I should have said “Constitutions”, capital C. Obviously any government will have a constitution (that is, an actual structure of power). The belief that the proper behaviour of a government can be expressed in a single written document that mystically binds the actions of its rulers is a historical aberration and only those who love deception will miss it when it’s gone; the USA’s actual constitution has never really corresponded to the document of that name.
It would seem that Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, et. al. gave us a republic with a fantastic Constitution and that the Supreme Court was instituted to prevent the power brokers’ natural inclination to grab more power. It may have slowed them down for a few years but US history will show that our elected officials have always sought to grab more and more power. It just used to be that they gave lip service to the premise that they worked for us, since we elected them. Now that illusion seems to have evaporated. They don’t feel a responsibility to be faithful… Read more »
Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts and Jefferson approved the Louisiana Purchase. If not even the founders could be bothered to stay within the “enumerated powers”, it’s a bit much to expect things to be different for subsequent generations.
I agree that a revolution would be disastrous; let us pray for a restoration, where the rulers and their subjects repent of liberal democracy altogether.
ashv, with all due respect, you sound like a Nihilistic Christian to me most of the time. Nihilistic in momentum and rigor of thought and Christian in the standard you claim. I’m not sure if I mean that as a compliment or a criticism so feel free to take it either way.
Nihilistic? Certainly not. I believe in obedience to Jesus and loving my neighbour, I just don’t believe in Americanism or the legitimacy of the government in Washington.
Yeah that’s kinda of what I’m talking about. Maybe it would have been better to say an Americana Political Nihilist Christian. Not a lot of serious thought behind it. Just sort of a drive by comment.
Well said. The constitution of the peoples’ heart is far more important than any Constitution written outside the heart. God proved this in the ultimate sense by giving His people a perfect Constitution written in stone. They perverted it instantly. Why do we think we can outdo God in letters on parchment and stone?
The 2nd Amendment is anachronistic for a lot of reasons. First, our state militias are no longer made up of the general population. Second, it’s just plain silly to believe that citizens with AR-15s would be able to resist a modern army. Third, if the point of the 2A is to enable citizens to resist a modern army, then we should be able to own AAA, tanks, fighter planes, etc.
For my clarity. Are you proposing that simply because we have strayed so far from original intent and have the most powerful-ish military in the world, that constitutional protection of a fundamental right is anachronistic?
Crowhill wrote: The 2nd Amendment is anachronistic for a lot of reasons. First, our state militias are no longer made up of the general population. Second, it’s just plain silly to believe that citizens with AR-15s would be able to resist a modern army. Third, if the point of the 2A is to enable citizens to resist a modern army, then we should be able to own AAA, tanks, fighter planes, etc. I’ve heard this reasoning somewhere before, almost verbatim, and found the arguments completely underdeveloped. The first point incorrectly suggests that the 2nd Amendment protection was limited to the… Read more »
In concurrence, letters of marque and reprisal let contracts with privateers who operated ships equally or better armed than those operated by the government.
timothy
8 years ago
“Of course the Second Amendment allows us modern weaponry.
2A doesn’t “allow” anything. It prevents the Federal Government from abridging our God given right to self-defense and the defense of our civilization.
The second amendment limits the government; the government does not get to limit us.
I see that mistake made often whereby people miss the point that the U.S.C. primarily binds government, and that the rights enumerated somehow magically appeared with the paper itself.
What disturbs me is the internalization of the idea by some people. Our Founders where a lot more adamant about this stuff. I can surmise that Pastor Wilson made this error due to the tension between Scripture’s “submit to authority” vs the devolution of power that we should expect in a Christian civilization. “Devolution of power” is a strong statement, and intentionally so. Christians are self governing in the civil sphere. They are properly civilized by the Holy Spirit. It logically follows that authority is granted by us to some to do the limited jobs that authorities should do. Naming… Read more »
For what it’s worth, there was a history conference in the Kibbie Dome in Moscow, probably over 10 years ago now, where Wilson went on at length about the precise distinction that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, and not a grant of rights to citizens. So I suspect that his use of the phrase “allows us” was short hand to enhance the pithiness of his punch line. He could have said, “Of course the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from interfering with our use of modern weaponry. How else do we… Read more »
Not that memes are ever an intelligent way to do political philosophy, but there’s a particularly stupid one going around claiming that the founders believed that rights came from the constitution, not from God, and suggesting that anyone who thinks they come from God would be called stupid by the founders.
“particularly stupid” is extremely gracious. But I guess it does indicate that they believe in creation ex nihilo.
It took me a minute, but since the document is paper, and paper is wood:
“No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, “Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?”
That’ll preach all day long.
When it comes to that — constitutions and amendments won’t matter.
They will if you care anything about authority.
I want an A-10
Dude……me too.
I should have said “Constitutions”, capital C. Obviously any government will have a constitution (that is, an actual structure of power). The belief that the proper behaviour of a government can be expressed in a single written document that mystically binds the actions of its rulers is a historical aberration and only those who love deception will miss it when it’s gone; the USA’s actual constitution has never really corresponded to the document of that name.
It would seem that Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, et. al. gave us a republic with a fantastic Constitution and that the Supreme Court was instituted to prevent the power brokers’ natural inclination to grab more power. It may have slowed them down for a few years but US history will show that our elected officials have always sought to grab more and more power. It just used to be that they gave lip service to the premise that they worked for us, since we elected them. Now that illusion seems to have evaporated. They don’t feel a responsibility to be faithful… Read more »
Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts and Jefferson approved the Louisiana Purchase. If not even the founders could be bothered to stay within the “enumerated powers”, it’s a bit much to expect things to be different for subsequent generations.
I agree that a revolution would be disastrous; let us pray for a restoration, where the rulers and their subjects repent of liberal democracy altogether.
ashv, with all due respect, you sound like a Nihilistic Christian to me most of the time. Nihilistic in momentum and rigor of thought and Christian in the standard you claim. I’m not sure if I mean that as a compliment or a criticism so feel free to take it either way.
Nihilistic? Certainly not. I believe in obedience to Jesus and loving my neighbour, I just don’t believe in Americanism or the legitimacy of the government in Washington.
Yeah that’s kinda of what I’m talking about. Maybe it would have been better to say an Americana Political Nihilist Christian. Not a lot of serious thought behind it. Just sort of a drive by comment.
Well said. The constitution of the peoples’ heart is far more important than any Constitution written outside the heart. God proved this in the ultimate sense by giving His people a perfect Constitution written in stone. They perverted it instantly. Why do we think we can outdo God in letters on parchment and stone?
What’s your constitution?
With eagles, of course.
That’s fantastic!
I see a revival of the ancient and noble art of falconry!
FWIW, it’s not quite dead as it is. My daughter has a school friend whose family is big into the sport. They breed their own birds, go to meets, etc.
And private warships too–“letters of marque and reprisal” (Art. I Sec. 8) are licenses to operate private warships.
The 2nd Amendment is anachronistic for a lot of reasons. First, our state militias are no longer made up of the general population. Second, it’s just plain silly to believe that citizens with AR-15s would be able to resist a modern army. Third, if the point of the 2A is to enable citizens to resist a modern army, then we should be able to own AAA, tanks, fighter planes, etc.
For my clarity. Are you proposing that simply because we have strayed so far from original intent and have the most powerful-ish military in the world, that constitutional protection of a fundamental right is anachronistic?
Crowhill wrote: The 2nd Amendment is anachronistic for a lot of reasons. First, our state militias are no longer made up of the general population. Second, it’s just plain silly to believe that citizens with AR-15s would be able to resist a modern army. Third, if the point of the 2A is to enable citizens to resist a modern army, then we should be able to own AAA, tanks, fighter planes, etc. I’ve heard this reasoning somewhere before, almost verbatim, and found the arguments completely underdeveloped. The first point incorrectly suggests that the 2nd Amendment protection was limited to the… Read more »
In concurrence, letters of marque and reprisal let contracts with privateers who operated ships equally or better armed than those operated by the government.
“Of course the Second Amendment allows us modern weaponry.
2A doesn’t “allow” anything. It prevents the Federal Government from abridging our God given right to self-defense and the defense of our civilization.
The second amendment limits the government; the government does not get to limit us.
I see that mistake made often whereby people miss the point that the U.S.C. primarily binds government, and that the rights enumerated somehow magically appeared with the paper itself.
What disturbs me is the internalization of the idea by some people. Our Founders where a lot more adamant about this stuff. I can surmise that Pastor Wilson made this error due to the tension between Scripture’s “submit to authority” vs the devolution of power that we should expect in a Christian civilization. “Devolution of power” is a strong statement, and intentionally so. Christians are self governing in the civil sphere. They are properly civilized by the Holy Spirit. It logically follows that authority is granted by us to some to do the limited jobs that authorities should do. Naming… Read more »
For what it’s worth, there was a history conference in the Kibbie Dome in Moscow, probably over 10 years ago now, where Wilson went on at length about the precise distinction that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a limitation on the federal government, and not a grant of rights to citizens. So I suspect that his use of the phrase “allows us” was short hand to enhance the pithiness of his punch line. He could have said, “Of course the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from interfering with our use of modern weaponry. How else do we… Read more »
Not that memes are ever an intelligent way to do political philosophy, but there’s a particularly stupid one going around claiming that the founders believed that rights came from the constitution, not from God, and suggesting that anyone who thinks they come from God would be called stupid by the founders.
“particularly stupid” is extremely gracious. But I guess it does indicate that they believe in creation ex nihilo.
It took me a minute, but since the document is paper, and paper is wood:
“No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, “Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?”
That’s what blockheads do.