I like you Waffler. Never a dull moment, eh? I've never denied that we're not run by the voice of the people, or that we conduct our affairs by the majority's consent. Nice fallacy there though. I've denied, all along, that this alone is the whole story. We do run things by majority vote, but also hold that there are some things that the majority cannot infringe (make compact between neighbor and neighbor) -- specifically, when it violates the individual's inalienable rights. I trust the people explicitly, and wish they could have their freedom -- but, like Patrick Henry -- I know of no other way to guide my future but by looking into the past. As I look through history I see that it is the disposition of almost all men that as they gain a little power, they immediately begin to work towards tyranny and usurpation; it's just something strange that happens to men in power. I trust my neighbor to work towards his own self-interest in lawful order, but when I entrust him with protecting the exercise of my liberty -- well then, I hold him on a very, Very, VERY tight leash.

Too many Americans, due to their own self/party-identification, are so tenacious in promoting their own propaganda that no one actually stops to think of the legitimately of their program. The Republicans want this, and the Democrats counter; the Democrats want this, and the Republicans counter -- ironically, the ideas that each group purport only vary in the road traveled to get to the same destination: Tyranny. Republican voters seldom stop to ask whether or not they can legitimately "make" a law, just as the Democrat voters seldom stop to ask the same question -- our country's overall propaganda, it seems, is more interested in voting against the other party than in voting upon principle. If you actually read peer reviewed papers of several wonderful professors around the US, you would know that this is a very real concern among many in academia. Why do Republics historically last longer than Democracies? Because of the reasoned adherence to a set of laws, philosophies, and understandings wherein the mob (whatever party is the largest at the time) may not simply pass legislation to screw with the minority (who may become tomorrow's majority) -- it creates a "rule book", if you will, of ideas, philosophies, and laws the majority must follow and never infringe upon. This basic idea has been carried out in various forms throughout history, and has proven much more concrete in overcoming monthly mobocratic/sensationalist movements. Read your history, don't be a fool.

Second of all, as per the last Adams quote I gave, the premise of your analogy of a compact between oneself and a neighbor is wrong. Just as today there can be no illegal contracts in law, so we are not able to make compacts between us and others that violate basic inalienable rights... Government may, and has, usurped power TO do this; however, such de facto laws, while enforceable, are not legitimate -- regardless of whether such de facto laws have the majority's consent or not. There are legitimate taxes, and there are illegitimate taxes. Yes, I make an agreement with my neighbor in certain things, but, as per the understanding of our founders, I do not have the right to vote away my rights and maintain legitimacy. Don't be a fool.

Ironically, most people on this blog agree with Mike. The voting populace has been educated in the language of modern day sophists who have re-written history. The founding fathers were not demigods who knew all things, but they were men of reason and understanding who looked back through the corridors of history to see what worked and what didn't -- they saw, as did Machiavelli, that Republics (voting and non-voting) have lasted for over 500 years; whereas Democracies (mobocracy) have no longer life history than 200 years. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of todays graduating students have no understanding in the ideas, world, evolution of thought, and true obstacles that our founders faced wherein they decided to give us the government they did. We are simply living in the fallout of such lack of education -- just because the majority votes for something, doesn't mean that it is the way it was originally intended to be. Don't be a fool.

Waffler, just because it happens does not mean it still isn't usurpation or tyranny -- yes, it happens all of the time, in every government in history -- but that isn't the point. You think just because tyranny and usurpation happen, that makes it okay? Are you serious?! You blatantly admit that there is NO inalienable right, and therefore reject the foundational philosophy of our founding fathers for the sophistry of modern day despots and tyrants who realize that tyranny can be justified simply because of the "majority's consent". You ignorant fool! Even more ignorant to bring up John Bruton; you have no idea the foundational ideas wherein states, nations, federalisms, or unions are made. Bruton blatantly says that while the EU is a "Democracy" (which it is), the United States, as purposed by our founders, bears only small resemblance to Democracy -- but was structured to be protected against being a Democracy. Why? The answer completely cuts your ignorant response -- that the only way to protect the individual in a Democracy is to do things by unanimous vote (like the Democratic EU); whereas, as he stated, our government does NOT do things by unanimous vote, but by a simple majority's consent, and protects the individual by adhering to an outside codex of ideas, laws, and philosophy wherein the majority does not have right to tamper ("inalienable rights" such a few as what are dictated as within the Bill of Rights -- Rights that you claim ARE ALIENABLE based on the majority's consent). Does this mean that our government has not infringed upon these rights? Absolutely not! Our government has chipped and eroded away at the very foundational philosophy behind what we were created in the expression of these inalienable rights! Yes, as Bruton says, the United States is transitioning into Democracy, and will most likely change its laws to be in line with true Democracy within the next few decades, but this is NOT the foundational premise upon which we were created... Waffler, your lies, ignorance, stupidity, and meandering and convoluted ideas and beliefs are disgusting and traitorous to the foundational principles of our country -- you are a coward who hides behind the majority, and who refuses to use or understand logic as it is given to you in plainness. I have no ability of "giving up" my rights, even if I agree to so do so with my neighbor! Why? BECAUSE MY RIGHTS ARE INALIENABLE! Even if I was in solitary confinement, I still have my inalienable rights; although, my liberty to act in them has been restricted. If I committed an acting that justified incarceration, then just restriction is legitimate in any form of government; however, if I have committed no crime, my incarceration is usurpation and tyranny against the liberty of expression of my life and property. As Samuel Adams said, "Nothing is our, which another may deprive us of" -- even ourselves -- why? As Adams further stated, "If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." Waffler, until you become read in the words of our founders, stop posting. I hate writing these "books" (as you call them), but I hate even more your stupidity going un-addressed.

Waffler, you're almost there son -- I would only add that the "individual" who "cannot ward off the enemy, collect the taxes, provide for his self defense, etcetera" cannot delegate to another person to act in his stead in a duty that he does not have the power to delegate. I do not personally have the power to garnish my neighbor's wages in the form of an income or property tax -- although government, if the principle is ignored, can bully and strong arm and enforce such de facto legislation; such an action, when assuming a power that the individual does not have the right to delegate, is usurpation and tyranny.

There is nowhere in the federal Constitution where the duties of the citizens are expressed -- it is not a document to do so. Some states (like Tennessee, for instance) stated that if a man opted out of defending himself (not owning an firearm) then he would pay a separate tax for those who would step up to defend him. No, Jefferson does not have any more rights than anyone else (he would say that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and that men are equal in these rights -- oh wait, he already did). The question is not whether or not he has more rights, but whether or not his words have more validity than yours -- which I heartily agree with.

Waffler, did you really just make that lame argument? When a certain clause, like the second Amendment, is vague enough to cause dissension and misinterpretation by a populace, the wisest course of action is to see what other statements were made by the very men who stated the original clause. As Jefferson would most likely say to you, as he said to William Johnson, "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed" (You need an education in the history of our foundation to begin to do this, however, which it has never appeared as though you've had). Jefferson, obviously, was not a signer of the Constitution, but is certainly as strong an authority on the subject as anyone you're going to find (being a person who actually wrote our nation's Declaration of Independence and who was constantly in correspondence with those that argued and penned the Constitution itself). It is a blatant fallacy to inject today's understanding of the Constitution back onto history and the setting of our founding fathers -- you can interpret history differently, that is fine, but don't be blatantly ignorant in your quest to rewrite history. Jefferson was not the only person to speak about such things, the founders made near countless comments on the "right" of the people to carry arms (and not solely in reference to a free militia); "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." (Samuel Adams at the ratification convention of the US Constitution - 1788); "A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression." (James Madison, "Father of the Constitution); "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." And why is this? Because, "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."(John Adams). The founding fathers, having giving their entire lives to the cause of freedom, were jealous of their liberty and "trusted" no man... Speaking of rebellions against government, and the need to carry arms, Jefferson wrote to William S. Smith "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Jefferson knew what he was talking about -- you'll find no where that the founding fathers limited the "right" of "arms" to merely a militia -- it's impossible, because this idea was no where present when they drafted, finalized, and passed the Bill of Rights. You can disagree with our founders and propose another idea -- that's just fine, we'll debate the issue -- but don't try to rewrite history to your own meandering conclusions.

WOW! Mike from Norwalk, I think this guy may have you beat on your list of "victimless crimes, licenses, etc."

Yes, but to what point? The premise of our government is that we're all "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" and that among these are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (property). If we believe in a system of government wherein the people can alienate the inalienable, then we merely believe in a different structure than our founding fathers had in mind -- nothing more, nothing less. I personally adhere to the belief of the founders that the individual carries within themselves certain inalienable rights, that are retained by the individual, regardless of what any government (or majority of people) states otherwise (just because the majority says that pigs may be able to fly ("wikiality"), doesn't mean that such is the truth).

The great "American experiment" was not merely that we could have a government "by the voice of the people" -- which forms of government have existed throughout history -- but that we rejected the idea that man needed to be regulated, licensed, and coerced into being self-governing, personally accountable, and responsible for personal actions -- can our neighbor's be trusted to act peacefully without granted privilege of movement, etc.?

If the inalienable rights of one infringed upon the inalienable rights of another, then society would no longer acknowledge the infringing sovereign's liberty in expressing their inalienable rights (because such a person was found to be incapable of self-government and had to be restrained -- or rather, jailed). Restraining a burglar, for instance, from robbing my house (or my neighbor's house) is an inalienable right wherein I have the capability of delegating this right to another individual (the police). I do not, however, have the ability of taking away my peaceful neighbor's ability of protecting themselves from the same burglar; how then do I assume such a right to delegate this duty to a higher power (government) to act in my stead in disarming my neighbor?

Does the government get it's power from the people, or not? Yes, the majority decides what role the government is to take in certain matters, but there are limits to the majority's consent -- and that limit is inalienable rights. Reason stares blankly at the stupidity of such an argument wherein people advance the idea that society is a magical entity wherein the majority can mystically tell my peaceful/law abiding neighbor that he is unfit to defend himself, because "the government will do it for him". ROT!

I am a supporter of the Austrian School of Economics, and I readily agree with Von Mises in a sort of "yeah, duh" kind of way here. The aim of society is to perpetuate civilization; whereas one man, if left alone, can only accomplish the day-to-day tasks of going out and hunting wild rabbits (as in an original case of the state of human nature), a society of men will learn how to irrigate and cultivate the soil, build homes, improve upon living conditions, find and prepare food, and have time left over to hopefully ponder the perplexities that have now been created between each man and their counterparts. As one man is out hunting for meat, the other is building a house, the other is tilling the soil, etc. (basically doing all foundational jobs wherein society was first built), one man also kept order as each man delegated a duty to this person to enforce the pre-approved codex of regulations wherein each member agreed. They were able to delegate the position to the "policeman", because they already had the inherent human/inalienable right to begin with (from birth), but they saw that it was better in the interests of time to appoint someone in this matter. It is a philosophical debate whether or not the society abdicates their right of self-protection to the appointed delegate, or merely delegates the right of self-protection in large matters that can be directly and immediately dealt with by the officer in order to relieve the pressure of constant self-protection from each member of the newly formed society (the philosophical battle between Rousseau and Locke, for instance). Once you take the scenario back to an original state of the human experience in nature, the philosophical question becomes more obvious. If the purporters of abdication are correct, then the meat hunter has no ability to defend himself against the wild boar or neighboring tribe, nor does the tiller of soil have any ability of protecting himself from poisonous ground serpents, because their ability of protecting themselves has been magically abdicated and endowed upon another human being. If the purporters of delegation are correct, then the meat hunter defends himself against the wild boar and the neighboring tribe individually, while the appointed "policeman" is taking care of the ground serpent situation and can come around to help him out against the warring tribe. The problem is that we tend to overlook the simplicity of delegation of powers once society becomes a large number (which is completely arbitrary, because each generation is epoch-centrist). Can I do a citizen's arrest so that I can take someone into police custody? I should be able to, because that was the beginning of the policeman's duty to do the same (once I delegated the duty). But if the modern day warring tribe is going to come after me, I'm certainly not going to sit around waiting for the policeman to show up before I start defending myself. Should the individuals who have been delegated duties infringe upon my inherent human/inalienable right of protecting myself against instant invasion or danger, such would be usurpation and tyranny.

Nothing quite so eloquent and beautiful as reason and logic from a true genius. I wonder how those people will spin this quote who purport handgun restrictions; when the use of arms is necessary to a free and secure state, how will an unarmed man contest the unlawful entry of a violent criminal whose intent is to murder, rape, or pillage? Shall the tenant reason with the criminal to wait patiently until the policing authorities have arrived to arrest him? Has this ever happened before? I have often wondered why men who refuse to protect themselves with a hand-gun never advertise their stupidity to the open public in the form of a sign in front of their house; a type of sign that says "this is a gun-free house" (if a man merely doesn't own a hand-gun, but on no moral ground, this is fine -- I merely address my comments to those who purposefully stand on quicksand to purport the use of arms). I have recently seen several signs that say "The owner of this house is armed, nothing in this house is worth your life", to which I readily agree. The legal authorities are there for such a case wherein Locke masterfully illustrates the cases wherein a man may have the opportunity to be brought to court; the "law of nature" therefore gives me the "right to destroy him" who was an immediate threat wherein I had to ability of recourse to quickly reconcile myself to the court. Excellent!

This is ridiculous, why are we arguing what Constitutions are? Anyone can read Paine's "Rights of Man" in the section "Of Constitutions" to get a good foundational answer to what a Constitution is (http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-04.htm). It appears Paine had just a difficult a time as we are having with his own foreign contemporaries who defined in different ways: "That men mean distinct and separate things when they speak of constitutions and of governments, is evident; or why are those terms distinctly and separately used? A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution, is power without a right." Paine explained the obvious historical fact, that each state operated independently of each other as separate entities (each being sovereign states) in creating the Constitution and forming a Federalism that was to deal with the aspects of the federalism as a whole and of matters between the states (nothing more, nothing less). The Constitution of the United States is a law to the government, because it is the operational document wherein the people exactly express what the federalist government can and cannot do (as per Paine's use of explaining Pennsylvania's Constitution). As such, "Government is not a trade which any man, or any body of men, has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is always resumeable. It has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties." All authorities given to the government are DELEGATED (as per Lockian philosophy), not ABDICATED. "A constitution is the property of a nation, and not of those who exercise the government. All the constitutions of America are declared to be established on the authority of the people..." Speaking of the historical application that governments had taken in the past Paine further explained that, "...the nation, through its constitution, controls the whole government, and has a natural ability to do so. The final controlling power, therefore, and the original constituting power, are one and the same power." The Constitution is not the binding document and "law of the land" to the people, but to the government, wherein the government can only define law, statute, regulation, etc., within the parameters as set forth by the people within the Constitution. Governments, in order to be legitimate, must have a time wherein they were given power: "All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either." Our government is supposed to operate on the premise of delegated authority to act in its DUTY, because government retains NO RIGHTS (I repeat the quote): "Government is not a trade which any man, or any body of men, has a right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by whom it is always resumeable. It has of itself no rights; they are altogether duties." If the government has no rights, where does it get its list of duties? From the people! Can the people delegate an authority wherein they do not retain the right within the individual? NO! If I, as an individual, have no authority to exact something or prohibit my peaceful neighbor in acting within his inalienable rights, how do I have the right to DELEGATE such an authority to my representative to act in my stead? If my rights have not been violated, how can I violate my neighbors inalienable rights and by telling my representative to act in my stead? I cannot! If there are two men who have no individual right to infringe upon the rights of one other person, how many would it take in the majority to finally deprive the individual of acting within his inalienable rights? Five men, or a thousand, or ten-thousand, or one-million, or one-hundred-million? At what arbitrary number does the masses assume a right that is not inherent in any one of them individually? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE unless the masses ASSUMES a power (Usurpation and Tyranny). As Paine said, governments either get their power through the people (individuals) or from usurpation. Usurpation has several faces and can happen in monarchies, aristocracies, or Democracies. No-where in the Constitution does the people allow the government to restrict the rights of the people to keep implements and tools of self-protection (in any form); and by virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendment, whatever duty is not specifically delegated to the government is retained by right of the people. My right to protect myself by whatever means is an inalienable right, and any "law" or "mandate" imposed by the majority would be usurpation and against Constitutional government.

Checking facts, history, or sources are not Waffler's strong suits -- the few that he has produced only serve to advance his opposition's point of view. I second Mike's comments; well done with the sources.

The Constitution is not a binding document or contract between the people and the government, I suggest you to read Rights of Man by Thomas Paine. The Constitution is a document listing exactly what the federal government can and cannot do -- not what the people can do. The people have stated exactly what they agree to what extent their government may work and operate. To say that the Constitution is a contract is to say that the government is a party that exists and operates outside the will of the people. This would most assuredly destroy any "rule of the people". The government gains power in two ways: voice of the people or usurpation and tyranny. If the government moves, acts, and operates in any manner not specifically designated by the Constitution, then it acts in usurpation and tyranny (per the founding fathers who actually wrote the document).

The difference between an American national and the Iranian national is the premise of government. Heavily influenced Islamic states operate on a different set of understandings, beliefs, and fundamental outlooks in the way they administer and establish their "laws". Are we both men, the Iranian and the American? Yes. Should be both be allowed to protect ourselves in any possible way? I would argue, yes. Is there a difference in perceptions between our two civilizations are concerned? Yes. The American "experiment" was not merely concerning a government that ran its tasks by the voice of the people, so much as it was an experiment upon the ideology and philosophy of the Enlightenment. It was the movement of the Enlightenment that rejected the "divine rule of kings", dictators, and tyrants, and tried to instill a system of government wherein a type of the Grecian philosophy of a natural "polis" could be realized (by "polis" I do not purport a City-State system of government, but of the ideology behind the Greeks in believing a polis was a living, breathing, and natural entity that existed in nature as much as the trees, birds, water, and animals). We are still living the American experiment -- we are still trying to prove whether man is capable of being self-governing or if he needs absolute mandate and regulation. To purport regulation is to realign oneself to the ideology before the Enlightenment, which is fine -- just call it what it is. International and American civilizations have advanced far enough today, that there will probably never be a reverting back to the days of the "divine right of kings"; however, there are other more subtle philosophies that some people purport that would render back to government the same powers held by these kings (albeit these new rulers could very well be Democratically elected and be ruling despots by majority consensus), and reject the American experiment of man living completely free to move, act, and defend himself against anyone else. I argue that man can actually be self-governing fully, if given the ability, and can actually own every firearm known to man without being a public enemy (but being a public protectorate). The problem is that our society is moving towards an ideology wherein the individual is no longer trusted to be self-governing, but the innocent law-abiding citizens are being controlled. Ironically enough, this ideology most often serves to make the honest people honest, as these citizens give up their means of protection (guns, ammo, knives, etc.) when government laws prohibit them -- while criminals (who, by definition, are lawbreakers) reject the arbitrary "law" and retain their weapons to cause havoc. We have so far traveled the road of distrust of our neighbor, that we are regulating nearly everything at an alarming rate. It is impossible to enforce self-government -- this is why Machiavelli considered religion to be a necessary evil to any Republic, because, even in its most evil form, still conquered the soul of man wherein government could never touch.

The argument is never "what kind of weapons can we legislate" or of what uses we can get out of certain weapons, but of simple inalienable rights. Can an honest and law-abiding person be discriminated against? We have the right to self protection by whatever means accomplishes the job. PERIOD! I do NOT, however, have an inalienable right to infringe upon another's inalienable right... And when I step out of my rights to infringe upon another's rights, it is reasoned that I have given up my civil protection of expressing my inalienable rights within society. What right does my neighbor have to legitimately regulate me when I have done nothing wrong? What of two neighbors, three, ten-thousand, etc...? We've gone over this before, there is no arbitrary number wherein the majority may infringe upon the "inalienable" rights of the individual. It is merely a consequence to my inalienable right that protection comes may come in the form of a 9mm, an AR-15, or a grenade. When did we ever abdicate inalienable right of self-protection of the individual to the government? Robert, I just looked over the Constitution and found nothing (including the Amendments) that abdicated my right of self-protection to the government -- could you point me to that clause? Furthermore, Robert, could you tell me the place in the Constitution where the people are prohibited from carrying a gun? I seemed to forget that clause too -- hopefully you can find it, because if you can't, by virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendment, I automatically have the right. Looking at the news last night (and for the last 20 years), it didn't look like the police did all that great of a job "protecting" all the people that were innocently murdered because they didn't have the wherewithal to protect themselves. There was a time, however, a few year back, when a shooter went on a killing spree in a mall near my home; interesting enough, he kept killing until a civilian who was carrying his own legally carrying his own 9mm confronted and shot the shooter. Ironically, you hardly ever hear of a person who was murdered in his home when the homeowner protected himself with a firearm; however, sadly, you hear of occasions where armed robbers have civilly sued the homeowners for medical bills stemming from the homeowners self-defense of shooting said armed robber, and who WON their case against the homeowner. Ah, land of the free, what have we done to ourselves? Waffler, btw, (Republics vs. Democracy argument aside) history does not say that we are the "oldest" Democracy -- it is a highly debated topic in Political Science wherein many other countries have many legitimate claims to being "democratic" long before the United States (besides, there are several things the United States has even done domestically that has seemed to disqualify some international recognition of the US being continuously "democratic" since 1783). Just some food for thought.

It's amazing the stupidity of the argument, "Give up your level of defense, the cops will save you." As if telling an armed robber, "You'd better leave, because I just called the police and they'll be here in 10 minutes." Uh huh, that's practical.

Either we have inalienable rights or we don't. The argument is never whether or not we'd actually USE the firearm, it's a matter of natural born rights. If I commit a crime in infringing upon another individual's life, liberty, or property, then I have proven myself unfit for self-government and must be penalized. If someone was found guilty for armed robbery, or for some violent act, then that person may be justifiably restrained from ever possessing a weapon (gun, knife, etc.), should the court justly assess that the person has forever shown himself to be incapable of self-government. But to disarm a populace is against inalienable right -- I have a right to defend myself from ANY threat to my family's life, liberty, or property in any manner that will work. This "right" does not magically appear because the majority says it does, it's my right because I exist! Where does my neighbor have the right to disarm me? What of my two neighbors? Ten, one-hundred, a thousand, or one-million neighbors?! How many "neighbors" does it take to alienate the inalienable? This was the very problem brought up by certain founding fathers who contested a Bill of Rights to the Constitution: that to enumerate inalienable rights would soon lead to regulation and enforced alienation of natural rights. While I agree with those who purported a Bill of Rights (because we would have lost many more freedoms than we have already lost by now), I can still see the wisdom in the men who fought against the establishment of a bill of rights. There is never a reason to disarm a law-abiding populace! If there IS a portion of the populace that is not law abiding, is it so smart to disarm the honest portion and make them susceptible to the criminals? Problem is that the ignorant populace of America has been led to believe in a system where the practice of inalienable rights can be, well, in fact, alienated. Under our current taught understanding of American jurisprudence, American's are taught to believe that with a mere 2:1 vote, an individual's rights are alienable, because, under such a system, people believe their rights come from the majority (in violation of the Declaration of Independence). If the majority can magically grant rights one day, then it can magically take them away another. By the way, Waffler, since you support such a system -- are you EVER going to give me your Democratic arbitrary number wherein rape, incest, and murder can be voted okay? What of disarming an honest and law abiding populace? What is your moral ration? 2:1? 100:1? 1,000,000:1? The fact is, you ignorant moron, you CAN'T give me a ratio because your entire system of belief would come crashing down around you! If Congress passed a bill saying it was OK to rape your wife, according to YOUR understanding -- it is totally legal, moral, and the way it should be, and that ANY action against trying to secede from such a group is traitorous! You ignoramus! This is why Democracies are so dangerous! Because there is absolutely no protection or redress in your individual and inalienable rights when the majority comes after you! As per the quote, if taking guns off the street will really make society safer -- when, may I ask, are we to expect the police to disarm? If the cops want me to disarm my law-abiding self because by doing so the society will be safer, then I want to know how soon the cops are going to stand behind such asinine logic and disarm as well. (Most of the policemen I know of stand firmly with the 2nd Amendment, because an armed populace makes their jobs easier.) Until the cops stand up to disarm, I will always have at least a 9mm under my mattress. Why? Because I can -- because it's my right to -- because, even if I never use it, I'm an American wherein I have protected inalienable rights that were given to me by my Creator -- NOT THE MAJORITY!!! Last time I checked, the majority did not create me.

Socialism can only work when the absolute majority says it can. Socialism is the pure manifestation of societal democracy; when the workers of the businesses (majority) revolt against the owners (minority) to create a corporate commune, this is Communism -- when you accomplish this same thing by due process it is called Socialism. When the community raises up against the land owner to take away from him his property, this is societal democracy. The ignorant have argued that the Constitutional grant of "eminent domain" proves a socialistic thread in the Constitution. ROT!! I refer to Mike's excellent response a few days ago concerning the history of eminent domain in reference to allodial land and titled land (again, more terms that have been redefined in today's text books from those of a hundred years ago). The majority is made up of a collective of individuals who are all "created equal"; as a collective of individuals, what is the arbitrary number wherein a group of individuals assumes more power as a majority than the individual themselves possess? Certain ignorant contributers to this blog still have not given me their majoritarian ratio wherein rape, murder, or incest is made legal. Is gang rape okay, just because it is done by the majority? What of murder? What if 1 million people said a women may be raped, and the only lone voice of dissent was the women herself -- is THAT OK? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! This is the very basis and essence of a Republic (vs a Democracy) wherein we, as a society, adhere to an outside set of norms, codex of customs and laws, wherein we reject the notion that a mere majority consent can condone rape, murder, or incest!! Waffler would have the women raped, the child abused, and the individual murdered in his vile claim of Democracy (a mere 2:1 ratio wherein the majority won! As I have heard spew on a number of occasions: "ONE PERSON ONE VOTE" .. Well, the rapists got their vote, and the women had hers)! Such is the essence of slavery -- when the minority may be raped, pillaged, and plundered by majority consent. Where is the recourse of wrongs committed by a sometimes vicious (if even by an ignorant) majority in a pure democracy?! SUCH IS MERE MOB MENTALITY! I'm all about doing things by the majority's consent, so long as an outside codex of laws exists outside the majority's control wherein the individual is protected (SUCH AS A BILL OF RIGHTS)!!! HOW CAN ANYONE ARGUE AGAINST THIS?! HOW CAN IT NOT BE ANY MORE CLEARER?! I am all about giving to my fellow man in helping him to progress, build, and dream -- but when I am infringed upon by the majority's usurpation, where am I to turn for redress? Where do I turn to in a Democracy? In my Republic I can turn to the courts who acknowledge that there is an outside codex of laws wherein the majority has overstepped its bounds; otherwise, in a Democracy, the courts have no power because the voice of the majority is IT -- with no questions, redresses, or returned equity! Long live our Republic! Damn the tyrannous hand of Democracy! Damn societal Democracy (Socialism)! Let the people rule! Let there be LAW to govern!! Let the people learn personal responsibility and accountability wherein they can govern themselves!! Let freedom and liberty again return to the hearts of the people who have been dummied down by false philosophies of traitorous tyrants who by vile scheming or ignorant planning have traded temporary security for individual freedom -- and have done so by merely swaying majority consent! Where is my redress?! Where can I go?! Freedom is worth living for, it's worth dying for!

Work for everything you've been given. Living off another man's labor, even if it's by due process, is still theft.

Yes, and the absolute manifestation of societal democracy.

Editor, if you will allow me to respond to Waffler's comment, although it is a bit off thread -- you may delete this post if you wish (..smiles.. I won't yell censorship). Waffler, you're an ignorant fool. Your quote proves nothing more than what anyone here has ever said about the evolution of theory, thought, definition, language, ideas (philosophy) and application (laws). I'm surprised you haven't brought up Alexis de Tocqueville's work "Democracy in America" to backup your claims (which would be ignorant, but typical). Early American interpretation of history, philosophy, and reason varied differently than even Europe's (which is where de Tocqueville was born and educated: France). You constantly ignore EVERYTHING the founders have said concerning democracy and republics, restating your own meandering ignorance without anything to show for it but a few current sources. Not surprising that everyone here that purports an American Republic has consistently stated that current definitions of Republics and Democracies are nearly synonymous (unlike when they were originally discussed by the likes of Machiavelli) -- but you keep rehashing the same stupid, irrational, and inane gibberish to try and prove your convoluted shit-theories. As per the quote, it is an amazing glimpse into the mind of a mad-genius.

..laughs.. Waffler, I like you. Your guessing as to what University I'm associated with is comical, but way off base. I have had many, many, many conversations with students and professors alike who have actually read American history and understand the evolution of philosophy and who readily agree with me (and that's if they ever had a reservation before -- which the majority agrees with me before hand). Not all political science, international relations, and philosophy students and professors are the same-- most likely because of the differentiation of how different each field is. However, a unity is found between each science and understanding when speaking with actual scholastic individuals who know of what they're speaking (unlike yourself). Educated students and professors acknowledge everything Archer, Mike, myself and others have been saying concerning the foundations of America; however, where they differentiate is not in the historical record, but in whether or not what our founders and the philosophers of the time established the "perfect" organization or thought. They are educated enough to ask themselves "were the founding fathers really so wise?", and then create their own models in response. Such an endeavor requires an actual (or at least an attempted) understanding of what happened hundreds of years before our founding began, what happened directly before our founding, during our founding, and how it has evolved since then (something that you have no idea). How does thought evolve? Unless you know this, you cannot know anything. Because they understand the foundations, beginnings, and evolution of Republics and Democracies, these professors and students have absolutely no problem acknowledging everything I purport -- why? Because it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE!!! You can re-write history all you want and twist it and contort it to your view of the world -- but that is not intelligence. Understand things for what they were, and then create a solid argument as to why you purport something different; otherwise, you're a fool who no one here takes seriously.

Waffler, do not be so stupid (wait, too late) as to think that unity to freedom and liberty is disunion to our country. Your "strength through Unity, unity through faith" Hitleresque (totalitarian) subservience is laughable, you ignorant Tory. We are bound by the Constitution, and there isn't a so-called "traitor" here that would not give their life for the ideals of a Constitutional Republic wherein we are guaranteed by that magnificent charter. You throw around words like "unite" and "traitor" like catchy lyrics to a Barbra Streisand concert, but (as you have shown us from day one) you lack the historical, philosophical, or basic understanding of history to even apply their basic meaning. "The weak are unable to unite"? Are you trying to come off as Karl Marx? Help us understand your inanity! I've warped my brain trying to understand your meanderings, and have even had students and professors take a look at some of your comments (all of which have been thoroughly laughed at). Leaving aside the writing styles of everyone who contributes to this blog and yourself, there is no scholastic reasoning in any of your arguments. Everything you have espoused spits in the face of the spirit of America and the foundations wherein this great country was established! You call us dis-unified traitors, because we pledge our loyalty and lives to the Constitutional Republic? You are sick! Mentally healthy people can logically see the reason behind the Enlightenment (which you have failed from the very beginning to understand -- perhaps willingly?), even they disagree with it. Your argument only redefines what the Enlightenment sought to establish -- not to see it for what it was. You want to change the course of history and nature with what you believe is the best way, that's fine! If you want to believe that Democracies are the best organizations, that's great! But don't re-write history and put words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers who hated such an asinine form of government as you continually regurgitate. While you may not promote Monarchy, most certainly, you are a Tory at heart.