, the Bill of Rights, never.
But there has never been a shortage of historically ignorant fools who think they know better.
Why is it that we in the 21st Century believe that our forefathers in creating the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not intelligent enough to discern that technology improves as time advances? Rifled muzzle loaders were the most advanced of the 18th Century, while armies continued using muskets well into the 19th Century.
The fact remains that our forefathers wanted the American citizen armed and self reliant for their own personal protection.
The early progressives did not believe that otherwise they would not have spoken and written as they did. They believed that the process was too hard, so they had to invent a new second process to replace the first one. It is true that Wilson was the first to float the idea that the Constitution is living and breathing,(and he did this early on) but that belief didn't become widespread until many decades later.
Notice that the progressives don't really complain about the unamendable constitution anymore. They may in small bits and obscure groups but not widespread by their leaders.
If the "living and breathing" constitution turned out to be a dud, the progressives would've simply invented something else until they found the tool they needed.
Foster is the “only PhD. physicist” in Congress. His 11th District of Illinois is a southwest ‘burb of Chicago and shares its enlightened politics & rule.
He is an arrogant know-it-all SOB who thinks the Constitution “should be reinterpreted every two years or so”. By whom?
Foster says the individual “packs more power in his pocket than a Revolutionary War cannon”. Works for me & is much harder for the Redcoats to locate & confiscate.
Our ruling class on display if the Congress flips this year.
I love these progressives, if they feel a gun should not be in the hands of a civilian, then they should not buy one or hire a body guard. let them walk the streets of Chicago with a Tower pistol.
What do you expect from a liberal fascist*?
The reduction or defacto repeal of the 2nd Amendment will assure their rise to a totalitarian state. We have had a preview of the planned pattern of their weaponization against the People of the IRS, CIA, FBI, DOJ, EPA, and others.
You bet Bill Foster wants to see a “reductio ad absurdum**” of the second amendment. It means the electorate would be one step closer to being helpless in the face of tyranny by government. Obama exemplified tyranny via executive fiat.Thank goodness these liberal fascist racketeering criminal syndicates are now being dismantled by PDJT. The battle is now joined.
* The Quintessential Liberal Fascist
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html
**
Reductio ad absurdum: https://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/
I have the 1st because I excercise the 2nd. Molon Labe, come and take them.
>>The early progressives did not believe that otherwise they would not have spoken and written as they did. They believed that the process was too hard, so they had to invent a new second process to replace the first one. It is true that Wilson was the first to float the idea that the Constitution is living and breathing,(and he did this early on) but that belief didn’t become widespread until many decades later.
But the early Progs really did think that it should be changed, but they knew from the start that the process would not work in their favor in the USA.
>>If the “living and breathing” constitution turned out to be a dud, the progressives would’ve simply invented something else until they found the tool they needed.
They stuck with this as part of their social engineering plan. If you can convince the people that it “could” be amended, but only if the reactionaries are removed from power, then they can convince them that their changes can be made permanent. They downplay the fact that it is hard to change BECAUSE the Founding Fathers knew that mobs are stupid and demand fast change. But, ask a Millennial Tidepodivore about it and they’ll say that it should be flexible and agile to keep up with societal trends.
Never living and breathing on abortion.
It sounds like in the end we agree.
Based on the objections of Founders like Patrick Henry, George Mason & others of the Anti-Federalist movement, the 2nd Amendment was a compromise for passage of the Constitution. Whereby it affirms Natural Law that Sovereign Citizen's right to bear arms & form into a militia to resist and defend against a tyrannical government with weapons of war.
“Even this system, as events have proved, has required such extraordinary majorities as to make amendments by regular process well-nigh impossible”
That was the plan
Curiously in the entire process of establishing our Constitution 1777-1789, through all the debates of the 13 states, collectively and individually, and the written 85 Federal Papers, there is not a single word stating or suggesting that there existed ANY arms or weapons considered "to be too dangerous to be in private hands."
Conversely, The Fifth Amendment explicitly refers to "arms", with no limitation or qualification whatsoever.
Why was the Bill of Rights created at the end of the Constitution?
Because it did not become obvious until the end that, without it, the rest of the Constitution would have never been ratified by 2/3 of the original 13 states (9).
Two thirds of 50 = 33
Can never happen.
Funny how the left never talks about reinterpreting the first amendment to curtail the power of the press.
Dictators hate obstructions.
Says a man who knows nothing about Civil War cannons or modern weapons. Or the Constitution, for that matter.
And the First is infinitely easier to attack with facts.
So long as they limit themselves to reporting the actions of others, including members of elected and appointed government officials and their employees, the are totally protected.
The instant they drift into advocacy or enticement to physical violence, all bets are off. The Supreme Court must agree or disagree. Destruction of life or property is not "speech."
I don't care what the Courts say today or at any other time.
From the suppressed 97th Congressional Senate report on THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS...(1982)
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/68101
19. *
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.)
243
, at
251
(1846)
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole
people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear
arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be
infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the
important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so
vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
So get froggy, shitlib rats. Let’s see how it goes for you.
And your families.
And your businesses.
And your friends.
And your friends families and businesses.
Yes, it will get just that ugly.
Two words.
Chain.
Shot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.