RSS

The Purpose of the 2nd Amendment

16 Feb

The primary purpose for each of the ten Amendments that constitute our “Bill of Rights” can be seen in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.   You can find copies of this “Preamble” on a number of URLs, including:  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html.

Hitler Disarm1This “Preamble” was written by Congress and signed by the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate as a kind of “cover letter” for the first 13 Amendments proposed by Congress and then sent to each of the States of the Union for ratification.  It explained the purpose of the first thirteen proposed amendments in the first paragraph of the Preamble which declares:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

(The “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” are the Amendments that became the “Bill of Rights”.)

Thus, the fundamental purpose of the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment is to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the “powers” of the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment was not intended to help defend Americans against another invasion by the British since the British would never have any powers under the Constitution.  Similarly, the 2nd Amendment was not intended to protect Americans against attacks by Indians since the Indians had no powers under the Constitution. Given that robbers, serial killers and deer and ducks have no powers under the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment was not intended to help us defend against criminals and psychopaths–at least in the private sector.  It was not intended to let us go deer hunting in the Fall.

Yes, we can still use our arms to ward off attacks by foreign invaders or domestic psychopaths.  But the second Amendment was intended to protect us against the one group of treasonous whores who would certainly try and might one day even be able to persuade Americans to voluntarily disarm:  the national government.  The Founders knew—they knew—that our own government (like all governments) would eventually try to disarm us in order to openly oppress us.  So they enacted the 2nd Amendment as a means to protect future generations against their own government’s inevitable treason and tyranny.

Thus, the intended targets for each of the first ten Amendments–including the 2nd Amendment–are only those people who:

1) Have been delegated limited powers under the Constitution; and

2) Misconstrue or abuse those limited powers.

So, who have powers under the Constitution?

Answer:  Those people who’ve been elected or appointed to the national government and allowed to exercise limited powers under the Constitution.  That would include the President, the Vice President, each of the Senators, each member of the House of Representatives, all federal judges, and every bureaucrat or employee or even private corporation of the national government who’ve been appointed to exercise any “powers” under the Constitution.

Thus, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment must be to at least intimidate and, if necessary, shoot whichever officers or officials of the national government have “misconstrued or abused” their Constitutional powers.

The 2nd Amendment is not license for individuals to unilaterally decide to shoot the treasonous whores.  Because the militia is involved in the 2nd Amendment, it appears that no one should be shot until the militia decide on who to shoot and why.  The process of making such decisions is not specified.

Nevertheless, based on the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the reason to shoot (misconstruction or abuse of the powers of the Constitution) and the people to be shot (officers and officials of the national government who misconstrue or abuse the powers of the Constitution) are apparent and, so far as I can see, logically irrefutable.

•  Incidentally, this analysis should explain why government is so desperate to eliminate the 2nd Amendment.  The government officials know that they are engaged in misconstruction and abuse of their constitutional powers (that’s treason) and are therefore the 2nd Amendment’s intended targets.  Not wanting to be shot, the treasonous whores in the cat-house on the Potomac are eager to disarm Americans.

Therefore, while private citizens who advocate gun control may think they’re being mobilized to protect the children of Sandy Hook Elementary or innocent adults from gunfire, they’re actually being mobilized to protect those government officers and officials who are bent on “misconstruing or abusing” the powers of the Constitution and thereby committing treason against the American people.

•  The Constitution of the United States defines treason at Article 3 Section 3 clause 1:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Note that the words “them” and “their” are plural and refer back to the term “United States”.  Thus, the term “United States” does not mean a singular or national “United States” but instead means the several “United States”–the 50 States of the Union.

The Constitution prohibits treason against the States of the Union, but offers no prohibition against treason against the singular/national “United States”.  The Founders apparently thought so little of the new national government that they didn’t even bother to provide a constitutional definition for treason against the national government.  Instead, consistent with the Preamble to the Bill of Rights and 2nd Amendment, the Founders recognized the national government as a threat that we should never trust and should always be prepared to fight.

Remember George Washington?  He said, “Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”  He wasn’t kidding.  He and his generation knew that the best you could ever hope to get from government was a “dangerous servant”.  He and his generation knew that if you surrendered your right to keep and bear arms, your “dangerous servant” would quickly morph in the “fearful master”.  Therefore, Mr. Washington and his generation gave us a 2nd Amendment to guarantee that future generations always retained the right to keep and bear arms and thereby protect themselves against their own government/“dangerous servant”.

GunControl1•  Many of the “dangerous servants” currently employed by the national government are misconstruing or abusing the powers of the Constitution and thereby committing treason against the several “United States” and the American people.  Those who knowingly misconstrue or abuse the powers of the Constitution are “Enemies” of the people of the several “United States”.

By advocating that Americans be disarmed, gun control advocates give “aid and comfort” to the “dangerous servants” who have become “Enemies” of the several “United States”—and who’d like to avoid being shot for treason.

By giving “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the several “United States,” gun control advocates are, themselves, arguably guilty of treason.

•  As a final note, gun control advocates presumably believe the Obama administration is composed of decent men and women determined to do whatever is best for America.

I think that’s a bunch of crap.

Obama is known to have a list of people who he intends to assassinate with drones and without any judicial process.  If we only count the number of individuals that Obama has already targeted for assassination and killed with drones, he has probably killed more targeted people than Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacey.  If we count the collateral deaths inflicted on innocent people who just happened to be close by the individual assassinated by Obama, he may already be one of the top serial killers of all time.

I see Obama as at least a psychopath and probably something Satanic.  We have psychopath in the White House with a demonstrated capacity to murder people without judicial process or conscience—and the gun control nuts want to disarm America and trust our security to an admitted murderer.   Are those gun control nuts out of their effing minds?

But let’s presume I’m wrong, the gun control nuts are right and Obama really is one helluva nice guy.  And let’s presume that gun control advocates succeed in repealing the 2nd Amendment and eliminating any private right to keep and bear arms.

What happens when Obama (Mr. Nice) is gone?

Another administration will take over the presidency.  And then another after that.

What guarantee do we have that–while Obama & Co. may be a bunch of sweethearts–that some future administration won’t be a bunch of murderous, treasonous whores bent on the destruction of this nation?

Once the guns are removed from private hands, how will future generations of private American defend themselves against a future government controlled by murderous fascists?

Can you gun control nuts guarantee that this nation’s government will never be taken over by a pack of Hitler-like Nazis or Stalin-like Communists?  Can you guarantee that some similar take-over hasn’t already taken place, or isn’t already in progress?

What right or moral principle is sufficient to justify today’s gun control nuts depriving future generations of their capacity to defend themselves against murderous fascists in Washington?

There is no such right or moral principle.

On the other hand, there is massive, persistent and irrefutable evidence that during the 20th century nearly 200 million people were murdered by their own governments—after they first agreed to accept “gun control”.   I doubt that there is a single example in all of world history where a nation disarmed and didn’t come to a terrible ending.  And yet, gun control nuts advocate giving up our guns to the government of a man known to assassinate individuals.

Gun control advocates are stupid, ignorant of history, mentally unbalanced and/or satanic.   If they have their way, they’ll get millions of American killed.

To Hell with gun control.

To Hell with gun control advocates.

Fight for the 2nd Amendment as if your life and your kids’ lives and your grandkids’ lives depend on it—because they do.

I reiterate:  To Hell with gun control advocates.

 
65 Comments

Posted by on February 16, 2013 in 2nd Amendment, Government as Gangsters, Treason, Tyranny

 

Tags: , , , ,

65 responses to “The Purpose of the 2nd Amendment

  1. Anthony Clifton

    February 17, 2013 at 5:48 AM

    you could underscore that last statement one more time for EMPHASIS…

    http://diggerfortruth.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/truth-stash/

    one final thought on the self defense subject…

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12873

    notice the pilpul twaddle quality of the parsing of the words…

    is the word Israel synonymous with the word “Jew”…

    one reason for the microscopic quality of this issue, like the three Hebrews

    Shadrack, Meshack, and Obednigo is that the Almighty promised to

    http://www.israelect.com/reference/Willie-Martin/IsaacsChildren.html

    fight “Our” battles for “Us”…all we had to do was SHOW UP…

    with the right Attitude…

     
  2. Duane

    February 17, 2013 at 8:35 AM

    Once again, as many of the opponents of gun safety do, the writer of “The Purpose of The Second Amendment” confuses safety and control. I know, I know, the arguement is that one leads to the other. Bull! It so happens that I agree with the wrilter and his reason for the 2nd Amendment. We do need to protect ourselves agailnst the whores in Washinton DC. Unfortunately they are not all seqquestered in the White House. They are mostely sequestered in the Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex. Supported by Banks, Wall Street and the Courts, our wealth is smartly being concentrated in fewer and fewer bank accounts scattered around the world. Support universal military service for every American (Immigrant or natural born). Military training for all Americans would make safer Gun owners out of all of us. You want to own assult rifles, ok, learn how to handle them safely. We love our guns and thats our right, but we do not lhave the right to put them in the hands of idiots.

     
    • Yartap

      February 18, 2013 at 6:11 PM

      Duane,

      I respectfully submit to you that the 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT that is not subject to government control or regulation. The only thing that government can do is insure the Right will stand for all by removing any law which may stand in the way of one from protecting themselves from the government (the reason for the amendment).

      Who will insure gun safety? Will It be you? What happens if I or some other idiot does not pass your test for gun safety? Will you deny me MY unalienable Right from God?

      The point is this: idiots, felons, criminals and good people have the Right to fight off their evil governments!

       
      • TheEvidentSpirit

        February 19, 2013 at 8:41 AM

        Yartarp,

        “The point is this: idiots, felons, criminals and good people have the Right to fight off their evil governments!” one Ca vet … fight off Evil in any form …

        I fully embrace Your VIEW. These words are so meaningless, ‘have lost their meaning’. A felon is not necessarily a criminal or a criminal does not have a felon. A ‘good’ man watches and does nothing from cowardice as a “real crime” occurs . If You’ve ever watched the series on AMC ‘the walking dead’ it brings a quick realization that everyday You encounter all these living and DEAD People. I think the only People I really FEAR if FEAR is the correct word are those that wish to enslave and torture Any People for their “sick” purpose. What I really FEAR about it is if I am incapacitated to Defend My Family and Fellow Man.

         
      • Yartap

        February 19, 2013 at 12:04 PM

        TheEvidentSpirit,

        I understand your worries, I have experienced the same feelings. But, let us share this: Let us pray to God for strength (even Jesus prayed for strength from fear in the garden before His death); and train up your children (don’t like them become dependent upon you) in the ways they should go. And when you and I are not there for our children, they will fight evil, also. Amen!

         
      • Yartap

        February 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM

        I’m Sorry – I should have said, ” don’t LET them become dependent upon you.”

         
    • PhilDru

      February 22, 2013 at 8:59 AM

      While I generally support Duane’s assertions, I have an issue with compulsory service. Under Amendment XIII of the Constitution, it states “…nor involuntary servitude,…” That to me means no compulsory service!

       
      • Snapper

        March 4, 2013 at 3:11 PM

        PhilDru
        Amendment 13 means what “appropriate legislation” says it means. Did you notice (?) where it is written in Amendment 13,This Article/Amendment shall be enforced through appropriate legislation.
        I am paraphrasing it, but look at the 13th again & see what I mean. Hey, PhilDru, I agree with you, it’s just that the CONgress disagrees with you & me.

         
  3. huey campbell

    February 17, 2013 at 8:54 AM

    “To Hell with gun control” ….Amen Brother!
    Unless we capture the “purse strings” of -ANY- organization, all attempts to revolutionize, reform, bring under control, steer, direct, improve, modify, ……………help me I’m running out of adjectives….. will ultimately fail. We must have control of the finances. Then all else can be controlled,,,including those who wish to control GUNS.

    The Fed is like a tumor, whose tentacles is so intertwined with vital areas and organs, that surgical removal is impossible. We must regain control from the bankers ……but how?

     
    • pop de adam

      February 17, 2013 at 9:28 AM

      From wikipedia:

      As passed by the Congress:

      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.

      As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

      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.

      Notice it says “the right of the people”? This evidences the fact this right predates this article/amendment. We might ask how can this be so? Regardless of whether you believe in rights or not, there is a rule of nature that recognizes self-preservation, it is called survival. To deprive people of the instruments of their survival might be seen as enabling their destruction. It would probably not be a stretch to make this treason. No where in the constitution do I see any mention of police or any direct institution of them other than the contemplation of new laws that might address such. Banning weapons is often predicated on the idea that the police should fulfill this role. There are entirely to many instances where this might fail miserably.

      A humorous concept I was contemplating in light of the above: “keep and bear arms” inconsideration of the word “bear”. A woman might bear a child, that is to create or birth it. If I bear arms, does this mean I should manufacture arms? A woman carrying a child is also bearing a child. Three kings bearing gifts?

      -pop

       
  4. Anon4fun

    February 17, 2013 at 2:01 PM

    The purpose of the Bill of Rights is, as you noted, to prevent misconstruction and abuse, etc. But this does not exclude the individual amendments from having purposes of their own.

    2nd Amendment: “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.”

    The amendment itself tells us its purpose: the security of a free state. A necessary means to this end is a militia, for which, in turn, a certain right of the people being uninfringed is necessary. Therefore, this right shall not be infringed.

    Grammatically, the dependent clause, where “militia” is mentioned, does not qualify the restriction on government laid out in the independent clause. The restriction is left unqualified. In terms of the amendment’s mandate on the government, the dependent clause is redundant, as the authors of the Constitution often chose to be. If they had merely said, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” this would have required the same performance by the government.

    Except, without a specific statement of intent, the authors would have allowed the danger of gun-grabbers using a combination of whiz-bang deceit and tortured logic on a barely-literate future generation to the effect that military arms would somehow be excluded. So the authors opted for abundance of clarity by including an explanation of their intent in the amendment itself.

     
    • Adask

      February 17, 2013 at 3:20 PM

      One point that deserves clarification is the meaning of “a free State”–that term does not apply to a “free” singular, national “United States”. It refers to a “free State” of the Union. The 2nd Amendment is not intended to protect the singular “United States” against foreign invasion. It’s intended to protect each “free State” the Union (The State of Texas, The State of Oregon, The State of Georgia, etc.) against the national government.

       
      • Yartap

        February 18, 2013 at 6:47 PM

        Anon4fun and Alfred,

        Let me give to you my thoughts of the phrasing of the 2nd Amendment. The first part of the Amendment states a Preamble or true Statement as follows: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,…” What do I mean by “true Statement?”

        It is true that the Constitution makes and gives power to Congress to regulate the armed forces and “militia” when called into service for the nation. So, what is the preamble saying? It is saying, “Hey look, sense We the national government are regulating the armed forces and militias of each State for national service and the protection of a free State; to protect the people from the tyranny, We may commit, every individual will have the Right to bear Arms to protect each from the governments. Now, that is a restrictive clause!

        Al wrote,

        “The 2nd Amendment is not license for individuals to unilaterally decide to shoot the treasonous whores. Because the militia is involved in the 2nd Amendment, it appears that no one should be shot until the militia decide on who to shoot and why. The process of making such decisions is not specified.”

        Al, your right, the 2nd Amendment is not a “license;” but rather, it is a “Right” for an individual to unilaterally decide to shoot treasonous whores! The militia does not decide who to shoot, rather it is you and others. Remember, you may be fighting the militia used in the service of the national government! The process of making such decisions is now specified. It is not the militia!

         
      • Yartap

        February 18, 2013 at 7:44 PM

        Al,

        That is a great point about future governments imposing tyranny upon us. All have witnessed the change, for the worst, in our people, society and governments.

         
      • Snapper

        March 4, 2013 at 7:18 PM

        WELL SAID !!!

         
  5. palani

    February 17, 2013 at 3:17 PM

    Participating in a Gun Buy-Back because You believe that Criminals have too many Guns,
    is like having yourself Castrated because you believe that the Neighbors have too many Children.

    Not mine … received in an email…. seems appropriate.

     
    • Yartap

      February 18, 2013 at 7:23 PM

      Palani,

      Try this one….

      The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with crime or criminals, but criminals do make good target practice for exercising the 2nd Amendment Right.

       
      • palani

        February 18, 2013 at 7:58 PM

        Of course you are correct. Neither does the 2nd amendment have to do with trap shooting, skeet shooting or hunting.

         
      • Yartap

        February 19, 2013 at 2:02 AM

        Palani,

        Oh so true! I do not have a 2nd Amendment Right to shoot a criminal, skeet, deer, birds or vermin. Those are just side benefits of the Amendment. But, the 2nd Amendment is a legal defense for shooting a government actor who commits tyranny.

         
    • El Diablo III

      February 21, 2013 at 11:53 PM

      palani,
      @ > Neither does the 2nd amendment have to do with trap shooting, skeet shooting or hunting.

      Correct. We do not have a constitutional right to do any of these things. They are privileges granted by the State.The 9th does not even cover these things.Trap shooting, skeet shooting &/or hunting is a privilege per a license. Yes, even fishing.AND,you better have the correct fishing license. A Bass fishing license won’t work even if you even accidently catch a rainbow trout. You need a rainbow trout fishing license to catch a rainbow trout.

       
  6. citizenquasarTweedle Dee

    February 17, 2013 at 5:53 PM

    Rights derive not from Divine Law nor from Congressional Law but from the Law of Identity: Man is man.

    A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s range of activity in a social environment. This right principle is that a man must never initiate the use of physical force in human interactions.

    This principle is right is because man’s natural tool of survival is his ability to reason, reason being that faculty which integrates the evidence of the senses, and the initiation of physical force against reason can have NO other effect than to destroy reason. Therefore, it is right for a rational being to be able to stop the initiation of physical force against his reason, destroying that initiation of force against his reason by him using superior force if that is the only way to stop it.

    It is only the lesser animals, ones that lack a conceptual method of thought, that have natural tools of survival that require unreasoned initiation of physical force: swimming, flying, claws, teeth, etc. While man is capable of initiating physical force, it is only when this is preceded by a valid rational process of reason that such action will sustain his life.

    The Declaration of Independence says “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This suggests (at least) that the ONLY moral purpose of government is the protection of rights. However, the United States Constitution makes NO mention of rights except in the Bill of Rights, which is incorporated as Amendments, but, rather, talks about “powers.”

    I find this unsettling. Personally, I think that some form of judiciary is the only moral form of government and that a legislature and an executive are destructive of rights. There should be only ONE law in my opinion and this law is: Thou shalt NOT violate anyone’s rights.

     
    • Adask

      February 18, 2013 at 1:01 AM

      The federal Constitution does reference “rights” at the 9th Amendment which declares: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

      Thus, the 9th Amendment opens the door for those men and women who identify themselves as members of the “people” (not citizens, inhabitants, residents, occupants, etc.) to make claims on rights not expressly declared in the Constitution. Foremost among those rights are the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration of Independence”.

       
      • Morningstar

        February 18, 2013 at 2:18 AM

        What did ANY ONE of the “so called 10 Amendments” AMEND?

         
      • Morningstar

        February 18, 2013 at 3:21 PM

        Re: 9th Article in addition,aka 9th Amendment.
        ….to make claims on rights not expressly declared in the Constitution.

        I agree. BUT,like what? Please give ONE example. I have tried to use the same State Bill of Rights wording for automobile travel purposes, venue notwithstanding, to no avail.Besides, the venue is for the enforcement of so called “appropriate legislation” for the Congressionally created “citizens of the U.S.” via the ungodly, “inappropriately,& allegegedly ratified” but enFOREed 14th amendment.

         
      • Adask

        February 18, 2013 at 5:06 PM

        I’ll give you three examples: 1) the God-given, unalienable right to Life; 2) the God-given, unalienable right to Liberty; 3) the God-given, unalienable right to the pursuit of Happiness.

        Do you know what the “pursuit of Happiness” means? It means the right to religious freedom; the right to practice you faith however you please in order to achieve your ultimate “happiness”–eternal salvation.

        Based on those three rights, the government can’t kill you (without cause and judicial process), they can’t jail you (deprive you of your Liberty–without cause and judicial process); and they can’t stop you from worshiping God as you see fit–isn’t that enough?

        Your problem may not have been the rights you’ve previously claimed but your standing when you make the claim. Do you claim in the capacity of a “person,” or “citizen”? Do you “Morningstar” make claims on behalf of “MORNINGSTAR”?

        Of course, it may be that you’re just dealing with a bunch of crooks. If so, your proper course of action may be to appeal as many times as possible to see if you can find a court that is not composed of crooks.

         
    • Morningstar

      February 21, 2013 at 11:58 AM

      Hello,Tweedle Dee,
      > “Rights derive not from Divine Law……”

      What or who is your source of this information? Also, what is your source of who sats what is right v.wrong ?

       
      • Morningstar

        February 21, 2013 at 11:59 AM

        says, not sats.I Sorry.

         
  7. Morningstar

    February 18, 2013 at 12:51 AM

    The “People” WERE aka, the MILITIA. Same as the “Power of the County,aka,Posse Comitatus . It is just a matter of qualifications of age,sex & RACE.

     
    • Yartap

      February 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM

      I believe the “people” to mean individuals, and not militia.

       
      • Morningstar

        February 18, 2013 at 7:07 PM

        Yartap
        Re: individuals.
        Individuals? Individual what? Are you “testing” me? Based on other comments from you, I cannot think you,Yartap, mean this,i.e., People mean individuals. This is also the same word the enemy uses as trickery, e.g., the LICENSED attorney asks the Black Robed Bandit,”your honor, please ask the “individual” to state his name for the record.. If you,Yartap, respond to that, & say,e.g., my name is Yartap, don’t you see what you JUST DID? If not, you will painfully find out. That will be the best experience.

         
      • Yartap

        February 18, 2013 at 7:30 PM

        Morningstar,

        I’m not trying to test you. It is just my belief that we are granted individual Rights and not collective Rights under our Bill of Rights. As I have said before, each may have to fight his or her militia. So, I equate “people” to mean “all individuals” with the Right to bear Arms and not the militia.

         
      • Adask

        February 18, 2013 at 8:38 PM

        I can’t prove it, but I believe “individuals” may be shorthand for “individual members” or “individual subjects” of the collective. If I’m right, “individual” is a dangerous term that we should not use, or allow to be used by others, to describe ourselves. The two descriptive terms that I believe can be used as safe self-descriptions are “man” and “people”–and even then, I will insist on supplying my own definition of those terms to ensure that there’s ambiguity or presumed alternative definitions.

         
  8. Morningstar

    February 18, 2013 at 8:57 PM

    Thanks, Al,
    You gave the answer,e.g.,> “Of course, it may be that you’re just dealing with a bunch of crooks. If so, your proper course of action may be to appeal as many times as possible to see if you can find a court that is not composed of crooks.”

    Apparently, however, the 9th does not give me a right to ask a question that is misunderstood as to why I asked the question. The “Rights” you mentioned were/ARE KNOWN,or should be.. Believe it or not, I am familiar with the D.O.I. very familiar. Do you think the words & meaning of that sacred document mean anything to the oppressors? It should be obvious. I’m glad you don’t HAVE to “deal” with crooks, & I hope you & others never have too. I guess it’s a toss of the dice. If WE,or you & yours,can get this mess straightened out & a way to KEEP it that way, there will be no need for the Christ to “return” to do so,right? On the other hand, maybe he is waiting for us to get it straightened out SO he can return. When you,I,or anyone can figure out a way to “oust” Satan from his position, that’s when we can say it’s over with. The oppression is now over. Maybe that is what Christ is waithing for us to do. I hope you are perceptive enough to read between the lines. Sometimes you are SHARP. Then sometimes I see “answers” from you to others, me included,that tells me you did not understand the question at all, from your answer(s).I think you have too many irons in the fire. I saw, where you told someone that you receive over 200 e-mails a day & you cannot read them all much less answer them. This is VERY Understandable. What is not understandable is right under your comment, a shupec or shofar asks you what your email address is, apparently not understanding what you just said, but darned, Al,you turn right around & give out your e-mail address to shu or sho. Beats all I ever saw. I see that Anon4fun is someone that respects you,Al, & I believe he is a man with character, a RARE quality. I believe Anon could & would take some of the LOAD off your back by doing some things on your blog that you do,for you. Only you know how to “arrange” that. I also think Anon has not mentioned this because he was concerned that you might take his offer to help, as an insult. He did mention a different kind of blog,a while back, which you did not like, & for sensible reasons, but Anon was just offering to help. Palani, is a faithful follower too. Ther are others including Anon & palani, who I KNOW would be more than happy to assist you. You have admitted in many was that you are overloaded. Sometimes there is a thing called “pride” that gets in the way of asking for help.I’m not saying pride is the problem. There are other readers,commentators,etc. that wou;d love to take some of the load off your back, but apparently they don’t know how to let you know without it possibly being taken as a putdown, etc. Everybody NEEDS somebody.

     
    • Adask

      February 18, 2013 at 10:21 PM

      You wrote, “I’m glad you don’t HAVE to “deal” with crooks, & I hope you & others never have too.” I’m not quite sure what you meant by that sentence, but on the off-chance that you mean to suggest that I have never had to personally deal with these crooks, I will only say that I spent 344 days in a level-5, maximum security jail from October of 2002 to September or 2003–and I’ve never been convicted of a crime, prosecuted for a crime, given a probable cause hearing for a criminal accusation, or even charged with a crime. As a result of those 344 days, I lost most of my personal property and was rendered basically homeless. So, I have some appreciation of the criminal element within the “best legal system in the world”.

      You wrote, “I guess it’s a toss of the dice. If WE,or you & yours,can get this mess straightened out & a way to KEEP it that way, there will be no need for the Christ to “return” to do so,right?”

      Nope. Wrong. The Christ is coming. It’s not our job to overthrow and defeat the “system” and create a “paradise” on earth. We may have occasional victories over some part of the “system,” but the “system” of this world is evil and has been for centuries and probably thousands of years. I don’t expect that you and I will have anything more than temporary victories in this life. Likewise, I don’t expect that we’ll really suffer anything more than a temporary defeat. But it is still our obligation (in my opinion, at least) to “stand firm to the end”. That is, if we would be saved, we are obligated by God to RESIST the existing system as best we can and continue in that RESISTANCE until the day we die. The eventual victory over this “system” is reserved to the Christ, not you or me.

      Speaking of my email address, you apparently think I refused to give my email address to someone, “but darned, Al,you turn right around & give out your e-mail address to shu or sho. Beats all I ever saw.”

      First, I don’t read every comment on this blog. I can’t. I don’t respond to every comment. If anyone asked for my email address and I didn’t answer, I also wouldn’t have answered if that same comment had informed that if I respond in 72 hours, I’ll get a free million dollar contribution. I can’t read ever comment. I can’t respond to comments I haven’t read. That may “beat all you’ve ever seen,” but if so, I’d say you don’t get out much.

      Second, on the top of this blog there are a series of “tabs” that can take you to other pages. One of those pages is entitled “Contact”. I know that my use of “Contact” information may be so incredibly unique that it really, really and truly “beats all” that anyone has ever seen” but guess what I posted on my “Contact” page–my email address!!!! Pretty amazing, huh? Who’d’ve thunk it!!!!

      It may be that someone asked for my email address and I didn’t provide it because I didn’t read his comment, and someone else asked for my email address in a comment and I provided it as a courtesy. But do you think I have sufficient time and opportunity to waste my life answering everyone who asks a silly-assed question? I don’t think so. In fact, may email address is published on the Contact page–exactly where it should be and has been for the past four years.

      I also “don’t get out much” so I, too, am easily impressed. Therefore, it also “beats all I ever saw” when I am seemingly criticized for not providing my email address when I’ve provided it for the past 4 years on the “Contact” page.

      Do you have any idea how many hours a week go into this blog? Do you have any idea how much I am paid for those hours? Zee-ro. Do you have any idea how many people read this blog and assume that I’m some sort of public utility obligated to answer every question and solve every problem they bring up with my occasional “sharpness”?

      No? Neither do I. But there are a few, and they never cease to amaze me.

      You wrote that Anon4Fun or perhaps Palani could assist on this blog. I don’t know what kind of additional assistance you’re talking about, but they already assist simply by adding their comments to the articles. I very much appreciate their persistent efforts. I know that they (and others who comment on this blog) add a lot of value to the blog itself. In any case, what additional “assistance” do you suppose they could provide?

      You close with “Sometimes there is a thing called “pride” that gets in the way of asking for help.I’m not saying pride is the problem. There are other readers,commentators,etc. that wou;d love to take some of the load off your back, but apparently they don’t know how to let you know without it possibly being taken as a putdown, etc. Everybody NEEDS somebody.”

      I don’t keep this blog to myself out of pride. I keep it out of joy. I like writing these articles. I like the struggle to 1) try to understand a subject; 2) find an original insight to present about that subject; and 3) try to find the words needed express that new understanding.

      Many of my articles are unremarkable. But every so often, I stumble into an insight that fills me with an incredible sense of euphoria. I don’t get money out of this blog, but I do get joy. I feel gratitude for being blessed with the ability to learn, to write and be read by others.

      And I am one parsimonious sonofabitch when it comes to my joy. Right or wrong, I post this blog because I think it’s what the Good LORD wants me to do. Right or wrong, I believe the euphoria I get when I write an article (like the recent post on the “The Purpose of the 2nd Amendment”) is a little gift from the Good LORD that encourages me to continue. I like what the Good LORD gives me. I do not intend to emulate Esau by despising a blessing I received from God.

      If the Good LORD wants to give Anon4Fun or Palani some joy, that’s fine with me. But I’m not giving the joy the Good LORD intends for me to anyone else. I don’t mean that I won’t “share” joy with others, but I won’t abandon my joy or the source of that joy to someone else. I appreciate that some might “love to take some of the load off my back,” but I wonder if you or others appreciate that by taking some my load, you might also be taking some of my joy?

      It may be true that “everybody NEEDS somebody”–but at my age, I’ve learned the hard way that the one’s I truly “need” are the Good LORD, the Christ and the Holy Spirit. I have no objection to other people’s help, but I’ve never found most people to be particularly reliable. The only ones who come and stay in my life have been our Father YHWH ha Elohiym, the Christ and the Holy Spirit. Those are the ones I need. Those are the ones I’m trying to hang onto. Those are the ones who “take some of the load off my back”. I am the one who is grateful.

      (Ohh, one other point. What’s your name, “Morningstar”? It wouldn’t happen to be “Donald” would it?)

       
      • Tweedle Dee

        February 19, 2013 at 7:49 AM

        You speak a lot about faith, Al. Does faith trump reason?

         
      • Adask

        February 19, 2013 at 12:19 PM

        Faith in what? Are you asking if all faith trumps all reason? Every single time? The answer is clearly No. Faith in anything does not normally trump reason. However, some faith, sometimes can trump reason.

         
      • Jethro

        February 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM

        Tweedle Dee – What do you believe is the source of reason? Would that belief not be a matter of faith?

         
      • Tweedle Dee

        February 19, 2013 at 1:56 PM

        Jethro @ February 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM:

        Reason is that faculty which integrates the evidence of the senses. Faith is belief in something with zero evidence from the senses, or that contradicts the evidence of the senses.

        Existence is the source of reason. Believing in something that can be sensed verifies it 100% exists.

        Imagination is the source of faith. Simply imagining something does NOT make it exist NOR make it real.

        “For centuries, the mystics of spirit have proclaimed that faith is superior to reason, but have dared not deny the existence of reason. Their heirs and product, the mystics of muscle, have completed their job and achieved their dream: they proclaim that everything is faith, and call it a revolt against believing.”

        —Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged,” copyright 1957, page 954, paragraph 3.

         
      • Jethro

        February 19, 2013 at 10:06 PM

        Tweedle Dee – You cannot provide a qualified and restricted definition of a word that presupposes the conclusion you wish to assert, to wit:

        “Faith is belief in something **with zero evidence from the senses, or that contradicts the evidence of the senses.**”

        I’m sorry, but that’s a poor definition of faith — between the **’s is where you got off track, as evidence may be a source of faith. Here’s a better definition:
        Faith is trust in something or someone.  It is a confidence that something is true if that which is believed cannot be logically proven as being true.  Faith is often based on experience, the repeatability of events with logical expectations that such events will continue in the same manner, etc.  Sometimes faith is based on no evidence and no logic.  This is called “blind faith.”
        ‘Reason is that faculty which integrates the evidence of the senses.”

        Again, that’s a pretty restrictive definition. Here’s a better one:
        Reason is that part of the human mind where mental faculties are used to examine phenomena, think through them, and draw proper conclusions about them.  It is the capacity of logical thought.  Reason can also be a statement offered to explain something.

        “Existence is the source of reason.”
        And what’s the source of existence?

        “Believing in something that can be sensed verifies it 100% exists.”
        Do you believe you can trust your senses 100%?

        It appears we’re getting closer to the fundamentals of your faith, and ironically it appears to be a belief system that requires more faith than mine!

         
      • huey campbell

        February 20, 2013 at 4:32 AM

        Alfred- Here is a hug for you.
        Thank you for what you do! I love the hope you have for Christ and the world. I think you have a good mental grasp on reality.

         
  9. Morningstar

    February 18, 2013 at 10:17 PM

    Yartap,
    Individual Rights AND you being,or saying you are an individual are two entirely DIFFERENT BIRDS. You saying you have individual rights IS a proper & correct way to use the word, “individual.” Al has it correct. You are either a MAN or a WOMAN. NOT an INDIVIDUAL
    Lex M.,by his prior comments will agree on this “individual” term,guaranteed.

     
    • Yartap

      February 19, 2013 at 1:38 AM

      I agree, thanks.

       
      • Morningstar

        February 21, 2013 at 11:58 PM

        Yartap,
        Thank you for your past educational posts for me.

         
  10. Anon4fun

    February 18, 2013 at 11:05 PM

    Yartap:

    I concur.

    “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”

    While a collective entity can keep arms, only an individual bears the sort of arms in predominant use by militias to provide the security of a free state. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment addresses an individual right.

    collective = “of, done by, or characteristic of individuals acting in cooperation”

    individual = “a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item”

     
    • Yartap

      February 19, 2013 at 1:40 AM

      Anon4fun,

      I also concur, thanks.

       
  11. TheEvidentSpirit

    February 19, 2013 at 8:42 AM

    Good Sir …

    http://www.peoplestrust1776.org/

    Very interesting …

    I am not within or without the “state, STATE” … etc but I am on the state

     
    • Snapper

      March 4, 2013 at 7:31 PM

      I am not within or without the “state, STATE” … etc but I am on the state

      Huh?? Say what?? on it ?? I used to say,”I AM City Hall.” Didn’t help. Saying I am not a citizen of the U.S per the 14th Amendment & as defined via appropriate legislation didn’t help. Saying I am not a person as DEFINED in the statute didn’t help. Filing Public Record affidavits affirming ALL of the above didn’t help. The affidavits were NEVER overcome by counter evidence or ANY evidence to the contrary,they were just ignored. AND STILL ARE !!!!!!

       
  12. Tweedle Dee

    February 19, 2013 at 9:22 AM

    I see that my question was deleted. I merely asked a question, Al. Your answer was to delete it instead of answer it. Why did you delete my question instead of answering it?

    Is this the way to learn and to reach understanding, by deleting questions instead of answering them? Is this your answer to my question, to delete it? Obviously it is. This tells me what kind of a man you are, Al.

     
    • Adask

      February 19, 2013 at 1:34 PM

      You see nothing Tweedle Dee. You leap to unwarranted an unjust conclusions. Your “faith” that someone is “picking on you” has exceeded your capacity for reason. You “merely asked a question”? My “answer was to delete it instead of answer it”? Izat so?

      You whine “Why did I delete your question instead of answering it?”

      Well, smart guy, I hate to burst your bubble of being discriminated against, but I didn’t delete your question. I didn’t even see it until about 5 minutes ago. I was up until 3 AM last night and I didn’t get up until 9 AM (Pacific Coast time)–about 25 minutes ago. Then I started to filter through some of comments which WordPress had stacked up, waiting for my approval before they are published. Your questions were among the questions that WordPress, for whatever reason, chose to hold until I approved them. Perhaps the WordPress algorithm thought your questions and comments were too brilliant to be posted on a blog as dumb as mine–or, in the alternative, maybe WordPress thought your questions and comments were too dumb to post on a blog as bright as this one.

      Or maybe WordPress held your first question because it was so general and imprecise that no precise answer could be given.

      Maybe WordPress keeps track of morons and routinely holds the questions of morons for the approval of blog operators before those comments are posted. (Do you find that your “brilliant questions” are also blocked on other WordPress sites?)

      You wrote, “Is this the way to learn and to reach understanding, by deleting questions instead of answering them? Is this your answer to my question, to delete it? Obviously it is. This tells me what kind of a man you are, Al.”

      Ohh, “obviously,” huh? Well, I can see that you are a master of perception and logic. A modern-day Sherlock Holmes. Thus, with your great deductive powers, you could see that “obviously,” there is only one possible explanation for me not instantly approving and answering your sublime question (“Does faith trump reason?” Incidentally, I can see that you are not only a brilliant logician, but also a profound philosopher!).

      Except for one thing. You neglected to consider that since I live on the West coast, my time zone might be several hours after yours. Maybe (I know it sounds crazy to a man capable of such “obvious” conclusions) but maybe the reason I didn’t answer your sublime question was that I was still sleeping when you posted it.

      According to WordPress, you posted your question at 7:49 AM. I don’t know what time zone you’re in. I don’t know what time zone Worpress relies on. But assuming that you wrote your question within the continental United States, 7:49 AM in the East Coast, Central, Rocky Mountain or Pacific time zones, it seems “obvious” to me that you posted your first sublime question somewhere within the period of 3AM to 9AM (Pacific Coast time) when I was sleeping.

      Did you get that Tweedle Sherlock? There is “obviously” at least one other explanation for my failure to instantly answer your original question (“Does faith trump reason?”)–which, again, is fairly lame. You question is so broadly written that it could include “Does faith in the Easter Bunny trump reason?” How ’bout, “Does faith in Santa Clause trump reason?” Did you “obviously” intend such questions to be included in your magnum opus (“Does faith trump reason?”)? If you didn’t mean to refer to all faith(s) in your original question, why didn’t you write that question more precisely to indicate whichever “faith(s)” you were referring to? In any case, given that there is at least one other explanation for my failure to answer your question instantly, it is not actually “obvious” that my answer to your question was to “delete it”.

      And why would you assume that I would delete your question? Did you think I was overwhelmed by it’s brilliance? Did you suppose that such an extraordinary question would send me crying and running to hide in a corner? You question was lame, sonny. It was weak, imprecise and unremarkable. It was the work of a mind that is childish.

      Perhaps a predisposition to “childishness” might explain your leaping to the false conclusions that 1) your original question was profound; 2) I deleted your question; and 3) in allegedly “deleting” your question I showed my “true nature” to you, Sherlock, and all the world. (Yes, when the history books are written, it will be you Tweedle Dee who will be credited with exposing my true nature. Already, there’s probably some buzz about you receiving the Nobel Prize for perception and unerring logic.)

      Your subsequent questions and comments (“Is this the way to learn and to reach understanding, by deleting questions instead of answering them? Is this your answer to my question, to delete it? Obviously it is. This tells me what kind of a man you are, Al.”) are just as brilliant as your original question. I respond to them as follows: “Is this the way to learn and to reach understanding, by leaping to conclusions based on false presumptions and insufficient evidence? Is it your nature, to presume that anyone who doesn’t automatically and instantly answer your lame questions is somehow disparaging you?” Does this “obvious” paranoia color all of your human interactions, or only some?

      Would it be fair for me to presume that the answer to my counter-questions is “Obviously, it is”? In other words, did you just happen to do something stupid today or is it fair for me to presume from one incident that you routinely do stupid things on a regular basis? I’d normally say that leaping to the conclusion that you are a full-time dum-dum would be unfair and unreasonable. However, even though you have unreasonably declared that my conduct (sleeping for six hours and getting up at 9 AM Pacific Coast time) has told you “what kind of a man” I am–it still seems unreasonable for me to leap to my own “obvious” conclusion that you are full-time moron. But, on the other hand, since you’ve already done your own “leaping” to conclusions about me, it wouldn’t be unfair for me to say “Your leaping to conclusions based on false presumptions–and then attacking my character based on your idiotic presumptions and false conclusions–tells me, Tweedle Dee, what kind of moron you are–a moron.”

      Am I typing too fast for you, Tweedle Dee? Do you see my “obvious” point? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander? You’ve behaved like an idiot.

      Have you thought about changing your avatar from Tweedle Dee to Tweedle Dumb?

      Do you want to know about my nature, Tweedle Dumb? I’ll give you a clue: I can put up with and ignore an enormous amount of crap but I won’t often suffer fools. I sometimes feel compelled to devote an unreasonable amount of time responding to them. Truth is, deleting their foolishness is probably a simpler and more reasonable choice than responding to it.

      So, next time you write something stupid, I’ll probably just delete it.

       
  13. Tweedle dee

    February 19, 2013 at 10:55 AM

    I asked if faith trumps reason and this question was deleted.
    I asked why this question was deleted as asking questions is part of the learning process and this question was deleted.
    Now, I supposed my IP address will be blocked for asking, “Where are the Emperor’s clothes?”

     
  14. Anon4fun

    February 19, 2013 at 2:40 PM

    Jethro: “Tweedle Dee – What do you believe is the source of reason? Would that belief not be a matter of faith?”

    Exactly.

    Reason-as-foundation implies a reductio ad absurdum. It’s another mind-control myth past its expiration date and soon to be found in the trashcan of history.

    Is reason justified by reason? That is, do the methods of reason rely on, to establish their validity, the methods of reason? If so, then reason is justified through circular logic, which is invalid according to reason itself. If not, then reason is not justified by reason, and so is taken on faith. Therefore, faith trumps reason.

     
  15. Tony

    February 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM

    I just want to say that my understanding of faith is the polar opposite of something that is uninformed.

    Hebrews 11:1
    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    Romans 1:19-20
    19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

    Do you see what is not seen? His invisible attributes. That doesn’t mean faith rests entirely on the unseen.

    Creation is teeming with evidence (that which is seen) for that which is unseen (a creator).

    Tony

     
    • Morningstar

      February 20, 2013 at 4:26 PM

      Tony,
      @ > Creation is TEEMING with evidence (that which is seen) for that which is unseen (a creator).

      Saw some “angel fish” the other day.They were breathtakingly beautiful. Off & on glow lights, just too beautiful to describe.

       
      • Tony

        February 20, 2013 at 5:11 PM

        Hi Morningstar,

        I look at my gorgeous German Short-Haired Pointer. She is just a beautiful animal. And then you factor in her personality.

        She has a Maker.

        I know a brilliant quantum physicist who said evolution can be debunked a thousand different ways. That it is just absurd.

        Faith is eminently reasonable.

        Take Care…

        Tony

         
  16. EarlinOregon

    February 20, 2013 at 2:19 PM

    In Case you think the Federal government
    is Good, Honest and stands for the American Way,

    Consider this:

    Law Enforcement “requested” Shooting Targets of Pregnant Women

    http://www.infowars.com/law-enforcement-requested-shooting-targets-of-pregnant-women/

     
  17. Morningstar

    February 20, 2013 at 4:19 PM

    Re: The right to bear arms.

    I think the word bear should have been spelled bare. e.g..Bare,defined: > lacking any “tool or “weapon”,> a bare arm. Bear in this sense makes sense. It’s not like a bear in the woods,e.g., grizzly bear. We do have a right to have & keep 2 bare arms.

    Here is one more example: > The cupbord is bare (empty). You have the right to keep it bare, in fact it is your duty to keep it bare. To put items in the cupbord is a privilege granted by the State. You pay tax,with a few exceptions on those items in exchange for the privilege. Rights are not taxed. Privileges are.

     
    • Morningstar

      February 20, 2013 at 9:20 PM

      Re: The bare bear question
      A little sick,sarcastic humor is needed every now & then to keep things in order so we may be able to bear the unbearable end result by adhering to the barest of facts,& taking lightly that which is loaded with & bears truth.

       
  18. Morningstar

    February 20, 2013 at 8:10 PM

    Tony,
    Re: > I look at my gorgeous German Short-Haired Pointer. She is just a beautiful animal. And then you factor in her “personality”. YES ! YES! YES! I just saw her in my mind’s eye.(Miss Adorable)

    She has a Maker.> YES INDEED !! And just wait until “Check Mate” time comes.

    Einstein said that the ONLY thing incomphrensible about the UNIVERSE is that it is comphrensible.
    I KNOW he was/is right. AND understanding this is not a matter of “faith” whatsoever, at least for me. I’m not smart enough to know how dumb I am & yet some things are EASY to grasp. I think the problem,or one of them with most superior brilliant minds is,ego. Humility is a beautiful quality. Einstein was a humble man. This is why I think he grasped things most people could not.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s