The subject verbiage "a well regulated militia" is an armed forces nomenclature; — regulation being a term describing a specie of weaponry, such as does ordinance. The militia being individual sovereigns able to unite with sufficient regulation / arms as a/the standing army. Anti-Republic / oppugnant to a "republican form of government" parties continue to reinterpret / miss-interpret the original intent and meaning of regulated from a military nomenclature noun to an adjective of customary convention.

Welcome to the new community / Amerika, where "socialism is the vision of social abilities to create" is being realized (Marx, Hitler, Mao being the puppet master gods to the new community).

Not shooting the messenger, way to accurate, way to often. The children are indoctrinated with the immorality, stupid and a demonic otherwise of a theocratic socialism / way of the Borg; — resulting in a degradation of the noble specie (individually and in concert), state of anguish, a poverty with lowering I.Q.s, an anathema to individual sovereignty / inalienable rights / liberty, death, destruction and force becomes the rational god/government to a mindless/soulless rabble.

Way too true, way too often.

There is nothing that can help you understand your beliefs more than trying to live your beliefs in the face of adversity.

I say hmmmm — just a thought; "Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an individual entity”. (Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, ({1936} 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773)

I might add; “Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.” (Helen Keller)

Those idols that include materialism, the need to control others, perversities / depravities of the flesh, anti-nature's law religions (socialism — woke, fascist, communist, etc., demonic, etc.) etc., etc., etc. have done this world much wrong — drowning glory in a shallow cup and selling reputations for a song.

I like it a lot. An example is liberty. Everyone sees the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land, BUT ! — how many can discover liberty in the midst of all the totalitarianism, tyranny, despotism and usurpation?

Denise, I like it. “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,), But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge:” (1Corinthians 8:5-7)

Not shooting the messenger, the message is far more accurate than not.

Peace (if to be found at all) is uniquely in the hearts, minds and spirits of individuals. Charters, contracts and constitutions only describe the heart's and mind's external expressions.

Sillik, like a good socialist — you can't handle the truth so you have to stick with the mentally ill children in making up new definitions to that which takes away from your gods and religion (so shallow and stereo typical).

Sillik, please enlighten us as to your current definition of “God”. Your country’s understanding is: “GOD. From the Saxon god, good. The source of all good;” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary) “The supreme or ultimate reality;” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) What source of all good would you like to put behind us? On this blog, you have sided with a few of your “gods” such as Marx, Mao and Lenin (they being sources of good). Your putting behind us, “the Gods”, would then by application eliminate the supreme or ultimate reality. AND, I say hmmmm; only a god could create a fiscal / religious system where a collective can earn a share of the universe. Sillik, you can contribute positively to your country by changing you religion and gods.

The quote on its face is very accurate; by example: "Our problems ARE man-made". Though such self-made problems are recognizable as to origin, the question remains, are the problematic actors going to change? "⋯ all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." (Declaration of Independence) Once, human destiny was attempted to be solved through a "Republic". The "republic" was to live within "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) protecting and enhancing individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty for all. Though a "constitution" outlined a method of evolving to such, heinous man-made problems were allowed to flourish during the republic's start up (such as slavery). Once that specific form of slavery was solved, an occupying statist theocracy began to infest the land with slavery for all (implementation of the communist manifesto's 10 planks for example). The problems may be solved, BUT, are the subject human beings willing to unite to abolish the forms to which they are accustomed?

I smile whenever you implement one of your god's idioms; by example: "a lie told often enough becomes the truth" (Lenin)

Humanism is either a philosophy (NOT science or law); OR, it is a perceived moral / ethical system (“religion” not science or law) that centers on: the sentient corporeal beings’ duty to promote the specie’s benefit. Religion is: “ real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to ⋯ our fellow men.” (Bouviers Law Dictionary) A base premise of/to Humanism is that the sentient being “man” is a “god”. Secular Humanism is an oxymoron. The use of the term "secular" here, only separates this specific religion's beliefs from others. Of course, as a dutiful mentally ill child / socialist, you need to add some hocus pocus to hide the real meanings of the here subject words.

Sillik, you make me smile when you, by cherry picking accident, are so accurate. You do have an inalienable right to express what you like — correct or incorrect. As a true socialist, it is obvious that you can not help yourself in attempting to change the meaning of words and adding vague off topic word salad, endeavoring to validate your religion. Humanism in thought or deed has NO relationship to science (by the way, what is, "reasonable", science? — Is that a humanistic / socialistic qualifier for what science is acceptable?). It is accurate that if proper variables are conceived as appropriately relate to a problem, solutions may be found. If the "problem(s)" is/are individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty, prosperity and joy at nature's law, humanism / socialism is/are in fact — a solution.

One of the problems with theocratic socialism is the dogma that, the meaning of concepts, terms and words must be sufficiently altered or eliminated as not to expose a socialists core beliefs or destructive actions. The actual and in fact definition of "religion" is but one illuminating factor that exposes socialism and other humanistic enclaves for what they are.

As Goebbels wrote; :”socialism is a religion”. Carl Marx’s socialist ambitions, atheistic desideratum and religious purposes were identified when he wrote “My object in life is to dethrone God ⋯”; AND, “We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.” The devolving establishment of socialistic religion within the States united, complete with its demonic “woke” dogma, is a most heinous and foul degradation of the noble being man. If religion, with its many sects (Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hindu, Human Secularism, New Age, Socialism, etc.) was fully exposed in schools, inclusive of actual belief systems and historical results of such dogmas - I don’t believe the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land would have gotten such a foothold or had such influence.

A promised expectation is a polar opposite of an intrenched anguish or despondency. Is it wise to live in conflicting extremes (future and past at the same time, by example)? I don't think so. Hope is a forward looking desire of the unknown while, despair is a looking back observation of things gone wrong.

I remember contemplating this quote when it first was introduced here. I didn't know whether I should put 5 stars or 5 thumbs down. If the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land hadn't morphed into such a socialistic theocracy, the quote would have to receive a minimum of 5 thumbs down. By example: All human beings are children, sovereigns and heirs to the Patriarch and King of the Universe - thus, each and every, any and all have the same / equal rights as any other (no matter the national origin). Citizenship to the de jure States united does NOT imply or give individual sovereignty, inalienable rights or liberty at the laws of nature and of nature’s God as all such is a faculty of birth.

Also, admitting foreigners indiscriminate citizenship is NOT an issue of giving rights but rather, allowing a personal responsibility in participating with a body politic's lawful (nature’s law) direction. The citadel of our liberty and sovereignty is NOT dependent on our country BUT - are rather a faculty of birth.

We can start by rejecting socialism as it is nothing more than a childish superstition. More people have suffered and died in the 20th and 21st centuries by socialism's theocratic implementation than any other primitive name (wether inspired by the primitive adversary or otherwise).

From the leader's (totalitarian commander) perspective, much more accurate than not / much more often than not. Periods of time where an outside-in view have defined a society of individuals acting as united sovereigns seem to be a state of anarchy (the time of Judges in the old Testament, by example) demonstrates the here quote's coming to be. Such united sovereign efforts seem to be overcome by a rising king or oligarchy that makes the subject people react the way the totalitarian wants them to.

Hmmmm, the "theory" of free speech? Is "truth" a theory also? Is "larger", "stranger" and more "many-sided" a philosophical unanswerable plucked from the ethos? Is "justified" on the whole by experiment a lawful, religious, or otherwise intangible conclusion? Is this very daring and surprising theory really one of the great discoveries of the modern time? OR, is "free speech" an individual sovereign's inalienable right within liberty at "the law of nature and of nature's God"; and NOT, a legal positivist's word salad to be bantered by the empty carnal man's “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”