Reads: “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.” Simple enough. It’s about First Principles—the right of the individual to security. http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=183

Note the preface which explains the reason for the protected individual right (the entire Bill of Rights is about individual rights). The militia is necessary to the security of a free (meaning non-authoritarian) state. It’s a free country, after all.  The militia is composed of individuals for their mutual protection (“We, the people”) of their individual rights. “Well-regulated” does not mean government-controlled; this would be self-defeating. It means “of the (responsible) people.” Nor does government determine who is responsible.  Government exists for the purpose of securing equal protection of individual rights. The whole people constitute the Militia. It has the right of revolution and therefore the right to the means of revolution. This may be daunting, but it’s true nonetheless. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is the law of the land, and not to be taken lightly. Just responsibly.  http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=582

ISSUE: “…keep and bear Arms.”  Define ‘Arms.’  In the good old days, ‘Arms’ included swords, muskets, pistols, knives, bayonets, cannon, bombs.  If the term were meant to include only what could be carried in one’s arms, it would not include cannon or bombs, but that definition appears nowhere. And, by the way, ‘keep’ means own…

Not said being not meant, the fact that they are not specifically defined leaves the definition inclusive of whatever arms are available at whatever time. “Arms is (sic) arms.”  Got a nuke?  Hang onto it…

But wouldn’t that be overdoing it? Wouldn’t that threaten the powers-that-be?  After all, that would make “a well-regulated militia” capable of virtually anything.  Well…  Let government beware. The individual people are in charge. The Constitution says so.  The Second Amendment confirms it.

Not said is not meant. But what is said is that “a…Militia (is) necessary to the security of a free state.” This says that those capable of constituting a ‘well-regulated militia’ have a right to whatever methods of destruction are generally available. Where’s the line? Well, there really is none. The “right to keep and bear arms” is inclusive—all arms.

Those not capable of constituting a ‘well-regulated’ militia—this would include criminals, the insane and others who could not be well-regulated—do not.

After all, were it necessary for a ‘well-regulated militia’ to challenge a standing government army, why should it be limited to pistols and knives with blades less than 2-1/2 inches in length?

It is the right and duty of the responsible citizen to protect himself and his family. From anyone–anyone who would violate his family’s sanctity, which might include the police or government agents, and his right (duty) to protect is not given by government, but is a First Principle before government. The government secures rights, it does not dole them out. That means that it protects equally the equal rights of each individual. Power is delegated to the government (by the people) for the benefit of the people. The people have in fact reserved the right to revolution—make no mistake about it.  It is that right which guarantees every other, and while it may seem frightening, it’s guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore is the law.

There’s a lot here to think about, but that does not include the right of government to violate the second amendment. The Constitution may be amended (at peril) by the several states, but any such move should be very carefully thought out. The Second Amendment is clear; the People have the right to keep (own) and bear arms for their individual protection as well as protecting those rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Don’t jeopardize those formidable rights.  We, the people are in charge, and don’t forget it.  Let government  get used to it…

The First Amendment to the Constitution protects religion from government but not the reverse, and in no way demeans religion or its effects.

Freedom of religion is ensured by the First Amendment, as are other freedoms as well. But in cases where a religion conflicts with our Constitution or its protections, the Law must prevail. This is the case with Islam, which along with its (Muslim) religion includes an ideology (embracing Sharia Law) that does not recognize the freedoms ensured by the Constitution but is instead in opposition to them. The Qu’ran is in direct conflict with our inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and human rights generally. It  does not tolerate any religion other than Islam (further evidence of our Judeo-Christian roots—Islam was not in any way a factor in our founding and is not supported by our laws—killing infidels is not part of our heritage). Even a cursory reading of the Qu’ran will support this statement.

The current world situation (Islamic terrorism) is testing our nation and its resolve. The concept of Political Correctness has manufactured an artificial tolerance of Islam in the name of religion rather than upholding the law of the land.  But this is unconstitutional as well as unethical.

Political Correctness is false and therefore unethical; we need not tolerate terrorism in the name of ‘fairness.’  (Feel free to find any reference to ‘fair’ or ‘fairness’ in either of our founding documents.) Our Constitution is clear if we will take the time to read and understand it and its supporting documents, and our Constitution is the law of the land. It has helped to make us the envy of world cultures. There is no need to lower the bar to mollify those who do not realize its benefits.

Article V of the Constitution provides for amendment should that be deemed necessary. There are currently 27 amendments, duly processed and permanent parts of the current document.  You are encouraged to read the entire document. It’s short and understandable—not at all like our Tax Code. And don’t forget the Declaration—it’s even shorter but equally instructive. Even more information is available in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers as well as other documents of the time. The intentions of the Founders are quite clear, should we care to investigate them.

Freedoms of speech or peaceful assembly are not limited.  This would seem to mean that anything may be voiced, including profanity or ‘hate speech.’  Not said is not meant.

“Hate speech’ is a function of political correctness, which has no constitutional support whatsoever.  Feelings are not considered by either the Declaration or Constitution.  Common courtesy and decorum were assumed by the Founders and would seem to limit what may be voiced, but the Constitution does not.  There exists a built-in concession to ethics and morality but there’s no code of ethics written into it.   http://www.extremeethics.org/home/code-of-ethics This would normally not constitute a major problem in a world of an objective press, which would itself compensate for flagrant bad-mouthing.  However, this is not the case in our society currently.

Somewhere along the societal line it has become common for those offended and/or insulted to seek redress from government.  This phenomenon tends to be one-sided; it’s OK for one to trash others but not to be insulted.  It is also not supported by the Constitution.

This is one reason for the current Progressive drive to change the Constitution in the name of modernity.  Feelings have become more important than objectivity.

But the Constitution is nothing if not objective.  It assumes that individuals will handle these problems themselves, without the intervention of government.  This is as it should be—not said is not meant.

Fairness is not a stated function of our Constitutional law, which may not and does not favor one special interest over another.  Such issues are left to propriety, individual action and the courts, which may not make law.   This is as it should be.  Deal with it, but mind the words of Blaise Pascal: “The first rule of morality (ethics) is to think clearly.”  Thinking clearly requires an accurate understanding of the language. Read the Constitution. You may disagree with what I say here, but make certain that we’re talking about the same thing should you challenge my statements. http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=565

Questions? Comments? Concerns?  Feel free!

“The rule of law is the most significant issue facing our civilization…, an insidious deterioration of the principles on which the republic is built.”  So said Robert Bartley in The Wall Street Journal of September 19, 2000.  He was right then, and he’s right now.

In the eight centuries since the Magna Carta, we have increasingly taken the rule of law for granted, not to mention bending, folding, spindling and otherwise mutilating it along the way.  Our law has been molded by hundreds of years of subjective experience, shaping our behavior to the point where its beginnings are lost in clouds of uncertainty.  Further, this vast accumulation of experience encourages us to selectively pick only those pieces that seem to justify our need at any given moment.  This is fodder for lawyers, whose job it is to sort through the plethora of records and determine a course of action for any given situation.  Somebody has to do it. (more…)