Greetings from Wyoming,
An interesting article at the St louis Gun Rights Examiner today,http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d17-The-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-need-not-be-for-sporing-purposes .It actually made me pause for a moment , and start to think about exactly what the purpose of the bill of rights were actually meant to do. So what i think I will do is take each of the 10 amendments called the bill of rights and see what they mean to me, and i invite you to do the same. I think if we are to defend a thing , first we must have a basic understanding of it andn if we do niot understand it properly , we can not defend it properly, and i also understand , that there will be as many understanding as there are people, now that being said lets see what is understood.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This amendment has six parts as one can obviously see, and they are protections of the people in religion , speech the press and in redressing the government for abuses by the government.
As to religion , it specifically says that the government can make no laws for or against religion , it doesnt mention what religion it applies to so common sense says that it applies to ALL religions, and that there can be no laws regarding , or restricting the practice of religion, but i think the caveat of this is ,the people have theright to practice any religion they choose , as long as it does not circumvent , the rights of any other person, an example of this , would be , say a religion that wants to practice human sacrifice or or religious mutilation, just as a person have a right to practice a religion , they do not have the right to take rights from others in its practice. And the government can not make any laws restricting the practice of religion.
I will tackle the right to speech and to freely assemble as one, what this means to me , is that the people have the right to say as they see fit with their understanding of the subject and they have the right to freely assemble and discuss, and say if they support or desent on any subject, some of the so called "hate speech"laws are counter to this section from the outset.so no laws can be made to stop the people from gathering and voicing their opinions and no laws can be made to restrict what the people think is right.
Freedom of the press, the press has an obligation to print the truth, and no laws can be made to hamper the press from reporting the truth , or all the facts, and the press here has the responsability to make sure their reporting is accurate and factual, and here is where the credibility of the press remains in their own hands , since they cannot be regulated by law, what i see though is the press , in some instances have become mouth pieces and soap boxes for their respective views on subjects , both overtly and covertly, and this is where they either gain credibility , or loose it. So basically the press is left to its own moral character and beliefs in the regards to self policing.
the right to petition for grievences against the government , basically if the government does something , that a person thinks is not right , they have the right to sue the government , and try to correct the wrong through the system. i think that today it still works , but the wheels of the justice system move slowly , through beliefs , or design, but it does still work.
To me , this amendment , is a limiting amendment on the government , it tells the government what they can NOT do, and it gives the rights to the people and it in no means all the government cannot do, it is just some of the things the founders decided , after going through what they did back then that forced them to concieve a new nation and seperate to form what they thought was right.
As usual i now ask what do you think?
ultimate revenge
2 years ago
2 comments:
Good stuff, AlphaWolf. The problem, as I see it, is that our enemies (those who would trample the Constitution) don't care about the Bill of Rights. To them, it was just something written by some "old, rich, white guys," over 200 years ago, with no current relevance (except when it suits their purposes).
That's not meant as disparagement of your efforts here--I wholeheartedly agree that the deeper our understanding of the Bill of Rights, the better--just don't expect the other side to be impressed.
In the end, only one thing impresses them--superior force.
III
45 supoer, you have points there , but im not writing this for those that oppose us , im writing it for those on the fence , those solidly in the camp of liberty and personal freedoms , im writing this to remind folks where we came from , and at what costs , and im writing this , to make them think about it , i agree if the need for force is ever needed , we better all understand exactly what we are defending with that force and why. personally ild rather have someone beside me that knows why they are there , than some one that is there only because of the situation, because some one that fights for something , always has an edge over someone that fights for something they cannot back up. thanks for looking , and you gave me more to think about as well.
Apha
III
Post a Comment