"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." what part of that do you fail to understand?

Response to Wafflers posts. "GEORGE MASON QUOTE" on Friday July 25th.----- Waffler you asked," Who decides what is corrupt and power seeking." Understand your constitution which limits the power of govt. When an elected official steps outside the limits he seeks power not granted and has corrupted the law. Bravo to SPONGE who said "If there are abuses in the government, WE are to blame." And by the same token WE, based on a thorough knowledge of the constitution AND the intent of the founders who wrote it are the ones to decide what is corrupt and power seeking. Unfortunately, ( or by design?) this has not been taught to past generations and people are ignorant of the importance of that duty under the constitution. To be vigilant and use the power of the law to cleanse it of corruption.---- Then you said, "I support civil disobedience and voting and discussion to effect public policy." Waffler, what if one day the govt. says no more civil disobedience, no more voting, no more discussion, ("public policy" is another unconstituional issue best left for another day), you are a dissident and disrupting social order. And don't say it can't or won't happen here because it did 232 years ago and is happening all over the world right now as we speak. Will you meekly say yes sir and do what you are told? Then you said, " Government and corporations have been sufficiently corrupt and power seeking long enough that those who believe force of arms is the appropriate solution they should have used them long ago." No Waffler. Freedom loving, constitutional law respecting, gun carrying patriots do not want to use them to kill another human being ever. They are a necessity for self defense against murderous criminals yes, but: " when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." A free spirited people who understand the rights God gave them can, and will, (because it's the peace that freedom nourishes we really desire), only be pushed so far and when that limit is reached then we will be FORCED (not choose) to use our guns. Lastly. I know not for the others, but don't ever assume to know what I believe. You don't know me. If you ever meet me and get to know me only then will I repect your right to have whatever opinion of me you like. Until then, your remarks are insulting and slanderous and I feel the need to defend myself. And for a man who says he believes in no right to attack the govt. , you have no problem "seeing the lot of y'll annihilated once and for all". I see now. You want us to "attack" so they can "defend". (See, there is a difference between the words.) So long as you can get somebody else to pull the trigger on us you'll feel , what is it Waffler? Sadistic satisfaction, perverted joy, power lust, or something else at seeing our dead and bloody bodies laying on the street. Those are only guesses based on your "windbag weasels" comments. You tell me. What secret pleasure WOULD you get out of it? You see, I don't know you. And if you twist the word defend to mean attack again I will be quick to point it out to you.

I agree Mike. How can the right to bear arms for the individual (which the Supreme Court JUST reconfirmed) under the second amendment become a privelege subject to license? (As you said, "privelege given to perform an otherwise illegal act".) Is it to do with the exteme "bending" (shall not be infringed) of the law? Or could it have something to do with priveleges and immunities mentioned in the 14th amendment? Am I missing a dual citezenship here? One with rights and the other with priveleges (licenses) and immunities. Food for thought there.

Makes me wonder how far "shall not be infringed" is being bent today in 2008.

Thumbs down to the sentiment of the quote and the governor of Pennsylvania. Thumbs up to Mason for exposing one of the methods used to enslave the people of a nation. Now how anyone can think that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with protecting oneself from corrupt and power seeking government is beyond me.

I think he's talking about the ideas, not the people. Because they want to make us the new Amerika.

Waffler, go study. The forefathers wrote the second amendment protection into the constitution mainly out of fear of runaway, corrupt, tyrannical govts. that sought to deny them every other natural right protected in the Bill of Rights and control every aspect of their lives making slaves out of them. And while I'm at it, I wish pro gun rights would get it straight as well. natural rights are granted by God. Civil rights are privileges and immunities granted by govt. in the 14th amendment. The rights that God granted only God can take away. Privileges and immunities granted by govt. (and they'll be the first to tell you) can be taken away again by govt.

Robert you live in a dream world. In the U.K. criminals still have guns. And when guns are just a little bit suspect in an arrest, the cops carry guns. The average citizen doesn't carry a handgun because they were never "allowed" to have them even though it is a god given right to have them.

Yea, he should talk to England, they have a huge knife problem over there. Oh yea, isn't there some place where they put tires around your neck and set them on fire. First one thing, then another, finally they'll amputate your fingers so you can't with malice aforethought stick somebody in the eye.

Not that I would be irresponsible enough to do it, but I can't help but think how quick many of H.C. Inc.'s members would change their opinion if someone stuck a pistol in their face and said, "quick, call 911 while you still have the ti....( well, you know the rest).

No need to add more. Logan. Nuff said.

If they didn't have the 2nd Amendment to decide that yes, it does mean an individuals right to bear arms, then they wouldn't have the 2nd to say yes, it's ok to regulate that right. On the other hand doesn't regulation violate "shall not be infringed"?

Wow! Was he ever wrong. I'd like to know the rest of what was being said in that debate. I only give it a thumbs down because of what we know today. I don't know why he said it and the context of the debate. I don't question his patriotism in this post.

Great quote. I don't think liberty ever dies in the heart. It just becomes reinterpreted to mean something other than what it truly means. After all, most Americans will swear up and down that they ARE free, but this is because they've been taught the watered down version of what freedom is, a government-media-schools-etc. free democracy version.

correct JoW. I think it could've been said a bit better. The life of the nation is secure only while the people are honest, truthful, and virtuous. If the people of this country had remained virtuous, when any signs of corrupted elected officials abusing their oath to the constitution, (as our founding expected by warning us to be ever vigilant) it was the responsibility of the honest, truthful and virtuous to get them out of there. Unfortunately, the tactics of the corrupted have so debilitated the constitution, the good people out there who could clean up the place remain in ignorance of the problem. Or would they clean it up? Are most of them so secure and faithful in the way govt. is today that they would continue to close their eyes to the truth as long as they get their cut of the pie?

Yes, he isn't being very clear as to what he means is he. your idea takes into account the first line and that's where I kind of lost him.

"Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?" Frederick Bastiat. There's the guarantee. Self imposed limits only means repecting the next persons right to the above and not to interfere with the exercise of them. The balance between private and state force exists in that it is the peoples right to force the state to do what it was put there to do. See to it that the above was protected and not interfered with.

I assume when he says state he's talking about govt. and natural born freedom with no govt. when he says state of nature. It is the arrangement or middle ground where these two meet that forms govts. Freedom loving people are addicted to a form which protects the state of nature and allergy inducing to those which think govt. should take care of them from cradle to grave and vice versa. All govts. fall in between somewhere. Any other ideas as to what he means? To me he is simply making a good observation.

The state imposing anything on anyone without being granted limited authority by the people under a constituion of law such as we "used to have" is where the problem starts. And that is always there catch all phrase. We're here to help. As J Carlton said: BS.

Waffler. Can you explain to me why we pledge allegiance to a republic then and not a democracy? If the word means nothing why is it there? I am sure you will be deep and circumspect and avoid BS theories when you answer the questions. Have a nice day.

Mike I agree with J.Carlton and Ken. Charity work "freely" giving of yourself to help others is not what the author is talking about. I'm sure the victims of Katrina appreciated the help of charitable works especially since their guardian angel of govt. did nothing. To exemplify what I mean I am reminded of the man who died when he refused help and stayed in his home when Mt. St. Helens erupted. He was offered help to get out and chose not to accept it. His choice. Just as any victim of Katrina could have refused help if they chose. I certainly wasn't disrespecting good works from people with good hearts "freely" given.

"Oppressive taxation is a form of slavery of the individual to the community as a whole. The essential question is -- How much is he compelled to labor for other benefit than his own, and how much can he labor for his own benefit?" If govt. operated in it's limited forms as state and federal constitutions mandate, 10% flat would be plenty to operate them. Local welfare would be taken care of on a county level where it could be ensured that the funds went to whoever truly needed it. The power to tax uncontrolled and then when greedy hands couldn't get enough, the power to borrow on credit is why we have a socialist (or should I say communist) democracy today. But smile folks, we get what we pay for, and deserve.

It is a shame. In this country take away their freedom and they yawn. Take away welfare and they'd riot.

Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged" was fantastic. Very true quote.

If someone is struggling with a problem and I offer to help the other has the choice to accept the help or not accept. If he accepts then I do my best to help. If he does not accept it never crosses my mind that I "don't like to hear that". It's his choice, free to make it. If he makes a mistake an makes the problem worse that is good in its own right. Mistakes happen for us to learn from. The important part is he had free choice. The attacks from government on home schooling are just another attempt to strip the freedom of choice from America.