Posted on Mar 26, 2018
What Type of Person Wants to Give up Their Own Rights?
5.08K
57
9
9
9
0
After seeing the groups of people marching around different parts of the country, and watching some of the videos of just how uninformed they are on the real facts and issues surrounding firearms, mass murders and violent crime in general, it brought to my mind a question that I just figured out the answer to....
What Type of Person Wants to Give up Their Own Rights?
Posted from chriswagoner.us
Firearms and Guns
2nd Amendment
Bill of Rights
Gun Control
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
8
8
0
Ignorance is a large part of it but many people want the outcome to shape society into a complaint populist model where the largely socialist governments controlled by big companies and institutions does what it wants to people.
Most people don't read or understand the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution is our social contract between the government and the governed. You don't change the constitution via legislation but via Amendments. After the ERA Amendment failed in the 1970s the Dems decided never again to use the Amendment process. It takes 2/3 of the Senate, House and State legislatures to pass Amendments so the Dems want to force the change via the Judiciary or 51% Legislature vote.
A fundamental concept for our social contract are those rights, granted by God, defined by Natural Rights best understood by reviewing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau works.
In the US Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers wrote:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident … that all are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Liberty is upheld through the Bill of Rights and the founders saw the 2nd Amendment as so necessary to maintain the 1st Amendment that they named it the 2nd Amendment.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/10/Natural_Rights
Most people don't read or understand the purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution is our social contract between the government and the governed. You don't change the constitution via legislation but via Amendments. After the ERA Amendment failed in the 1970s the Dems decided never again to use the Amendment process. It takes 2/3 of the Senate, House and State legislatures to pass Amendments so the Dems want to force the change via the Judiciary or 51% Legislature vote.
A fundamental concept for our social contract are those rights, granted by God, defined by Natural Rights best understood by reviewing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau works.
In the US Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers wrote:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident … that all are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Liberty is upheld through the Bill of Rights and the founders saw the 2nd Amendment as so necessary to maintain the 1st Amendment that they named it the 2nd Amendment.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/10/Natural_Rights
Natural Rights | Issue 10 | Philosophy Now
Alan Chudnow asks if there are any natural rights which can be derived from reasoning.
(8)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
LTC John Shaw For the most part I agree with you. However, the 'original' 2nd Amendment is now the 27th Amendment, and the 'original' 1st Amendment was never ratified and was eventually rendered moot with its intent being fully(?) realized with current legislation having been enacted (after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress).
http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/21861
https://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html
http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1791-us-bill-of-rights-1st-10-amendments-with-commentary
http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/21861
https://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html
http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1791-us-bill-of-rights-1st-10-amendments-with-commentary
James Madison's Failed Amendments | Teachinghistory.org
Historian John Buescher is an author and professor who formerly headed Tibetan language broadcasts at Voice of America. His Ph.D. is from the University of Virginia and he has published extensively on the history of Tibetan and Indian Buddhism and on the history of 19th-century American spiritualism.
(2)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
LTC John Shaw - It usually cracks me up when people state that the 1st Amendment is the first because it is so important and that the authors placed it there on purpose. It was an accident of fate. It is also interesting to see their expressions when you show them in order by date that they were submitted to the states to include the ones that are still not ratified. There are a couple that did expire before they were ratified and they don't really count in the tally except for illustrative purposes. It is quite funny sometimes to see their expression when you show how the 27th Amendment goes to the top of the list. Have a good evening Sir.
I also think a refresher class on sentence diagraming in both Latin and English would be helpful also. And then a little history refresher starting with the "Great Survey" ordered by William I, it would help with an understanding of why proper conduct of the US Census is so important.
I also think a refresher class on sentence diagraming in both Latin and English would be helpful also. And then a little history refresher starting with the "Great Survey" ordered by William I, it would help with an understanding of why proper conduct of the US Census is so important.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
5
5
0
People who take their rights for granted, and count on others to make sure they have the rights. Then they bad mouth those who guarantee you have rights, because they are pro own a gun.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google