But first, a word from our sponsor ... ;-)

Saoirse, excellent comment! Logan, everything is relative to everything else. It begins with a time and a place -- birth is a good place to start. I was born into a family, a house, a city, a culture, a religion, a people. That is the world I was born into. Initially dependent upon the care and nurturing of my mother, certainly being held in loving arms was 'good.' Touching things that caused pain was certainly 'bad.' Playing with puppies made me happy. Seeing a dog get hit by a car, shocking and sad. It isn't just the 'mind,' but the heart that plays a part in that 'relativity' or rather 'subjectivity.' This is built in to the human constitution; it forms the basis of the human condition, life and death, love and truth, and heart. No human authorities required, no God required even, it's built-in to all the creatures of the world and even the world itself.

I think the trouble is the word Virtue is too broad and implies an archaic, religious intolerance in a time when the Church inflicted the punishment of God upon the sinners.

SO the question is, Logan, is Nature itself ordered to give rise to wisdom to the creatures within it? How did scientists get so smart? ;-)

Who's 'care' should it be? Yours and mine -- not 'theirs' whomever 'they' may be. Once again it is a call to taking responsibility. This distinction makes the difference between the noble sovereignty of the common man and the subject of a Crown/State.

Beautiful! Short and sweet. Mike, in your example, the receiving of stolen goods may reward with power, but not honor.

As Americans get more "woke" about the 'transformation' of America from a nation of free sovereigns into a nation of indentured servants to a 'democratic' socialist state whose sole job now is to plunder and divide the spoils, the only question is really, how "woke" are people going to get? Where will we draw the line? The cause of our freedom or our servitude lies within the individual consciousnesses of ALL the people. What we believe, we receive. Know thyself, and take a stand.

Today's Senate is elected by the citizens rather than elected by the State legislatures as originally chartered in the Constitution. This was to balance the democratic power with the sovereign state power. The House of Representatives represented the 'democracy' and the Senate represented the 'republic' -- specifically the land/territory. In order to protect private property from being 'voted away' by the poor, the 'electors' for governor and president were land owners. The electoral college would all be land owners. Only the votes of electors are counted towards the final total, even though everyone may vote.

The transition to a centralized government required the removal of land owner status for electors, a popularly elected Senate, a 'US' citizen subservient to his/her government, the government's claim to the labors of the people, including an obligation to tithe to the government, and the replacement of the money system from one backed by capital with one that is backed by debt obligations. So now, whoever has the most 'money' is in fact holding the most debt -- the richer we get, the more in debt the whole people get, and ultimately a 'correction' is due to clear the board and start a fresh game of Monopoly.

Thus the non-stop intent to turn it around such that the people are dependent upon the government. Once the people lost control of the purse-strings, they lost their leverage against an authoritarian government (pick your flavor). The colonists demanded their independence from England after only a 2% import tax -- why have Americans allowed the taxing of their labors at 25% and up?! Because the government is not dependent upon us, WE are dependent upon them. More specifically, the government is dependent upon their central bank, so the bank rules all -- and the bank does it with the exclusive permission to print their own money out of nothing in which to buy government promises to pay. Obviously, not enough precautions have been taken to prevent the take-over of the nation's economy (which is the very POWER of a nation).

Politics is for people who have a passion for changing OTHERS' lives but have no intention of living like that. Take a Maxine Waters or Nancy Pelosi who push for legislation for their districts that they would NEVER live in. Most love living the high life, all expenses paid schmoozing donors, influence peddling, exempting themselves from their own laws.

Politics is for people with a lust for power and a passion for keeping it.

Truth seekers start with becoming aware of the lies they tell themselves -- the revelation itself casts them out. Truth sets us free from the bondage of a false reality. What remains? Ultimately the world asks me who I am, and from the day I came into this world, people have been telling me what the answer is. My answer will either be a parroting of others or a declaration of my own. Getting to that place is called 'liberation' as well as 'taking responsibility.' It is an empowering place to come from.

If only that were the sentiment today. We've come a long way, baby. It should be unlawful to willingly make yourself a slave.

Ah, if only such sentiment resided in the hearts of Americans today -- I know it does in many, but it would be nice to hear on a regular basis.

We've tried that ... the reforms were worse than before -- schools are now run like prisons. The idea that a small group or council should decide the boundaries of education is arrogant and totalitarian. Get back to basics -- start all over. Facilitate learning, not propagate dogma. Schools are historically religious institutions first. Only after a couple hundred years was religion replaced with government, and man encouraged to play God -- most are merely taught to obey, while a few are taught to rule.

So many "pleasing ideas" have now corrupted the republican form of government into a type of church to which we all must belong, tithing as we should, asking for special dispensations from government ministers, expecting charity and security. One will find oneself either among the collective or the administrators attending to the collective. But submission to authority does not suit the self-determined -- the shoe doesn't fit, no matter how pleasing it's design. Soon, we find ourselves simply voting for our 'fair share' of the spoils of war and servitude.

Americanism lies in being bold! ;-) Courage!

I'm not sure that "liberally construed" means the same thing today. ;-)

The Bill of Rights did not grant any rights -- this distinction is important in understanding who the boss really is in America: the citizens at large. The government was chartered for specific purposes, and government employees/officers were strictly regulated by the People, not the other way around.

There is no 2nd Amendment right to bear arms!! The 'right' already exists and cannot be taken away. The 2nd Amendment was a rule for the government, not the people. It prohibits the government from making legislation that disarms the citizenry, because it was the citizenry that fought and won their independence with full possession of their weapons -- they did not give that up, nor have they given their fellows in government the power to disarm them.

Same for the rest of the Bill of Rights -- all are prohibitions on government, not the People. And it's a good thing, too, because the founders fears were confirmed as without these amendments, the meaning of the Constitution would have been twisted to mean its polar opposite (not that it hasn't been already...).

Mick, the right to bear arms used to be regarded highly in England -- but slaves were never permitted to have them. American colonists also respected and observed that 'right' of self-defense and possession of weapons. Being knowledgeable about history, the founders noted that disarming the people was one of the first acts of a tyrant. So, the amendment was made to specifically reserve the right to bear arms for the people -- the government may not make legislation prohibiting/restricting their use. You have a great many un-enumerated rights, Mick -- at least in America they were to be respected.

How about the story of David and Goliath? Without a weapon, the giant could not have been defeated. Without arms, the American colonists could never have acquired their independence. Of course, there are those willing to face the lions naked with only their faith in God to defend them -- that is their privilege and honor. The right to bear arms is 'pro-choice' -- I may choose to arm myself or not. Same for freedom of religion and speech -- I may choose to believe or speak or not, it is my choice. Is there ever a need to defend oneself? May I be prepared? Here's the kicker: WHO SAYS?!! In America, it is ME.

The common man is constantly at war, defending his rights from encroachment by his fellows and those in positions of power seeking to rule all. Beware of any dishonorable governments' proposals -- their intent is to subjugate not liberate. Most of these 'solutions' dis-empower the individual and transfer that power to an army of bureaucrats working for the-powers-that-should-not-be.

Maybe someone can explain how these 'laws' require permission from the State for possessing and using weapons when a specific Amendment was added to the Constitution prohibiting such legislation. The free republic absolutely requires the integrity of its government AND its citizens.

Hence the Bill of Rights. Even though the US Constitution was written clearly to declare that the chartered government had ONLY the explicit powers granted to it and no other, the Bill of Rights was added to explicitly prohibit the government from passing legislation that violated the people's natural-born rights, specifically the right to religious expression, freedom of speech and the press, the right and necessity of bearing arms, and the rights of the States in their sovereign capacity.

Where are the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison today? As a result, the Constitution is relatively ignored after decades of abuse.

Firstly, let's remember what the 2nd Amendment is. It is a prohibition against the US government from making any laws prohibiting the common citizen the possession and use of military-grade arms. Why? Because arms are to remain a 'civil' power -- that is to say, the powers of self-determination and deadly defense have been and remain in the hands of the People. Their servant government has no power to disarm them. Let me tell you something, the 2nd Amendment will NEVER be repealed. Therefore, every attempt is made to twist the meaning and intent of the Bill of Rights from a prohibition of government to a granting of rights by the government. The gun grabbers do not acknowledge the MILLIONS upon millions of law-abiding gun owners that every day do not abuse the responsibility.

And THAT is the key here -- RESPONSIBILITY! Guns, knives, spears, rocks are not responsible for their use, people are. The left constantly reneges on any responsibility, but instead blame guns and the NRA. The left uses victimhood as currency. Strangely enough, most of these mass shooters are die-hard liberals and ingesting government-issued psychotropic medication. Cultural Marxism is becoming the new liberal, embracing victimhood and robbing/disempowering all as a justification. Of course, this lifts up no one but the socialist aristocracy and knocks down the middle-class as far down as they are willing to go before outright revolution.

Most often, when guns are used for self-defense, they are not even fired. Just the presence of arms for defense is enough to discourage the invader and plunderer. If the people were completely disarmed, who knows what attempts will be made on our lives, labors, and property in the name of our security. Government parasites work tirelessly to legislate our powers away.

This was a reassertion that the State militia is NOT the National Guard. Quite frankly, the National Guard is an usurpation of the state militias by federalizing the States even further and blurring the lines to State sovereignty.

True, Mike, but for me I consider even life itself a privilege and an honor. I do not even feel entitled to liberty -- the burden is mine. ;-)