Sunday, January 6, 2013

Constitutional Republic, Not Democracy....

Via Old NFO, a post by Dean Garrison regarding gun control and our responsibility as citizens of this Constitutional Republic (the US is NOT a democracy, regardless of what modern education would have you believe).  Read the whole thing.  Made me think.  Although Mr. B had already said most of it here.

I have said before that we are citizens of a Republic, not a democracy.  We have elected officials, not rulers, we have a president, not a hereditary monarchy.  And the Founding Fathers set it up that way on purpose.  I've had arguments thrown at me about the Constitution as a whole because the Third Amendment doesn't seem relevant (maybe it never became an issue because it was there).  Seriously.  And I've seen the inevitable 'throw out the Constitution' in the liberal media.  Do they realize that then the whole government would have to go as well since they were all elected under that system??  And if they chose not to go, they would be removed because there would then be no rule of law?

I was watching Face the Nation this morning when another representative (from Minnesota, I think) tossed out that 'we're elected to govern' line again.  Do they get that in their training packet??  I saw a guy say that an assault weapons ban was absolutely constitutional.  Only if your reading comprehension is that of my cat (or if you're a product of the modern educational system and graduated from an Ivy League University) is any ban on firearms constitutional.  What do these folks not understand about "shall not be infringed"? 

It's pretty clear, there are no limits regarding ammunition, types of firearm, or anything else in the Second Amendment.  If the Founding Fathers had wanted some variance  to that, they would not have been so clear and bold in their verbiage (they were NOT the result of an Ivy League education and so said what they meant, with no equivocation).   Please note that in the thesaurus.com definition of infringe there is a note:  " to infringe  is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate."  Therefore any type of limitation on firearms ownership is, by the Constitutional litmus, unconstitutional and therefore invalid since it encroaches on that right of firearms ownership.

As Dean Garrison and Mr B both state, it is our Constitutional duty to preserve our rights.  I will go further in that if our government is made up of oathbreakers who no longer use the Constitution as their litmus, then it is our Constitutional duty to oust them from their seats of perceived power.  If they keep pressing this issue, that is what will happen.  The American people have had their rights and their freedoms suppressed enough.

3 comments:

Old NFO said...

Thanks for the link, and good comments! And I agree they ARE infringing on our rights!!!

Don said...

They're past infringement; the goal is a total prohibition on any rights they disagree with. This will not end well for a lot of folks.

Which ones? Ask me in about 10 years.

armedlaughing said...

Amen!
I'm sick of both the Stupid Party and the Communist Party using the phrase 'Our Democracy' in their statements!
And, it gone (and going) way past infringement.
Keep up the good work!

gfa