The Gun Argument That’s Not Even Wrong
Yonatan Zunger
6K63

A this is about as stupid a pen as has ever been written.

The constitution is founded upon the legal precedent spke by the Primary author of the Constitution, James Madison

He said, during the debates with the Anti-Federalists, in which he opposed a Bill of Rights Be added to the Constitution:

“All Political Power is inherent in the People. Therefore, a Constitution is necessary to state specifically what Powers the People are giving to their Government. A Bill of Rights is unnecessary, for we have not given to this government the right to interfere with your rights.”

This country is based upon WRITTEN law, not made-up law. That which the People understude the constitution to mean IS the law.
As the Supreme Court held in DRED SCOTT case.

“It was well known and understood at the time of the framing of the Constitution that Blacks and Mulattos were not citizens of the United States. Therefore Mr. Scott has no right to appeal to this body.”

We are not a Divine Monarchy, we are a Constitutional Government. Only those rights specifically given to the Government by the Constitution are law.

Or to quote the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As to the 2nd Amendment, the Frames fought for 8 years against their British government.

Profesional soldiers against an uprising of ordinary armed citizens like me and you. The Second Amendment is there to guarantee that this right of rebellion will exist forever. That the American People will forever have the power to do with a Washington and the others did, throw off a despotic government. Any even slight reading of there words shows that they did NOT trust governments. They saw governments as necessary evils, like taxation, but both should be kept as little as is possible.

It is not correct to say we can interpret the Constitution, for that would be to Amend the Constitution, and the Constitution specifically speaks of how the constitution can be amended. Those who say otherwise are simply admitting that the American People disagree with them. If the People agreed with the author, then we would amend the Constitution to say so.

Recently a Federal Judge struck down a California law mandating a 10 day waiting period after purchasing a firearm.

The Judge noted that in the first 150 years after the passage of the Constitution, no such a law could be seen on the books in any State. Further, even today, only 6 states have such a law. Showing that the vast majority of the States do not agree with such a law.

With No historical support for such a law, and 44 states out of 50 not holding to such a law, the Court struck it down as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.
This historical test has been used by the U.S. Supreme Court since it’s inception.

We are a Nation of Laws, but if, as the youngster here says, that we can interpret the law to mean anything we want, then there is no law. Black People have no guaranteed rights against racial discrimination. Women have no rights against sexual discrimination, in fact, no one has any rights at all.
Under the British rule, there was an “unwritten” Bill of Rights, but unwritten meant it could be interpreted in any way possible. This “unwritten” law was the primary failure of British governance, and one wished to be avoided by the Framers. Thus a written Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Like what you read? Give Bud Williams a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.