Posted on 04/19/2007 8:19:04 AM PDT by Balt
Here's an interesting item from the Associated Press:
BOULDER, Colo. (AP) - A University of Colorado student was arrested after making comments that classmates deemed sympathetic toward the gunman blamed for killing 32 students and himself at Virginia Tech, authorities said.
So much for the First Ammendment. Now, let's move on to the Second Ammendment. Here's a pop quiz: Our Founding Fathers sought to guarantee the right to bare arms...
(a) so the good people of North Dakota could repell an invasion by Saskatchewan before federal troops could arrive,
(b) so good ol' boys could still go hunting unmolested,
(c) so the citizens of the republic would always have the ability to rise up and overthrow their government should it become tyranical.
The correct answer, class, is "c". Now, let's look again at the quote from Ronald Reagan in answer to a question from a Soviet reporter back in 1988, cited by Diogenes in the previous post:
You have a constitution; we have a constitution. The difference between our two constitutions is very simple. Your constitution says these are the privileges, rights, that the government provides for the people. Our constitution says: we the people will allow the government to do the following things.
Second question: How many public school students understand the principles upon which this republic is founded? I'll give you a hint: the correct answer is somewhere between 0 and 0. And there's a reason. It's found buried deep in the founding documents of this country, our memory of which is often somewhat selective. Everyone can quote by heart this passage, for example:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Perhaps a few people - the advanced placement class - can even quote this one:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....
Unfortunately, the most important line in the whole Declaration is the one that no one knows, which just happens to be the one which justified the revolution in the first place:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Raise your hand, anyone who knows where I'm going next.... We the people can't very well alter or abolish our government if the government is armed and we aren't - which is why the Founding Fathers quickly added the Second Ammendment to the Constitution: to make sure that we could do exactly that should circumstances warrant it.
"Ah," you say, "but isn't that a dangerous path to tread? Who's to say whether circumstances warrant it? Aren't you inviting anarchy?" Why is it that we always presume the Founding Fathers couldn't foresee furture circumstances? They answered this one, too, class:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Who would have thought that the Founding Fathers were psychologists! "...all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." That's right, Mr. Jefferson - because too many of us are watching Oprah and crying over Global Warming or how second hand smoke is going to agrivate their kids' Asthma to realize that individual liberty is more important than the common good, otherwise the common good ceases to be good because man ceases to be an individual.
Which brings us, class, back to that first line that everyone knows by heart, but the import of which no one seems to understand: "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." When the Supreme Count was allowed to white-out the word "Creator" with their own invention, which they called the "wall of separation," it had to be replaced by something. It was at that point that the government ceased to be a servant and became a master. One could argue that it was at that point that the United States ceased to exsit.
Having a hard time with all of this? Don't worry about it. Oprah's about to come on. Go make yourself feel better.
Spell check is no substitute for good proof reading. Otherwise, good article.
I have always known this, 'cept now you would need a stealth fighter parked in yer back yard !
..... and then there's the Supreme court that makes insane rulings from outer space and overturns every thing you try to peacfully vote on
Oops. Unfortunately, "bare" is spelled correctly. I don't need spell check, I need brain check.
Next week we lose the Third Amendment!!!
d. All of the above.
“sought to guarantee the right to bare arms... “
Well, that too!
“guarantee the right to bare arms”
If the weather ever co-operates, that is. Still kinda chilly out here.
Sorry I’m late to the party, but...
— — “sought to guarantee the right to bare arms... “
— Spell check is no substitute for good proof reading. Otherwise, good article.
Well, when you pull your sword out its scabbard (you do have a sword, don’t you?) you are making your arm ‘bare’. Yeah, archaic usage and all, but still correct.
However, doesn’t apply in this case. Just a side note.
I’ll slink off now. G’day.
May I also point out that it is the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, 1944. A small number of Jews held off the overwhelmingly better armed Nazi army. They had almost no arms to start with, except what they got off of dead Germans.
I’d rather have some protection on that sword arm, meself. A leather wrap perhaps.
Good point.
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.