You seem to have revised the "simple facts of history".
I have reversed no facts. You, however have distorted historical facts by making false claims about history, the Constitution and The Bill Of Rights.
Either you haven't read the state constitutions or the statements from the ratification conventions or newspapers or minutes of town council meetings of the colonial, revolutionary and early days of the United States or if you have read them you choose to use only those statements which support your opinion. There are numerous statements affirming the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and their state. Your attempt to focus on the "well regulated militia" phrase is a common, cheap attempt to misdirect attention from the fact that the 2nd Amendment clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What part of "shall not" is unclear?
I'm quite clear on the. second amendment. It's one sentence, plain English. You, however have bought into the idea that the only the second part of it counts. That's a cheap trick. If you're going to quote the second, then quote and understand all it it.
Contrary to your statement that "there was no intention or money to build a large standing army" there was heated and vigorous debate on the subject. Anti-Federalists had a healthy fear of a large standing army, while at the same time, Federalists recognized that external threats (Spain for instance) created a need for a standing army. Both sides had valid arguments and legitimate cause for concern but I can't seem to find either side using "we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it" as a rebuttal.
"we'll have to pass it and find out" is another cheap trick on your part. Nobody ever said that at the time, and you ought to know that.
Our founders did not establish a democracy, they established a republic,
Another cheap semantic trick. Our founders most assuredly established a democracy wherein our leaders are elected by majority vote. It is also a republic, and the terms are not mutually exclusive.
"We have given you a republic, if you can keep it?" -Ben Franklin.) where the rule of law, as stated in the Constitution, was intended to limit the government to the sacred duty of protecting the freedoms, liberty and rights of the individual. A republic, where the rule of law was to restrict and restrain the power of government corrupted by human nature to impose it's will on the citizens and defend their liberty, freedom and God given rights.
Yet another cheap trick. Our government does not pretend to guarantee "God given rights". You must be thinking of theocracies like Iran, where the supposed will of Allah rules. In our country, all religious beliefs are welcome whether they involve God, Allah, Yahweh, the Great Spirit or no diety at all..
As to "controlling our government at the ballot box"...... not hardly. We now live in a country where a judge's "opinion" is more powerful than the results of an election, (see Prop 8 in California, the state constitution was properly, legally amended by a majority vote but that vote was unconstitutionally overturned by one judge) and a judges "opinion" is now more powerful than the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
All judges are either democratically elected or are nominated and confirmed by elected officials. If you don't like their decisions, then change, by vote, them or the officials who elect and confirm them.
The courts have created clauses and rights not stated or implied in the Constitution to suppress and restrict religious expression and legalize abortion.
There is no mention of abortion, one way or another in the Constitution, and the courts have actually expanded religious rights by preventing one religion from dominating law. For example, Christians are no longer to emblazon their slogans on public buildings, which belong to all the people, regardless of their religion. And that's the was the founders intended it. Read the Constitution, Article 4, paragraph 3 : "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
When the courts are handing down rulings you agree with it's "so far, so good", but check with the AP and see if their understanding of the term "useful idiot" has changed now that they find out the Justice Department has been tapping their phones. Eric Holder is hero for running guns to Mexico to lay the groundwork for "enhanced background checks" but he is evil incarnate for biting the hand that feeds him by spying on reporters.
If, and that's IF until proven, Holder has violated law, he can be charged tried and convicted. It takes a legal process, and not your personal opinion to convict him.
Our "government of the people, by the people for the people" has recently been caught in the act, using the power of the IRS to suppress speech and political expression with which it did not agree. So far, not so good.
If laws have been broken, then those who are criminals can be brought to justice. Conviction of a crime requires more than your and Fox News opinion, which is all that exists so far.
Our Founding Fathers tried to give us a government based on timeless principles,
NO, that's not correct. Our founding fathers gave us an initial start on a path which they KNEW would require amendment and change over time, hence the amendment process which they themselves used
to protect the Nation against the fickle whims of fashion and popular opinion (known today as political correctness) the 2nd Amendment was not intended to be a band aid
The Bill of rights, all ten amendments, was absolutely a band-aid, just as they intended!! Sheesh!
because the government of that day and time could not afford to buy guns for the army. They recognized the power of the government and the fact that it would be made up of human beings who by nature are easily corrupted. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Amendments and the amendment process were put in place to protect the rights of the individual, not groups, not majorities but individual citizens. If the government infringes the right of the individual citizen to protect themselves and their property, regardless of whether the threat to their life and property comes from an individual, group or even the government then all the other rights are lost as well. Thus the 2nd Amendment is considered a guardian of the 1st Amendment{
B]
I cannot follow your reasoning in that paragraph. Try it again sober.[/B]
