By Unknown artist, painting printed by Currier & Ives, 1876, part of the Library of Congress collection - Journal of the American Revolution, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71465902
Previous Post
Next Post

By Dennis Petrocelli, MD

I write this on the occasion of President Biden’s executive order regarding “gun” “control”.  I anticipate that my readers would expect me to excoriate him and his ilk and denounce them as tyrannical, ill-informed, and a threat to our nation’s foundational principles. All of these points are true, but they aren’t going to be the focus of this piece.

The current “administration” will surely pass, but the diseased thinking that underlies its plotting will persist absent strong medicine.

The diseased thinking I have in mind is, sadly, of the Founders’ creation. Perhaps my title is unfair — certainly nothing I write will stand the test of time nearly as well as their creation did.

Before I take pot shots at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, let me be clear that it is the most successful framework for government ever created. Notwithstanding that achievement, I believe that we are at this point in history because of critical errors the Founders made and for which we are now paying dearly.

The first of the Founders’ oversights related to one of the greatest challenges every writer faces: communicating in such a way that their written words convey the entirety of their message and sufficiently capture the relevant context such that their message can stand alone. This is an aspirational goal that can at best be approached but never fully achieved.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights suffer in this regard because they do not capture the sacrifice of lives and fortunes in service of escape from tyranny.  It is impossible for modern Americans to conceive of years of bloody warfare on our soil to resist the dictates of a foreign crown.  Because if we couldd, we wouldn’t give up one single ounce of the rights they secured for us.

By Ogden, Henry Alexander (1856-1936) Public Domain

The authors of Biden’s executive orders (hereafter referred to as the puppet masters) regarding guns bring us to the second of the Founders’ critical errors. The puppet masters chose his words very carefully, and the reason they did is that they too see the diseased thinking, and rather than cure it, they want it to fester to their advantage.

Biden said:

But no amendment—no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.

There’s a sleight of hand here so deft that unless careful attention is paid, the rest of the nonsense seems to flow logically enough. Of course, “amendments”, taken literally, mean the written words are not absolute. So why say this?

The puppet masters realized that the Founders blew it in naming the Bill of Rights, their second consequential oversight. It should have been titled something more accurate, albeit unwieldy, like “The List of Absolute Restrictions on Government So That Your Inalienable Rights Are Forever Secure.”

This critical error allows people to believe that the words of the Bill of Rights, created by people, are what “give you your rights.” This is made worse by two modern problems.

First, our society has drifted away from any meaningful attachment to a Creator who endows us with our rights. Second, wrapping one’s head around the constructs of “natural rights” or “inalienable rights” requires a capacity for abstraction that public education avoids imparting at all costs, leaving people without any conceptual basis to argue otherwise.

If what I’ve written gets you to read this, then my job here should be done. I think that article is both sufficiently catchy and lethal to the diseased thinking about rights that it could be the catalyst to taking our rights back. I’d be remiss however not to comment on one particular focus of Biden’s executive order.

Ghost guns” is the confiscationist term for guns made by their owners from components after personally drilling holes in one of the parts (the “lower receiver”) so that the components can be assembled. No background check is required because the ATF (so far) defines a “gun” as the serialized receiver. But since it was purchased “unfinished” (i.e., without a lot of the holes) it didn’t become the “gun” until the holes were drilled and the lower completely finished.

If any of this troubles you, consider the alternative: your right to self-defense would require absolute reliance on the commercial purchase of the implements of that right. No other natural right works that way because it is antithetical to any conception of liberty.

The puppet masters’ obvious goal is to deprive you of the ability to arm yourself outside their watch. It’s certainly not about crime because privately assembled guns are almost never used criminally. Interfering with the home manufacture of guns, combined with universal background checks, would give our authoritarian Lords the ability to make a registry of guns for potential future confiscation.

Although we must fight these efforts through our representatives at every level of government, we shouldn’t overlook the fact that the right to armed self-defense is enjoying increasing respect throughout the states, as noted here. I share that author’s optimism that we shall, in the end, overcome.

 

Dennis Petrocelli, MD is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist who has practiced for nearly 20 years in Virginia. He took up shooting in 2019 for mind-body training and self-defense, and is in the fight for Virginians’ gun rights.

This article was originally published at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission. 

 

Previous Post
Next Post

213 COMMENTS

  1. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: a law is only as good as it’s enforcement. Thus, if it’s unenforceable because of logistics or apathy on the part of it’s proposed enforcers, it may as well not be a law at all.

    Most local law enforcement is understaffed, underfunded, and underinterested in harassing otherwise law-abiding gun owners.

    • And local law enforcement will remain an entity and in place until these tyrannical leftist liberals federalize all law enforcement. This is already in play as they think this will make it easier to confiscate firearms.

      • A written constitution is as strong as the constitution (meaning character) of the people. If the people are strong and virtuous, the constitution.will reflect that, and will be upheld. If the people are weak, selfish, and degenerate, then the Constitution will be cast off one way or another.

        The Constitution written on paper will not save us, we must become strong and virtuous. Bowing our knee before the God of the Bible is the only real way out.

        • Exactly, John Adams wrote “the Constitution was written for a moral a religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other “.

    • Yes, they are understaffed and underfunded–but, if necessary to please their political masters, or in hope of obtaining more staff and more funds in the future, local law enforcement can soon become VERY interested in specific things.

      Police forces are often directed at specific problems–speed enforcement, red-light-running campaigns, crackdowns on prostitution and street-corner pharmaceutical corporations, gambling operations. If the mayor and city council decides that it would be popular to enforce ‘gun laws’, which in the abstract IS very popular when applied to what we think of as ‘illegal’ guns and street crime, then they can most certainly direct their officers in the proper direction, on the understanding that ‘otherwise law-abiding gun owners’ are either common criminal thugs who just haven’t yet killed anyone, or are mass-murderers awaiting an opportunity.

    • They are uninterested, until they have to “just follow orders.” The overwhelming majority of cops will not hesitate to follow the most anti 2A orders because that paycheck and pension is too good, and because that thin blue line bullsh*t makes it easier to deal with sentiments of guilt or the mere questioning of things, opinions, etc. Likewise, in recent years we have witnessed numerous violent incidents during which the cops did absolutely nothing to intervene. I am referring to BLM, antifa, incidents at pro Trump rallies, the BLM thug pointing an AR to a biker who was revving his engine as he was annoyed by the unlawful road block (all that in front of the cops), and the list goes on.
      It’s obviously different in rural areas, where the Sheriff knows everyone, far away from all the bullsh*t, until el presidente Bidenharris replaces them with the feds or state police, if needed.

      • They wouldn’t want to Federalize “those” police because they lack sufficient ideological indoctrination. They’ll form a “people’s militia” of social(ist) justice warriors from the ranks of ANTIFA and BLM. Motivation will be loot, rape, plunder, and recreational pharmaceuticals.

  2. I would not matter how the Founding Fathers wrote it, The PSYCHOPATHYS want it their way & they are scared of all gun owner. They know we do not fear them or the BROWN shirts, that work for them.

  3. You can theoretically create the most perfect system ever conceived by mankind. It’s useless once a former Vice President says “No amendment is absolute.”

    • There is no such thing as a limited government. The federal government has been rapidly growing since the day of its inception. The system failed long before biden took office.

    • ” It’s useless once a former Vice President says “No amendment is absolute.””

      That’s the basis of what they call a “Living Constitution”.

      It’s nothing more than a book of rules that means what they want it to mean, when they want it. That’s why the actual fascists call themselves ‘Progressives’, since something new is obviously something better, and why don’t we just go along with it?

      Their mass delusion is orchestrated by those who want totalitarian power, and will stop at nothing to get it…

  4. The founding fathers did not “blow it” we did. After giving us their great gift, they commented that the system that they gave us would only work if we elected moral people. This is the problem we have now, there are mostly crooks, communists and socialists in D C and many state governments. These politicians are mostly whores that will support and legislate to the highest bidder. people, it’s time ti divorce the District of Communists and form a more perfect union. See the declaration of Independence and you will realize that the same ” King George ” crap is in D C and some other states. time to go y’all.

    • “The founding fathers did not “blow it” we did.”

      “What kind of government do we have, Mr. Franklin? ”

      “A republic, if you can keep it.”

      • Exactly. The 16th and 17th amendments, passed in the early 20th century, were a definitive answer to Franklin’s “if you can keep it.” The requisite 3/4 of all Americans at the time decided they couldn’t keep it and didn’t want it…and now here we are.

        If the Founders messed up anywhere, it was in trusting democracy too much…but I think they knew it was a risk and decided they were willing to take it. Better to err that way than make yet another monarchy/aristocracy mistake.

        • “If the Founders messed up anywhere, it was in trusting democracy too much…”

          That’s why they warned us by saying it’s a government that can only function if led by honorable people. They understood how power corrupts…

        • We started off as a Republic, Ing. The Founders did not trust a Democracy-which is nothing more than mob rule. We did not keep the Republic, and have the balls to wonder why (as the quote so aptly states), we are suiciding ourselves.

        • A republic — with democratically elected representatives and head of state and a constitution that can be amended by democratic means. Democracy was always an essential feature. Calling it a republic and ignoring the democratic elements is just as inaccurate as the left calling it simply a democracy.

          Nobody in his right mind trusts a pure democracy. The Founders didn’t, which is why they tempered democracy by putting democratic *features* in a republic.

          Our current political establishment doesn’t either, which is why their “democracy” is actually an oligarchy which allows citizens the dubious privilege of deciding which oligarch will represent (i.e., rule) them.

  5. The biggest flaw in the Constitution is the incomplete 10th Amendment. It limits the powers of the government to only the enumerated powers defined in the Constitution, but stops short of mandating penalties or punishments if a government official ignores the Constitutional limitations. Over time, as more and more people ignored those limitations, and since the penalty did not exist, they pretty much erased the Constitution, or relegated it to a museum.

    • Leaving a gray area in the 14th. Amendment that has prohibited the creation of anchor baby citizenship for illegals has hurt us far more than most folks can ever imagine.

    • Alexander,
      Yes, this, exactly. The Founders “h[e]ld these truths to be self-evident”, and thus failed to plan for either 20thC disbelief / hostility toward self-evident truth or – much worse – today’s growing consensus around “truths” that are the exact opposite of actual moral principles.

      That’s why we have laws with consequences for a guy who steals one gun, and harsher consequences for kidnapping or murdering one person – and absolutely zero for a POS politician who would take tens of millions of innocent people’s property, and kidnap or murder them if they don’t comply. Oh, wait, I’m so wrong – we could vote him out🙄

      • The Constitution was written by gentlemen for gentlemen. Gentlemen no longer exist; they have been replaced by politicians.

        • Yes, and they created a society with broad opportunities to become gentlemen by choice / behavior rather than birth alone.

          Many of today’s ills result from the misconception that those gentlemen wrote the Constitution to coerce each other to treat felons, psychos, parasites, criminal invaders of our country, etc. as the equals of gentlemen.

    • No one can cover every possibility. And who exactly would enforce such a clause? The Supreme Court? No thanks. There is simply no way to ever ironclad any government structure when others are allowed to ignore foundational documents.

      • People always talk about the genius of the Founders in turning the tendency of various people and positions to struggle for power into “checks and balances” that preserve freedom, but that isn’t really true without the penalties and punishments Alexander mentioned. How wonderful it would be if every politician had the Sword of Damocles feeling about every single idea for which he couldn’t quote a power specified in the Constitution. As it stands now, the political criminal – thousands of times more dangerous than any common crook, and also more reprehensible because he swore to uphold our rights – is guaranteed a consequence-free existence, except he might lose his next popularity contest and have to make ten times his Congressional salary consulting and writing books – whoopdy-fuckin-do!

  6. First and foremost, I appreciate the author’s article and I am not commenting here to bust his chops.

    I would argue on two points that our Founders did not blow it.

    1) Their audience of their day knew the context of their time, the context of the Declaration of Independence, and the context of the United States Constitution. Nothing in any of those documents was unclear, uncertain, or ambiguous to the people of the United States in 1790.

    2) They necessarily had to keep the documents reasonably brief or else they would be next to impossible to absorb. Those documents were never intended to be giant and exhaustive “how to” manuals. Rather, they were simple and listed the basic framework for righteous government and the reason for righteous government.

    As other people said here in the comments, the failure lies in the last 100 to 140 years of beneficiaries of our Founders.

      • I’ve been entertaining myself recently by reading HOA nightmare stories on Reddit.

        After having read a few hundred of them so far, very clear patterns show up, and it has uncomfortable parallels with politics today. How power corrupts, and how easy it is to slide into totalitarianism, small steps at a time. And the lengths those ‘elected’ will go to secure that power for themselves.

        I’m not liking what I’m seeing…

        • HOA’s are an excellent microcosm to observe human behavior. They make it evident that a large proportion of us are willing to suffer arbitrary restrictions to our freedoms in exchange for, perhaps just once, imposing those restrictions on others and just for a moment feeling like royalty.

        • Geoff, Alexander,
          I agree, but I think they serve a beneficial function. They create a place for petty-tyrant Karens to associate voluntarily, living their shared vision of utopian micromanagement without turning it into real laws (involving police, jail time, etc.) for the rest of us.

          I hate and avoid HOAs because I’m not one of those people, but I also think they provide a model for society in general: I own my home and you own yours, and we each chip in to provide things we need (driveway) or want (e.g. the price of an inflatable kiddie pool each for the use of an Olympic inground). The fact that these commons in between are ours cannot possibly ever be construed to mean that they are everybody’s; that anyone outside the association has a “right” to any of its benefits; that they’re even allowed inside, except by invitation of members; or that the association has powers or spending authority (regardless of votes) beyond managing the complex for the direct benefit of its members.

    • Yet still the 2nd. Amendment affords the private ownership, use, and wearing of military-grade small arms.

  7. No. Excess tolerance has caused problems though. Evil people love tolerance, until they have power. Then they’re completely intolerant and rotten as hell.

    • Exactly. The Left’s favorite word is ugly no matter how you slice it. “Tolerance” for nonmoral factors is the epitome of arrogance (imagine actually telling someone you “tolerate” his skin color, etc.). Tolerance for harmful and irrational choices is the primary reason for the prevalence of harmful and irrational choices.

      All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for people who know what is right to choose instead to do what is nice.

      • “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for people who know what is right to choose instead to do what is nice.”

        Excellent twist on an excellent quotation.

        • Thanks, hawkeye!

          I liked the original quote until I started reading up on it. “Doing nothing” sounds bad at first hearing – like laziness, indecisiveness, etc. What Burke actually meant, though, was more along the lines of “minding one’s own business” or “leaving other people alone” – which is not only not the cause of evil, but should be more or less the default position for a citizen (and certainly the government) of a free country.

  8. When a politician will debate the meaning of “is” finding fault with the language the founders used is pointless.

  9. Negative. They didn’t “blow it” or make an error.
    They were writing with the knowledge they had at the time. The consecutive generations manipulated their words into tyranny.

  10. Regardless of how Madison et al wrote the Amendment, certain people would constantly try to infringe. “Congress shall make no law respecting…abridging the freedom of speech…” You’d think this would be clear as crystal, but how often do we get a tortured interpretation of Holmes’ crowded theater comment? The militia “condition” is just an excuse. If it did not exist, anti-freedom people would rely on another pretext.

    The Founding Fathers did not blow it. They knew what the meaning of the word “is” is.

  11. The author misses the pretext of the amendments…the core Constitution. The amended Bill of Rights aligns perfectly with the preamble:

    “ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

  12. But the authors did not mince these words

    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.

  13. America is a miracle. The constitution moreso. Human being’s are flawed. Nuffsaid!

  14. The founders knew implicitly and explicitly what they created. Franklin summed it in one sentence, with emphasis on “You”, meaning the people of the nation, not the new central government.

  15. Our founding documents worked pretty well till FDR openly subverted them. The Newport Rapist is to blame for everything.

    • The Republican party at it’s start ruined what we had going. They were Federalists on steroids. The laws that were passed just before, during and since the “Civil War” changed a great system of government(states rights), because a bunch of states ganged up on others, kept them from uniting, and when they did, forced them back into their dream of Federalism.

      • And currently the lunatic Libertarians are ruining what the Democrat communists can’t ruin on their own.

        • Yeah! Screw those libertarians and all their crazy thoughts of individual rights and freedoms! There’s nothing in the constitution about things like individual rights or freedoms! Who do they think they are?

    • Hardly. Wilson, Lincoln, and others weren’t above tyrannous deeds themselves.

      Let’s not deify earlier politicians as being demigods. People keep forgetting that soo after 1A’s ratification came the Alien and Sedition Acts. If we want liberty, it’s on us to create it in the here and now.

  16. It should be noted that if they get away with making “ghost guns” illegal they have in effect also made every single 3D printed firearm illegal, by default.

  17. One of the few missteps in the Constitution, at least looking at it from the perspective of the POTG, is the inclusion of the prefatory “militia” clause in the 2nd Amendment. That was the founding fathers’ version of editorializing, and it has given the anti-gunners a hook to hang their hat on for almost a century. The FF should have picked somewhere else to make their point about a well-regulated militia rather than in the 2A. No other amendment in the top 10 includes similar prefatory or explanatory language, and it has and will continue to trouble us. Also, if only they had used an adjective other than “well-regulated,” the meaning of which then is not what it is made out to be now.

    • I’d argue that “well-regulated” still retains its original meaning and intent — just think of all the machinery (air compressors, anything that uses a thermostat, etc., etc.) that includes regulators of varying types, and you’ll see that the original meaning is still alive and well.

      Its meaning only truly breaks down in places like legislative chambers and the skulls of leftists, where sanity and logic go to die.

      • “A well-regulated militia…”

        Literally, a disciplined group that knows how to shoot straight…

      • Yep. Well regulated meant they were all the same caliber. How can the good folks supporting a militia keep up, if they’re having to cast .36, .45, .50 and .69 caliber balls? They can’t, so well regulating kept all the militia’s arms the same caliber.

  18. Don’t blame the Founding Fathers for this. No matter how it was written, the 2nd Amendment was going to be misconstrued by modern Leftists because they cannot abide the policy it establishes. And since they don’t have the broad support they would need to change it, they simply do whatever mental gymnastics are required to pretend it means nothing of any significance.

  19. I’m generally supportive of this thrust of this article but I’m going to quibble few points that aren’t really quibbles IMHO.

    “First, our society has drifted away from any meaningful attachment to a Creator who endows us with our rights. Second, wrapping one’s head around the constructs of “natural rights” or “inalienable rights” requires a capacity for abstraction that public education avoids imparting at all costs…”

    The point on education stands but the rest of this would, in my estimation, fall into a trap based on a lack of imagination combined with a lack of a grounding in political reality.

    One need not attach a “Creator” to this whole thing. That smacks of religion and, like it or not, society has become far, far less religious in the classical context and in many ways more superstitious. A more overarching conceptual framework for “rights” is needed.

    However, that framework is not hard to create or explain and requires no real abstract thinking. It can be illustrated to the lay person in rat vs. cats or squirrels vs. raptors quite easily.

    The very fact that something lives provides it the right to defend itself to the best of its ability against those things which threaten it and use the most effective tools at its disposal to do so. A squirrel may bite at a bird of prey or a rat may claw at the eyes of a cat. This is, morally and ethically no different than a 5’1″ tall woman using a pistol to defend against a 6’4 240 pound rapist armed with a knife is no different. The exact same logic applies to defending against a school shooter or anything else.

    One does not “morally” demand that a rat only use its tail in futile attempts to whip the cat’s eyes. Why would one do that with people?

    • Oh, look, no way for them to say “Oh, look religious kooks!” and I just defined Natural Rights in a way that any moron can understand in under two minutes and did so without crazy “abstraction”.

      • It’s a great analogy, and one I’ve thought of before too, but haven’t really had the chance to try out.

        I suspect it’d only work on people who are willing to think about it, and those might be few and far between. Far too many people…maybe a majority…simply aren’t capable of/willing to separate their emotional triggers from the thought process to logic their way through something even this simple and really *think* about what it means.

        • That is seemingly for certain. Far too many aren’t capable OR willing.

          Everything they’re told, everything they read and everything they’ve been taught relies on emotional triggers that they are unable to get past in any cognitive attempt at “understanding” something greater than their assumed needs.

        • Two points;

          1) Again, target audience.

          2) Back to basics. Keep asking “Why?” to force their logic a level deeper until they find they have none.

          #2 is an emotional manipulation. If you’re careful it can be pushed in the direction you prefer.

    • “One need not attach a “Creator” to this whole thing.”

      Oh, but they do.

      It is literally how they become radicalized by their religion, ‘Environmentalism’. Their ‘priests’ are academia, and their teachings are as intolerant of their blasphemy as a Sharia court is intolerant of homosexuals.

      And ‘dealt with’ accordingly…

      • “Natural Rights” works “because science”. You’re not going to get all religious on us, are you? Maybe deny basic biology like some kind of lunatic? What, you don’t think you’re a sentient semi-arboreal ape built by evolution to not have big teeth, claws or large muscles but rather a big brain? Why are you not using it?

        Gentle or forceful this is an arguement you have to work pretty hard to lose on any level.

        Like guns or martial arts; basics, basics, basics.

  20. No Amendment to the US Constitution is absolute. Including the 14th and 19th Amendments? Imagine that.

  21. “But no amendment—no amendment to the Constitution is absolute.”

    But some are most clearly NOT absolute. The right to practice one’s religion is not contravened by a law forbidding human sacrifice. The right to free speech is not contravened by a law banning speech that is an incitement to riot or violence. Troops cannot be quartered in your home in times of peace, without consent, but no consent is needed in times of war. The right to be free of searches and seizures is only as to unreasonable searches and seizures. You can be deprived of life and liberty, as long as due process is provided. You can be punished,as long as the punishment is not cruel or unusual. So it is literally true that THESE constitutional rights are not absolute.

    But it begs the question to say that ALL rights are not absolute. The Founders used different words in different contexts to mean very different things. In the First, for example, it states that the government cannot enact a law “abridging” the freedom of speech, yet even in that day, a ban on incitement to riot or violence or for what then passed as hate speech did not “abridge” the right to free speech, as the scope of the right of “free” speech was not recognized as extending to such speech. By contrast, the Second uses the word “infringe” which means to encroach upon or invalidate. In this context of a right to keep and bear arms, infringe means something different that abridge. It means that the government cannot take away, invalidate or limit n express right, a right that is not in any way qualified by the language of the amendment.

    • P.S. The 19th Amendment is not absolute either. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Well, okay then, but it does not say that the right to vote cannot be abridged for other reasons, such as is the law now in most places, after conviction of a felony.

    • “Troops cannot be quartered in your home in times of peace, without consent, but no consent is needed in times of war.”

      Ahhh, but there’s the rub –

      Look at how they treat things such as ‘Climate emergencies’ or most recently, ‘Covid restrictions’. How quickly the rabble can be made to ‘comply’ with those types of events.

      We’re being deliberately desensitized to future declared ’emergencies’ like ‘gun violence’, and why we should accept limits on liberties like gatherings…

    • One of the only correct uses of “begging the question” I’ve seen in the past year.

      +5

    • “Boomers blew it.”

      How glad I am I’m not a ‘boomer’… 🙂

  22. Maybe people back then didn’t play as many word games and perhaps more often their yes meant yes and their no meant no. In my limited experience with legal documents it seems that 95 percent of the legalese is 1000 ways of saying you will uphold your end of a contract or 1000 ways of saying you won’t sue someone else for your own mistakes. They feel they have to include that stuff because too many people find ways to go back on promises or use the courts to steal as much money as they can in ridiculous lawsuits. No constitution, no matter how well worded can bind a people that has no integrity.

  23. “…the prefatory “militia” clause in the 2nd Amendment… was the founding fathers’ version of editorializing,”

    Not actually. The Second Amendment was a statement that the States reserved the power, in more than one way, to keep the central government under control.

    To effectively understand the writers, and the Constitution, one must mentally ride the Wayback Machine, to a time foreign to people of the 20th and 21st centuries.

    The founders did not surrender State sovereignty…except as explicitly detailed in the Constitution. The States spawned the central government, and the States were its masters. Part of the fabric of the new nation were the militias, owned, controlled and operated by individual States. The militias were a foundation stone of the new nation. The Second Amendment made clear that the State militias would be neither disbanded, nor disarmed. Made clear that the militias were the last resort in thwarting a tyranny of federal government legislation or military means. The writings of the founders clearly state that the militias would stop government overreach, because the central government would never be permitted a standing army larger than, or stronger than the State militias.

    In writing and “selling” the Constitution, the “Federalists” took the position that the wording was restrictive. That meant unless the States explicitly granted powers to the central government, the central government had no authority to act, in any manner. The “Anti-Federalists” were convinced that the central government would eventually conclude that if not specifically prohibited and detailed in the Constitution, the central government had authority, and maybe a mandate, to act as the elected officials deemed necessary, prudent, attractive, and beneficial to the central government.

    The Second Amendment reinforced the principal that the States were the superior partners in the compact that created the new union, and the States would go to war, if necessary, to preserve their sovereignty, and control the central government. Essentially, the Second Amendment declared that insurrection could be employed to defeat a tyrannical central government.

    It is difficult for modern people to conceive of a time when a strong central government was considered a danger to liberty.

    • “The writings of the founders clearly state that the militias would stop government overreach,…”

      -and-

      “It is difficult for modern people to conceive of a time when a strong central government was considered a danger to liberty.”

      Look how far we have fallen since about, oh, 1990 or so. Just that far back, people understood why communism was evil. And now today, how with just a bit of spit-n-polish, it’s being sold as something fresh and new…

      • More like 1860. Blame Lincoln. On the other hand, where would be now if the North had lost? There is an interesting discussion of this very issue in the introduction to Team of Rivals by historian and biographer Dorris Kearns Goodwin. She ultimately concludes that we turned into a far more powerful nation than we would have had the federal government been dissolved.

  24. “One need not attach a “Creator” to this whole thing…”

    Without a Creator as the universal, moral authority for our natural, human and civil rights, then those rights are not “unalienable”…and all “rights” emanate from Man.

    • Their ‘moral authority’ is the religion of ‘Environmentalism’…

      • The fallacy is that ‘environmentalism’, aka ‘science’ is only as reliable as the men representing it. In the days of Galileo, the science was pure and the religion was corrupt. Today, the science is corrupt. It’s every bit as political as the religion was then. Human nature must be applied to everything when truth is saught.

        • “The fallacy is that ‘environmentalism’, aka ‘science’ is only as reliable as the men representing it.”

          That’s why they harp on “Everyone else agrees with us”, and “There’s consensus”.

          Going along to get along is a powerful emotional ‘crutch’. People have a natural desire to want to be accepted by others.

          Strange thing is, the biggest breakthroughs in science were when someone was brave enough to speak up about something.

          After all, it was clearly apparent the sun and stars rotated around the Earth, just open your eyes and see it!

        • I’m not sure I’d trust me kids around a Catholic Priest, even today.

          The politicization of science has always been an issue. Grab a Ouija board and ask Socrates about it. However, it’s become easier since the mid-1960’s as the educational level has dropped like a stone starting in 1963. The data on that is clear.

          The result is that most people have no real grounding in anything and can be led around through intellectual coercion, manipulation and lies.

          Time was, before the internet, you’d have a debate about something and maybe come to a point where both parties were unsure. There was a way to settle this; throwdown at the library. Today people can’t even bother to whip out their phone and look it up even though a better version of that library is sitting in their pocket.

          That’s not a problem with the science or the facts or the hardware. It’s a problem with the people.

          A friend and I often draw the distinction between “stupid” and “dumb” and it’s one we reference quite a bit. Stupid people are low IQ. They’re incapable. Dumb people are normies (or better) who engage in dumb behavior because they don’t think about it or have been taught not to.

          The vast majority of people today have been taught to be dumb. The result is predictable.

          You can see this in the last year. The science was known. A few politicians and a lot of media lied. And people, lacking an education, fell for it.

    • OK, not to nerd out about this but not only no, fuck no.

      First, this is circular logic used to justify anything based on your personal interpretation of the “Creator”. What rights anyone might or might not possess is entirely dependent on your view of the creator. God, Allah, Brahma or whatever. That “creator” exists outside the framework of corporeal reality and therefore every person’s knowledge of “the creator” is limited and subject to personal bias. For example, in Islam you have no right to free speech that questions certain parts of the doctrinal teaching and which parts those are depends on what specific type of Islam you adhere to. That’s quite obviously not a “right” under that schema of thinking which you openly invite when you say “Creator” since the next logical question is “Which Creator?”. Whichever “creator” the person asking or answering the question prefers which then not only lines up with but creates their conceptual framework for what is and what is not a right.

      Secondly, if I wish to deny the existence of rights under your schema I simply deny the existence of a “creator” in the first place or deny that you’re recognizing the “correct” one. Since you cannot prove the existence of said creator, even within the framework you’ve set up for yourself, you can’t even advance to first principles from this position. I have no need to argue the logic, I simply deny the premise. Your inability to prove your premise means you’ve already lost. Hence the existence and usage of the word “faith”.

      Thirdly, logically speaking even if one were to accept the argument that a “Creator” does exist and to accept that you’ve picked the correct one, the Creator necessarily exists outside the system of reality which we can perceive and interrogate logically and rationally via observation and experimentation. Ergo, you have no grounding to make a claim based on this because anything you say could be an incorrect interpretation of what the Creator actually wants. Therefore, again, no first principles and no rational defense.

      Anything that can be defeated by the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” argument isn’t worth discussing outside of a meta analysis of spiritual philosophy, which is no grounding for rights since no religion on the planet actually claims to “fully understand the Creator and his plan for us”.

      The fact that living things exist however can be demonstrated in numerous ways. The adaptations they have can be elucidated at base and from this first principles can be derived and logic extended on a solid platform which can be shown by example and requires no frame of reference outside of our corporeal reality.

      Further, while argument can be produced in both directions from this premise the position is far less vulnerable to attacks by simple denial or ridicule and it’s acceptable to anyone other than an outright pacifist-unto-death.

      This is why the concept of Natural Rights has endured from ancient times, espoused by Greeks, Zoroastrians and Roman Stoics before the birth of Christ and has continued to endure to this day. Because it needs not have an vague and undefinable base.

      “…we are born for Justice, and that right is based, not upon opinions, but upon Nature.” was stated by Cicero more than four decades before Christ’s birth. Christians just picked up on the idea because it’s so, so fucking good.

      Since most people these days associate this with religion, let’s just go back to being Stoics in regards to this argument. One need not even renounce one’s religious beliefs to do so.

      • “Which Creator?” Obviously the one that has been recognized in this country since it’s founding. Also known as the correct one. 😉

        “Since you cannot prove the existence of said creator”

        How many creations have you seen without a creator? Make a list.

        “the Creator necessarily exists outside the system of reality which we can perceive and interrogate logically and rationally via observation and experimentation.”

        How many witnesses can you round up that viewed the drafting of the Constitution? How can we really know that Benjamin Franklin actually existed? Can you prove that the world as we know it didn’t begin 151 years ago, with history seeded in our minds and artifacts placed so that we would find it? Can you prove that we aren’t in the Matrix RIGHT NOW? No. You take it on faith.

        I’m not arguing against the concept that you don’t have to be religious to understand natural rights.

        • All one needs do is look at rocks. What created them? Well, in the right place, it’s that volcano over there. There’s your creator. Right there, you can watch it happen. Is it God? To some people, yes.

          Did that volcano grant you rights?

          Anyone who demands absolute empirical knowledge in this regard is a fool and to be treated as such. Such demands lead to claims and those claims always leads to circular logic.

          Ibn al-Ghazali proved that and the unfortunate fact that people took him seriously still has ramifications today. He spent his life searching for the absolute truth about God, rejected all the answers and ended up spinning himself around on top of a minaret until he “saw God”. He did it for years. He was also influential enough to entirely change the course of Islamic thought and give us what we have today.

        • strych9,

          The point that commenter dude is making is that almost all of our truths are based on faith. The really important question is whether or not our basis for faith is rational.

          Consider a simple example of a truth that almost everyone universally accepts: the boiling point of water at sea level (e.g. at “standard pressure”) is 212 degrees Fahrenheit or 100 degrees Celsius. How many people actually traveled to an ocean beach (sea level) and measured the actual temperature of water as it boiled? And of those people, how many of them verified that atmospheric pressure was actually at “standard pressure” at that time? And how many people verified the accuracy of their thermometer and barometer before boiling water? Answer: only a handful of people in all of world history.

          So, in that previous example, why do we accept the officially published boiling point of water? It boils down (pun intended!) to faith in the people and instruments who declared the result. And faith in those people and instruments boils down (pun intended again!) to their credibility — e.g. to what extent those people’s and instruments’ previous behavior is consistent with observable nature.

          In the final analysis, nothing is absolutely absolute. We would have to be all-knowing to declare an absolute fact/truth. (No matter how confident we are in a fact/truth, there could be exceptions or conditions of which we are not aware which demonstrate an error with the alleged fact/truth. The only “antidote” for that condition is that we must be all-knowing, which we are not.)

          Since we humans are finite and cannot know anything with absolute certainty, we are left with exercising judgement based on all the available evidence and finally taking a leap of faith (however small) that our evidence-based conclusion is correct.

          With that in mind, if we apply the same standards which we use to conclude that our nation had its Founding Fathers and that they actually wrote our Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution, we similarly conclude that the Bible and its message is reliable. And that provides us with a baseline for rights and righteous conduct. Without such a baseline, everything simply devolves to, “Might makes right.”

        • “…we similarly conclude that the Bible and its message is reliable.”

          And there is nothing wrong with that choice.

          But it’s a choice… but there are many others. The error occurs when one “choice” decrees that all the other “choices” are wrong- and proceeds to employ its “righteousness” by forcing the “might” of its “right” on the “unbelievers”.

          It’s just so… unnecessary.

          Unless, maybe, if there’s an ulterior motive…

        • “Unless, maybe, if there’s an ulterior motive…”

          Of course some people will use whatever they can in their pursuit of power. Notice how some Democrats have been using Christianity and the Bible to support their argument for unlimited illegal immigration and as passive aggressive attacks on their political adversaries. Does that mean that religion is bad?

        • “Does that mean that religion is bad?”

          Religion is not any more inherently bad than anything else- up to the point where it actively does physical and mental harm to people.

          Choices have consequences.

  25. No constitution, no matter how well worded, can hold a country together if its people lack integrity.

  26. “The Founding Fathers did fine. Boomers blew it.”

    Close, but….

    “The Greatest Generation” blew it; their offspring demanded permissiveness that placed no restrictions on individuals.

    • That’s because the offspring grew up in ‘soft’ times. They, as a group, were never ‘tested’ with experiences that could literally break them.”Hard times create hard people.”

      I would like to believe if we were ever truly ‘tested’, enough would pass that test and be adults with their heads screwed on straight.

      That would require an attrition rate most wouldn’t accept…

    • No restrictions on individuals? So they abolished the legislature? Haven’t heard that one before.

  27. “No constitution, no matter how well worded, can hold a country together if its people lack integrity.”

    “Integrity”? What a bourgeois, archaic, privileged, white-supremacist concept. In a free country, no one should be held to standards they dislike. The very idea that people should take on personal responsibility for their actions is so ’80s.

    • 1880’s? You certainly can’t be talking about the 1980’s.

      Cocaine and the perfection of corporate raidership don’t exactly scream “personal responsibility”.

  28. “Look how far we have fallen since about, oh, 1990 or so. Just that far back, people understood why communism was evil.”

    The MSM and the Leftists were quite noisy and adamant that communism was the future, and Reagan was an idiot to try to destroy “the evil empire”. They made anti-communism a threat to “democracy”.

  29. “#2 is an emotional manipulation. If you’re careful it can be pushed in the direction you prefer.”

    But, but, but….if we stoop to “their” tactics, we are no better than “them”.

    • “But, but, but….if we stoop to “their” tactics, we are no better than “them”.”

      Turnabout is fair play, etc…

  30. “Yet still the 2nd. Amendment affords the private ownership, use, and wearing of military-grade small arms.’

    The Second Amendment protects the right of the people (and thus the militias) to have weapons of war equal to, and better than the weapons of the federal military.

    It is an Alice In Wonderland world where the government to be tamed by the Second Amendment dictates which grade of weapons “the people” may possess or acquire in pursuit of that taming.

    • And back then 50% or more of the military-grade small arms were largely built and assembled at home.

      • Where did you get that data from?

        Gun-making was specialized enough that foundries and forges were, for most part, regional, when it came to the metallurgy required.

        If you couldn’t make a reasonably strong barrel, skill with hand tools can only take one so far…

        • And you’re totally WRONG. WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM TO THE CONTRARY?

          Towns and villages had their silversmiths, blacksmiths and barrel makers, coopers that also provided stock wood, etc., with the only thing they may have to import or get from a specialist was the locks used. Go check out Colonial Williamsburg FOR STARTS. Go pick up a history book and learn something about your country for a change instead of thinking you were born knowing it all.

        • “Go check out Colonial Williamsburg FOR STARTS.”

          I’ve been there.

          Have you?

          Williamsburg was an example of a regional ‘technology hub’ I mentioned.

          “with the only thing they may have to import or get from a specialist was the locks used.”

          The guns don’t function without them, full stop.

          You were the one who stated : “And back then 50% or more of the military-grade small arms were largely built and assembled at home.” not me.

          So, if you’re agreeing with me that crucial components were beyond the reach of a typical household back then, why are you arguing with me? 🙂

      • Total BS. Colonial Williamsburg has a REPRODUCTION of a barrel drill. That is a massive peace of equipment that would only exist in a specialized forge. It is light industry NOT home production. Nothing like a electric drill and Dremel that is in everyone’s tool box at home.

        • NO … YOU ARE BULLSHIT

          I’ve studied this for years. There were as many firearms built by individuals in small towns as there ever was by the Brits in the Tower of London. You don’t need power for a drill. We learned that in elementary school.

          No doubt you best stay away from building anything at all.

        • Skilled individuals in small towns with specialized equipment. And what, 1 town in 10 had someone who could forge a barrel. You make it sound like anyone could build their own guns at home (like now).

        • So what are you, a time traveler census taker?

          DONT FUCKING WORRY ABOUT WHAT WE’RE BUILDING AT HOME YOU STUPID DAMN TROLL – IF YOU DONT LIKE HOME BUILDS THEN DONT BUILD ONE – SAME APPLIES TODAY 200+ YEARS IN THE FUTURE.

        • “And what, 1 town in 10 had someone who could forge a barrel.”

          The ratio of towns with a barrelmaker today is much lower, and yet there are still plenty of homebuilders. The benefits of division and specialization of labor in no way invalidate the right of an individual to buy the product of others better trained and equipped for specialized tasks.

        • “There were as many firearms built by individuals in small towns as there ever was by the Brits in the Tower of London”

          You just admitted the lockwork was imported from a technology hub, while insisting guns were commonly made at home?

          Which is it?

        • You don’t know what the he’ll you’re talking about. The barrel drill there is a recreation of one of the many found in small gun shops of the day.

          Who said Williamsburg was a hub of exclusively? Another troll? You clowns go back and research your history books like you’ve been told to do.

          Regardless … I’m sure the 80% concept is going to survive one way or the other and nobody really gives a shit what you trolls and closet liberals have to say about. You can ALL GO SUCK EGGS.

        • “small gun shops” How did you go from home built to gun shop built? Please please make up your mind. So what is it, skilled machinists or a typical guy at home.

  31. Proposing that the Founding Fathers “blew it” is definitive- it got us to read the post.

    Your inclusion of the “this” link truly earns you a hearty “Job Well Done!”

    Anyone who disregards the linked article spurns unequivocal wisdom.

    • Wisdom is facts.
      I’ve already got the facts, why waste time with wisdom.
      .
      .
      . Need money?
      Make money working from your computer at home. It’s easy. Click on the link below to get more details
      MakeMoneyBidenAdvisor@ screwu dot com

  32. First, full disclosure, I made it 2 paragraphs into this article.

    Second, I recall a story about a woman who asked Benjamin Franklin if they had a republic or a monarchy and Franklin’s reply was ‘a republic, if you can keep it.’

    The Marxists who compose the left in this country couldn’t give a damn about what the founding fathers intended. They’ll use their words when it seems advantageous and undermine them when they stand in their way. No degree of clarity matters. The failure lies not on the ideals this country were founded on, but on the American people for failing to heed Ben Franklin’s words. It’s human nature for people in power to try to expand that power and it’s up to the people to resist. Unfortunately, it’s also human nature to appease those in power to avoid confrontation. But the longer confrontation is put off, the uglier (bloodier) it gets.

    You get the government you deserve.

    • We allowed the money to take over. Allowing corporations to participate in politics, just meant they could buy representatives on both sides and then rule through them.
      This happened before, the marines were called in to settle the unrest in banana republics(because American companies wanted cheap labor.
      This type of abuse was stopped, but now the corporations have declared war on the middle class, it is on again.

      • Money is power. And the same laws if human nature apply to the wealthy that apply to the politicians.

        That said, historically, many of these corporate interventions were aimed at protecting billions of $$$ of (American) investors’ money from being seized by Marxist regimes (see Guatamala, Iran, etc.). The federal government had just as much of an obligation to intervene as your local PD has in the theft of your car.

        • Taxpayer-funded services benefitting actual taxpayers?!
          Heresy!

          Clearly the self-made men who fought the Revolution over property rights never meant to benefit “[them]selves and [their] posterity”! The Constitution is only for the kind of guy who won’t pay enough taxes in his whole life to pave 20ft of street in front of his home, but complains about “the rich” shipping their products (the only things separating him from Third World misery) for “free” on $7M/mile interstates built with “his” tax dollars.

    • Judicious use of power allows you to keep exercising your rights.

      Someone can compel you to act in a specific manner without you being compelled to do so. That’s power over you. But if your power is equal or greater they cannot compel you, nor are you compelled. Your actions are now your choice.

      A just government enacts laws which you are compelled to comply with. It doesn’t compel you to comply with unjust laws.

  33. They did the best job possible, given that they were flawed humans, just like everyone else. So well, in fact, that the country became so prosperous that eventually its people became spoiled brats who no longer valued or appreciated their freedoms.

    • I do not know for sure, but the people I know that are 3rd+ generation American, fully support the Constitution and BORs. It is the people and families that have immigrated here since WWII that want to change things.

      And, yes, there are those in the gang infested areas that listen to community leaders and certain religious leaders(but I repeat myself) that believe this type of bovine excrement.

      They have for years.

  34. What you proffer is actually no different; choosing your own justification out of the mysticism of whatever theory you like. In the end, without a singularly unique, overarching moral authority divorced from the machinations of humans, the terminal result is only human generated and controlled power grants rights. That leaves no real moral authority, just whatever man accepts in the moment.

    If humans can reason a moral authority that is subject to the opinions and persuasions of other humans, there is no real, or inviolate morality at all.

    Denying the moral underpinnings of the Constitution, the necessary component of a Creator, the entire edifice of the Constitution falls. The founders were well acquainted with the “age of reason”, and the wilted moral authority that presents. They discerned a Creator was necessary to make natural rights unassailable from the minds of mankind.

    • “If humans can reason a moral authority that is subject to the opinions and persuasions of other humans, there is no real, or inviolate morality at all.”

      Is that you, Thrasymachus?

      Well, then we’re fucked because that’s exactly what every single religion does to justify it’s practices.

      This was exactly the justification for the spread of Islam, the Crusades in response, Saladin nearly wiping out the Crusader States and just about every war in Europe from the latter half of the Roman Republic onward. Shit, it was even an excuse for the purges of other Christians who didn’t “get the right kind of Christianity”.

      Just look at the Christian history on the theory of what is a “Just War”, particularly jus in bello. Well, every war is just. It’s either meant to teach the infidels a lesson when they lose or meant to teach Christians a lesson when they lose. Because God’s mysterious and it’s not for us to understand the suffering we inflict on each other but rather to reflect on God’s purpose for that suffering. Deus vult!

      That’s the fountainhead of morality? That we can do whatever the fuck we want to whomever we want because God’s on our side, or maybe not, but whatever it’s a teachable moment?

      Like it or not, that is the position of organized religion and it makes perfect sense when you start talking about a “creator” being the the start point for rights.

  35. “No “religion” can lay claim to “morality”.’

    Neither can any human.

    Now where are we?

    • We can take responsibility for our own actions and hold ourselves accountable for what we choose to do- instead of passing the buck (and our personal responsibility) to an ethereal construct.

  36. “We can take responsibility for our own actions and hold ourselves accountable for what we choose to do- instead of passing the buck (and our personal responsibility) to an ethereal construct.”

    A Creator concept has never inhibited any human from being moral, from holding themselves accountable for their thoughts and actions.

    Humans eternally want to be their own God so they can excuse themselves for not holding themselves accountable for what they choose to do. Pick any moral concept you like, and humans naturally exempt themselves from the standards when they fail to adhere.

    As to holding oneself “accountable”, what is the nature of that accountability? To what does one hold oneself accountable? If everyone has their own, private set of moral standards, there are no moral standards. At one time in history, powerful groups slaughtered their neighbors without any concept of failing a moral standard. Killing the “other” was morally acceptable because survival of the powerful group was considered the highest of obligations of groups. Such practices are immoral only because humans later decided it was so. And that “morality” was anchored more in what was considered profitable to the majority, than any concept of holding oneself accountable for ones actions.

    Madison noted the infidelity of humans…”If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” (Federilst 51).

    • By “we” and “ourselves” I mean each other- and government is a framework to do just that.

      The mistake is made by an assertion that the only “good” government is one based on “religion”.

      I adduce that we (all humans) hold ourselves to a higher standard than deleterious religions.

      • An equitable governmental framework is attainable.

        An equitable religion is not (so far).

        • Human nature does not make the framework for an equitable government unattainable- it is the natural human lack of determination to follow through that makes attaining our goals so challenging.

  37. MY education in those childhod years was both public schools and Roman Catholic on the weekends and some weekdays after school, or during summer break. And yet it is the Civics classes that public school taught that are most deeply burnt into my memory. The rights we hold dearest are natural rights. Defined out of the efforts of The Enlightenment and Age of Reason by the finest minds of the era. Defind by an effort to examine past systems of government against the need and desire to create something new that offered the greatest potential of freedom and the ability to pursue both security and happiness.

    The error of these times, as in from 1934 to the present day, is that both sides of the so-called “Gun Violence” issue behave as if the gun is the cause of the violence. As such, defenders of our rights fight the legal and legislative fights on the anti-gunner’s terms.

    There is some shifts on the pro-Second Amendment side. Some voices speaking to the Mental Health issue, which is at the heart of the real root cause of violence, that “Human” factor.

    Those voices are still too few and lacking in understanding the scale and complexity of what they are talking about. I say that to be honest about where their efforts stand not to insult them.

    Of the Founders, no I do not think they blew it or failed or anything similar. The Declaration and The Constitution are works of brilliance, inspiration and genius. In many ways they show insight into the future. Of course the best minds of the 18th could not foresee the changes, challenges and complexities of the 21st. For how well they did though, the praise, respect and appreciation they deserve should be that of a great mass of people owing he Founders an enormous debt of gratitude.

    What we need today is broad efforts, in depth efforts to change the topic and narrative from one of “Guns are the trouble” to “Human Violence & Mental Illness”. That is where the root cause of attacks on our rights originates. As long as we pretend that something else is going on we play right into the game of the anti-gunners, with the resulting long term likelihood of both loss and resulting civil revolt.

    • “the so-called “Gun Violence” issue behave as if the gun is the cause of the violence”

      I hear sometimes it’s a white supremacist cop that’s fully in control of the gun. Otherwise, yeah, it’s just the gun.

      • I’ve known and worked with a lot of cops in my lifetime. Yes, there are some assholes of various types. Seen heroes too, and just everyday people doing their job best they can. All that is out there.

        Could be the worst thing to happen to American policing is the rise of the “Warrior Cop” mindset and the proliferation of SWAT teams. There’s far too much of both. Not every police agency needs a SWAT team, or multiple SWAT teams and not every police officer needs to be acting like he’s headed for combat in Afbadassistan.

  38. The Founding Fathers DID blow it, in the sense that they left the fate of the country in the hands of a bunch of people who have to get up and go to work in the morning.

  39. “I adduce that we (all humans) hold ourselves to a higher standard than deleterious religions.”

    Humans are not perfectible. Such an idea is the opiate of the masses.

  40. The Founders blew nothing. This is a country founded by geniuses, run by morons for the benefit of idiots.

  41. You cannot have morality without religion. I know the non-believers think otherwise. We already have examples of societies, very large ones for the atheists. That didn’t do so well. National socialist Germany. The USSR. Communist China. Cambodia.

    The church is the community. Whatever church or synagogue that is. It held the community together. And provided protection and an education for future Generations. And it was all private. No government involvement.

    But historically education and Medical Care we’re taking care of by the church. The church and the synagogue built an education system and hospitals and trained the medical staff to work in them.
    We had Lutheran hospitals. Catholic Hospitals. Jewish Hospital. just as we had Catholic schools Jewish and Lutheran schools. Most of the major medical research and medical discoveries were done in religious medical institutions. We have less religion in American society today. And we also have less freedom in American society because of it. We are losing our freedom because we are becoming less and less moral as a society. The atheists are confused about what morality is. Their sole focus on sex obscures the meaning of morality to them.

    Instead of just leaving the University. Because they didn’t like the morality standards the atheists started suing the schools. They started suing hospitals. They started to demand the government build hospitals. That would eventually compete with private religious hospitals. This undermined these religious Medical Care institutions. But that was the whole point of these atheists. To undermine religious institutions. And so now we have very expensive public hospitals costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.

    There are people who don’t like religion. Because it forces them to be moral in society. These people would like to remove religion just as there are people who would like to remove the Second Amendment from society. Because an armed society is a polite Society. And as we have recently discussed. There are people who don’t like having a polite Society being forced onto them. By the voluntary open carrying of weapons by a law abiding citizenry.

    The American system was built for an educated and moral people. But because of a lack of religion in our society we are far less educated and far less moral. Everything about the American government was much, much smaller because we were very religious. Even our prison system and jails had fewer people in them in 1900. Because we were still a very moral Society back then. Guns were everywhere and available. And drugs were available and everywhere and legal. But there was moral public Pier pressure that forced everyone to behave.

    130 years ago all you needed was a handshake to agree on a business deal between two parties. Your public honor was everything to you. You kept your business deals. It was this commodity, honor, that people used to support and create other business deals. A good reputation in the business world. Or in other words a moral man would not go back on his word. That is what would help to build future business partnerships.

    Preventing the president of the United States from communicating to the American population because they don’t like him. But allowing others to communicate with each other because they do like them. Is an act of immorality by the Tech Companies. Government deciding which businesses can stay open. And which businesses will stay closed. Are the immoral acts of an immoral government.

    Asking content creators to join your Tech business and telling those creators they have the freedom to create whatever they wish and to present. Without Tech company edit demands. These content creators such as Hickok45 and Steven Crowder helped to build up tech companies such as YouTube. So now they change the rules without warning. No explanation. Thousands of hours of hard work to create content. All taken down. At many times permanently. That Is an act of immorality.

    If you say it was okay because it was legal what these tech companies did? Then you don’t understand what holds a society together. If you believe everything has to be written down.

    The first amendment is not about pornography. And the Second Amendment is not about hunting. Unfortunately our education system no longer teaches what the first and second amendment, or the rest of the Bill of Rights actually means. No, the founders didnt blow it.

    Not long ago in the United States there were classes about archery in most high schools and colleges. Most schools had rifle teams. Some even had handgun teams. And we where a very religious and moral people back then.

    • One doesn’t even need to be an unbeliever to see the amount of arrantly false idealization of religion and of the past in that post.

    • “You cannot have morality without religion.”

      Wow. No point reading beyond that stinking turd. Way to sink your argument in the first sentence!

      Morality, Ethics, Right and Wrong are natural realizations of the sentient human mind. Religion adopted them, or merely coincided in stating the obvious that both the religious and non-religious understand.

      • Well then. I’m sure you can provide links that show morality being taught to adults and to children. For the past several hundred or thousand years. That don’t use a bible.
        What is your 1000 year old reading list?

    • And, unsurprisingly, you’re now back to “…sole focus on sex…” and “…pornography…”, yet again.

      I guess you could only abstain yourself for so long…

      • For some reason atheists spend a great deal of time trying to protect pornography in the courts??? And they have worked at the same time to disarm the civilian population.

        “Ammiano was instrumental in getting rid of San Francisco’s High School competitive .22 cal rifle teams, and worked to put an end to the junior ROTC program in San Francisco’s High Schools. Ammiano supported the ban on allowing gun owners to carry an unloaded gun in public. “Whether a gun is loaded or not, it’s still an act of intimidation and bullying,” Ammiano said.”

        https://calwatchdog.com/2013/01/29/anti-gun-lawmakers-lead-hearing-today/