Feb 16th, 2013 - To the President: Why the Vote is like guns

-


Mr. President and other members of the Government,

I saw you on Google+ where you had a town meeting with some internet individuals.  In all honesty I skipped to the part where you were asked about firearms, similar to that which I assume you’re staff will do with this letter.  But I can hope that someone in our Government will eventually hear this logical argument and press you for an answer.  I can hope.

You said, when asked about gun confiscations, that you believed that individuals have the right to bear arms, but that ‘we’ agree that certain types of guns should be illegal, and cited grenade launchers.

The problem with your approach is that you establish an opinion based not on the language in the Constitution, but on either a preconceived opinion (that has never be proven as Constitutional) or on a new opinion made possible by fear and loathing. 

The reality is that the Constitution MUST be taken at its word.  That you, me, anyone has no authority to alter its language and interrupt it for ourselves.   I know you disagree with that, but the mere fact that you have more melanin in your skin and can vote (and become president) was made possible by a  correction of the Constitution.  That is, before the addition of the 15th amendment, the ‘opinion’ that individuals of different color has the right to vote was irrelevant.   Congress could have written laws to afford suffrage to those of a different color, but the states had no responsibility to follow the law. ONLY an amendment to the Constitution gave a new definition to the constitution that allowed others than white men the right to vote.    You see, opinion of what the words mean is not yours to define.  It is not mine to define.  It is what it is!  If it says the right to keep (own, possess, have as property) and bear (hold, have in possession, carry, to burden with the weight) shall not be infringed, that is exactly what it means.  From sticks to cruise missiles.  Sorry, without taking the time to ask the people to redefine the Constitution itself, you MUST take it for what it says, else, you prove your hypocrisy, because the very reason you have the authority to even make this decision is because we changed the wording of the Constitution in the first place allowing all men and women the right to vote regardless of color or creed.  Without that language, actually in the constitution, then we'd still be arguing of the what the Constitution really meant.

So, as usual, IT is either respect the Constitution or ignore it.  There is no middle ground.  One is a validation of the best current way of looking at the world that ensures all men and women the right to freedom and self sufficiency, the other is living a series of complex confusing lies and manipulations to get one’s way.

I already know what your intention is, too bad it’s not the Constitution, that the other 300 million of us enjoy.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

note 1 - people as property

-
Image
notes for my latest book on politics and life. ...it is imperative to continually point out that people are not property. There is no other truth. The majority of people are mindlessly on the side of "people AS property". They don't even know it. So they let a litany of insanity rule their lives. Ask someone why they think speeding is a crime and they'll say "well that person could cause an accident that could kill your family. You WANT YOUR FAMILY DEAD?!?" … their answer: - besides the fact they always seem to assume the worst in people - government has the authority to stop you from possibly, maybe, in the future, causing someone else harm . In other words: pre-crime. Then ask this same person if they believe government should mandate what time you should get out of bed, shower, eat breakfast, and leave the house.  They will, of course, say, "NO THAT'S SILLY"...because by this point they are screaming; people stop listening.
Read more

What is a Libertist?

-
Someone recently asked me this question. I was shocked. I had come to think the word was self-evident. So I turned to google to make sure I wasn't just a snooty upturned nose type forcing plebs to accept my jargon. Typing "define Libertist" into google and you have to go almost to the bottom before you come into the definition.  Google assumes I meant Liberttist, with two t's. A Liberttist, two t's, is a person that writes the texts that go along with an Opera and this text is called a Libretto. It, dictionary.com, tells me is derived from Libro, or book. Fair enough and completely sensical (I used 'sensical' on purpose because English professors everywhere still think it is not a word. My typing it and publishing it here, prove, gentlemen, otherwise).  But if you take out that second t the word means: one that defends Liberty. Thus my reason for shock, because I had assumed that since the word was in the name, that the clarity and purpose of modifyi
Read more

Free! Free! Free! – How socialism’s free things requires ownership over the means of production

-
Image
Recently Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a professed Democratic Socialist, appeared on Colbert. She made a couple of statements that are pure anti-human, and the crowd, unaware of the consequences of her comments, applauded. Colbert, seemingly enamored (not by her good looks mind you but by his past opinions on the virtues of communism), said nothing of any consequence. None of this, of course, should surprise anyone that is paying attention.  She stated that she believes education and health are basic human rights. So, since, they are basic human rights, they must be freely accessible to anyone that wants them.  Colbert didn’t even ask her, “Well, Alexandria, how exactly are you going to pay for this?” This is because democracies as a whole believe that the outcome of the vote is a moral truth and whatever costs created by the so-called elected officials, is a required condition of participation. If the state requires the users to pay for everything, then the users (slaves) will pa
Read more