Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,588
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry




    Almost all conversations taking place today, regarding the 2nd Amendment, are based on the perception that The Government (Fed/State) has the ability through legislation or fiat to take away our Rights, because they are not inherent but granted --- most think Gun Rights are granted by the 2nd Amendment --- therefore, they are actually privileges --- they're simply misnamed as Rights...

    Even most gun owners do not begin their discussion of Gun Rights with a Founder's perception of People's Rights -vs- Government Power...

    The Government may use excessive power to trample upon your Rights, they may use confinement to keep you from exercising your Rights, they may brainwash you into thinking you have no Rights and they may even sufficiently guilt you into denying you have Rights, but they simply cannot prevent you from having nor take from you that which is inherent.

    The Founders understood that having a firm grasp of eternal concepts was critical for people to be able to sustain a protracted battle against those who would willingly violate and denigrate Individual Rights. It is critical that we never forget their understanding of our Rights as God-given and inalienable, inherently ours. Unfortunately, the people who followed them in power (and in society in general) slowly lost sight of the value of those eternal concepts and principles.

    The Founders intended that government would be the last resort for accomplishing things - things that just couldn't be accomplished by a few individuals but required large participation to succeed --- like national defense and a level playing field for national commerce. But they expected that goverment would be strictly limited to those areas detailed in the Constitution and would be constrained to do so by the US Supreme Court.

    They believed that ALL POWER resides in THE PEOPLE and that government MUST SERVE THE PEOPLE rather than itself. They never intended the government to become or operate like an oligarchy and specifically built safeguards to prevent that from happening. They truly believed that THE PEOPLE should have the liberty and freedom, as well as responsibility, to govern their own affairs without the goverment lording power over them.

    Yet today, individualism and self-reliance are considered anti-social. The concepts of personal responsibility have been replaced with societal responsibility for every factor of our lives - remember, it takes a village. These very basic concepts upon which liberty and freedom succeed have been thrown aside in this mad dash toward socialism where supposedly no one is personally responsible and everyone can be washed clean if only we acquiesce.

    The Supreme Court has become a defacto super-legislature with it's attendant political factions and pressures to assure a pleasing result to those to whom it is beholding for it's power. It has not only failed to protect us from the rest of the government lording their power over us, but has joined in just such an effort.

    As long as the government can convince people that it will keep them warm and safe and well fed, people will be willing to give up their own liberty and freedom. To protect their source of well being they are also willing to help the government take the liberty and freedom from whomever disagrees with the new order. Yet, we are only one major disaster away from the collapse of the welfare state which has only been sustained through the massive debt accumulation over the past few decades. When the wealth creators in this country no longer are interested in being the money tree and that debt must be paid and a major crisis occurs, all those socialist welfare minded people are going to have a rude awakening to our true situation.

    It might be possible to put a new coat of paint on the crumbling structure, but I have a hard time believing that this country can be rescued without the underlying foundation being rebuilt.

    I hear too few voices and see too few efforts or programs dedicated to rebuilding that foundation.

    ...
    Last edited by ImminentDanger; December 3rd, 2020 at 07:07 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,588
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    The basic concept of Individual Rights and Responsibilities is premised on respect for the inherent Rights of others even while exercising those Rights for ourselves. The premise of punishment (or loss of Rights) under such a concept is based on the requirement that the perpetrator has deliberately attempted to or actually did violate the Rights of another.

    The Founders had a high regard for Individual Rights. They had experienced first hand (as well as studied widely) the misery that can ensue from governments being designated with (or simply perceived to have) ultimate power over the people. They clearly saw that the Inherent Rights of mankind were always in jeopardy of being thought and treated as 'privileges' by those in power where no checks were in place to keep the powerful from doing whatever they pleased. They also thought deeply about the corrupt nature of all men and the tendency for any power afforded them to 'go to the their heads' and lead them to extreme measures to obtain more and more. They were not ignorant or blind to the weaknesses of mankind.

    But Individual Rights were so inherently important to the health of a Free Country that they sought to balance the potential for evil against the actuality of good that Liberty and Freedom, when exercised responsibly, creates in society. The line that was drawn was based on behavior - not potential behavior - not what people were thinking - not calculated risk - but actual behavior.

    Only when a person violated the Rights of others were they to be punished by a (mostly temporary) loss of their ability to exercise their own Rights. The concept of Liberty and Freedom tolerates the potential of many evils in it's provision for many good circumstances.

    Constitutional Carry

    With regards to firearms, Constitutional Carry is the expression of this concept of Individual Rights and Responsibility. It is so named because Constitutional Carry is supported by the Constitutions.

    The phrases "shall not be infringed" and "shall not be questioned" are the very essence of the recognized Right to Keep and Bear Arms. These phrases are not weak or vascilating but very forthright. They engender no sense that Keeping and Bearing Arms is a privilege afforded to The People by the government or even by collective assent of the citizenry. The Right is a Right because it is Inherent.

    These phrases assert that those who have not violated the Rights of others (such that they are being punished by being denied the ability to exercise their own Rights) shall, without question and without infringement, be unmolested in their exercise of this Right. Only those who are temporarily being punished for violating the Rights of others are legitimately denied the exercise of their own Rights. Only after much discussion did the Founders decide to make this STATEMENT by including the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution. But their writings make it very clear that the 2nd Amendment did not create (nor can it's removal eliminate) this Right.

    The argument over the Bill of Rights was this: Will it be more helpful to state the obvious so future citizens know what 'should be' obvious -or- will stating the obvious be taken by those in power and twisted into a privilege that can be taken away by removing, altering or redefining the words of that statement. History has proven the point that without the 2nd Amendment some people would not know 'what is obvious' (that we have the unquestioned Right to Keep and Bear Arms) and that the powerful in government, irrelevant of the 2nd Amendment, are willing to violate the Rights of the People whenever it benefits the powerful.

    Like the Constitution itself, the concept of Constitutional Carry starts with the expectation that every citizen should be respected in exercising their Rights, in this case, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms - that government should restrain itself (or be restrained by the Supreme Court) to those powers it has been granted by The People - that it is important to remind the government & The People that All Rights, and especially those recognized in the Constitution, should not be violated, even by the Supreme Court.

    ...
    Last edited by ImminentDanger; February 16th, 2013 at 07:03 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,588
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    Let’s Abandon the Constitution, Says Professor
    http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013...ays-professor/
    Seidman then lists a bunch of examples of presidents who disobeyed the Constitution. This is supposed to amount to an argument for doing so now. Couldn’t it just as easily be an argument for deciding, once and for all, to abide by the principles of republican government and actually obey the Constitution? Surely we wouldn’t say that the Soviet Union’s long list of atrocities became more legitimate over time because of customary practice.

    The fact that dissenting justices regularly, publicly and vociferously
    assert that their colleagues have ignored the Constitution — in landmark
    cases from Miranda v. Arizona to Roe v. Wade to Romer v. Evans to
    Bush v. Gore — should give us pause. The two main rival interpretive
    methods, “originalism” (divining the framers’ intent) and “living
    constitutionalism” (reinterpreting the text in light of modern demands),
    cannot be reconciled.


    They cannot be reconciled. That is true. Could one of them be right and the other wrong? This possibility Seidman does not consider. In which of the ratifying conventions were the people told that they would be governed by judges’ subjective decisions as to how the Constitution ought to be adapted to “modern demands”? Nowhere. Therefore, this theory is at odds with republican government, and thus the existence of competing theories does not mean that application of constitutional principles to current issues is a hopeless task. It means some people are right and others wrong, as in any other field of endeavor.

    Even "originalism" often fails to reject outright many areas of legislation & regulation that were originally reserved "to the state" or "to The People". The justice system is eager to expand its powers and regularly goes beyond simply ruling on constitutionality. Rather, it tries to craft rulings that 'legislate by alternative means' areas of behavior that simply are not within the powers granted to the government. This expansion of its scope of influence is no better than the violations of the Constitution perpetrated by the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

    None of the branches of government operate within the original concept of limited government and overwhelming Rights & power residing in The People. In response to the attitude of the citizenry (who now prefer personal irresponsibility) the government has willingly stepped into the responsibility vacuum and has expanded its power and influence to guarantee The People will remain subject to their ruling.

    The government has invoked its own power and authority to rule in many areas of our lives that the Constitution never granted them powers to invoke. To distract The People and preserve their current position of power, they have set various groups of people against one another. Rather than the argument being whether the government should be involved at all, it now revolves around which group of people can convince the government to agree with it.

    By the very nature of the argument there is this assumption that the Government has a right to be involved - and few people take the time to get the right perspective - that the Government was never granted constitutional authority to be involved in all these areas of life.

    There are too few people who are willing to embrace (or publicly advocate) the original idea of Self-determination through the Exercise of Rights and Personal Responsibility. In fact, we have now reached the point where just such a personal choice is attacked and demonized. The latest example being the ObamaCare legislation that was upheld as 'Constitutional' by the very court that was supposed to protect The People from the Government. That ruling reiterated, that should you desire to take care of your own healthcare, you are a wicked and irresponsible citizen of the collective socialist commune.

    ...
    Last edited by ImminentDanger; January 30th, 2013 at 06:53 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,588
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    Can you believe any other President of the United States would have gotten away with targetting American Citizens for Assassination?? - where no due process was conducted (such as a trial) and no verdict of treason or sedition or any other actual legal evaluation by other US Citizens??

    http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/amer...ht-controversy
    Of the scores of people dubbed terrorists and taken out by American military drone strikes, three men — all killed in the fall of 2011 — were U.S. citizens.

    And their lives illustrate the complexity of the issue, recently brought to light amid a newly discovered government memo that provides the legal reasoning behind drone strikes on Americans.
    https://www.rt.com/usa/drone-lawsuit...cans-yemen-565
    Judge Rosemary Collyer of the US District Court in Washington ruled... "that the US officials" ... "must be trusted and expected to act in accordance with the US Constitution when they intentionally target a US citizen abroad at the direction of the president and with the concurrence of Congress."
    I don't care what these people were saying - there is still a 1st amendment right to criticize the government - If these people actually violated the laws of the US, then as US Citizens they should have been brought to justice - charged with real crimes, tried in front of a Judge & Jury (even if in absentia) and convicted or acquitted as the facts demanded.... The Constitution calls for due process for American citizens...


    And another extreme....

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/police...rticle/2520632
    A 10-year-old Alexandria boy was arrested after police said he brought a toy handgun to school on Tuesday, a day after he showed it to others on a school bus.

    The boy, a fifth-grader at Douglas MacArthur Elementary School whose name is not being released, was charged as a juvenile with brandishing a weapon, police said.

    He was also suspended from school, and Alexandria City Public Schools Superintendent Morton Sherman said further action is being considered, including expulsion.
    Here are (supposed) adults who are unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy - yet they are in charge of educating the next generation of citizens who will be responsible for minimizing nuclear threats from Iran, N. Korea and who knows what other country in 10-years....

    These are just more examples of how far we have come from the Founding Principles of this country!

    ...
    Last edited by ImminentDanger; December 14th, 2017 at 12:31 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,588
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    Here is further proof that even those who "would vigorously oppose any state or federal law that violates an individual’s right to keep and bear arms" acquiesce that once laws are passed and declared "constitutional" by the Supreme Court, that "it is the supreme law and must be obeyed by the states and state officials."

    http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...ard-hb357.html

    But it has been clear for more than 200 years that the determination whether an act or proclamation is constitutional must be made by the United States courts, and ultimately the United States Supreme Court, and not by state legislators.

    I have concerns that HB 357 violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. It declares every law passed by congress or regulation issued by a federal agency after December 31, 2012 to be illegal and unenforceable under Pennsylvania law. This, I believe, is inconsistent with the principles that the federal law is supreme and the lawfulness of a federal law is to be decided by the courts. HB 357 attempts to nullify federal law yet, unless and until the federal courts rule a new federal statute or regulation unconstitutional, it is the supreme law and must be obeyed by the states and state officials.

    We have yet to see what new federal laws may be enacted. Some may be constitutionally permissible under the Second Amendment, and others may not. But until the courts have ruled on a particular law, it is clear states cannot simply choose not to follow it.
    The oath to uphold the Constitution does not include the caveat: However the Supreme Court interprets it!

    There must be a new and clear understanding that the Supreme Court is no longer protecting THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE from the POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT...

    I'll repeat again:

    The phrases "shall not be infringed" and "shall not be questioned" are the very essence of the recognized Right to Keep and Bear Arms. These phrases are not weak or vascilating but very forthright. They engender no sense that Keeping and Bearing Arms is a privilege afforded to The People by the government nor given to individuals by the collective assent of the citizenry.

    A Right is a Right because it is Inherent.

    Until those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and are in positiions of power to forcibly regulate the behavior of US Citizens, understand the Founder's principles of Individual Rights -vs- Goverment Power we will continue our slippery slide into Constitutionally-twisted Acceptable-Socialism because all power (and perceptions of rights) is slowly but deliberately being consolidated in the Federal Executive Branch...

    ...
    Last edited by ImminentDanger; December 13th, 2017 at 11:46 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,588
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    The last three years have proven the validity of these statements.

    I certainly hope this forum is capable of OVERWHELMING support for Constitutional Carry the next time it has the opportunity.

    ...
    Last edited by ImminentDanger; August 14th, 2016 at 02:15 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
    (Cumberland County)
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,109
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    I've always believed that you only have the right to do the things you're willing to fight for.
    If you don't you run the risk of having them taken from you.
    Even then you still run the risk of losing. Those who control the majority tend to get to decide what rights you do and do not have. The constitution is just an idea and ideas can be extremely powerful or completely useless.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Somewhere else, Pennsylvania
    (Cambria County)
    Posts
    2,749
    Rep Power
    21474852

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    So, given the current state of affairs, what is a good citizen to do?

    Identifying the problem is one thing, solving it is a whole other beast. It's far past time for solutions.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,053
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    Quote Originally Posted by Kabloosh View Post
    The constitution is just an idea...
    See, no it's not just an idea. The Constitution - with a capital C - is exactly what the OP wrote above: a definition of the limits of Federal power. But as Carnes said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Carnes View Post
    It's far past time for solutions.
    So many people now believe that it's just an old piece of paper - an idea from the past with no relevance today - that we're way beyond screwed. No way to go back.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Wayne, Pennsylvania
    (Chester County)
    Posts
    1,609
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: Founders Intention for Government - Constitutional Carry

    Quote Originally Posted by thebearpack View Post
    See, no it's not just an idea. The Constitution - with a capital C - is exactly what the OP wrote above: a definition of the limits of Federal power. But as Carnes said:



    So many people now believe that it's just an old piece of paper - an idea from the past with no relevance today - that we're way beyond screwed. No way to go back.

    Really????
    - bamboomaster

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Round in the chamber "intention to commit a crime"
    By Glyphic83 in forum Open Carry
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: January 25th, 2013, 01:00 AM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 1st, 2011, 11:52 PM
  3. Founders and the Second Amendent
    By NRA Member in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 12th, 2010, 09:53 AM
  4. What the founders went through
    By Jackal in forum General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 9th, 2009, 08:49 PM
  5. The true intention behind the 2A...
    By headcase in forum General
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2008, 05:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •