guardian news Why the real defenders of the second amendment oppose the NRA

[umbertino]

 

The students of Stoneman Douglas, Florida, are the fiercest opponents the NRA has seen in some time. They are the ones truly standing up for the US constitution

 

Sat 17 Mar 2018 08.00 GMT Last modified on Sat 17 Mar 2018 16.43 GMT

By  Corey Brettschneider

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/17/second-amendment-nra-corey-brettschneider

[Synopsis]

What a crock of crap. Umbertino, You should be ashamed of Yourself, not only for being a Fascist posting this inflammatory crap, but for Your very, very shallow perspective on the things that really are.

 

The Federalist Papers : No. 84

Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered  From McLEAN's Edition, New York.

HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:

 

To the second that is, to the pretended establishment of the common and state law by the Constitution, I answer, that they are expressly made subject "to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same.'' They are therefore at any moment liable to repeal by the ordinary legislative power, and of course have no constitutional sanction. The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the Revolution. This consequently can be considered as no part of a declaration of rights, which under our constitutions must be intended as limitations of the power of the government itself.

 

What Alexander Hamilton could not have anticipated is the insupportability of the bolded statement. The government itself has morphed to circumventing the Constitution so the Ratified Bill Of Rights has shown to be a viable Constitutional tool to prevent wresting the Rights of "We the People". For the Elitist Socialist Liberal Leftists, note how the Preamble of The Constitution of The United States Of America DOES NOT say, "We the Government". A key note here.

 

 Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

 

Same comment above.

 

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

 

Alexander Hamilton could not have envisioned dispassionate and lazy people who think the Government is their panacea to responsible living and the "elected and appointed officials" would be so eager to go beyond their Constitutional provisions.

 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp

 

Most people know these mass shootings are Government planned and executed Black Operations to specifically swing public opinion, for the gullible, to give up the Privileges of The Land Of The Free AND The Home Of The Brave.

 

[chris smith]

I'm sure one world order would love for you to believe this crap!!!!! Get wiz!!! If you believe it's old and outdated and don't apoly them in sure you believe in one world currency and one world religion too as there also in your mind outdated too

[chris smith]

What I'm saying is leave our Constitution alone ,give back our money to united states treasury , and God back to our country

[Muleslayer]

Aaaaaaahhhhhhahahaha!

you are good for something after all umbert!

thanks for the belly laugh!