Paradocracy

For generations Americans have long debated the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Many of them read into it what they prefer to believe, interpreting it to fit with their own particular views on the subject. Fortunately for those in pursuit of the truth, the tools of grammar and the annals of history are at our disposal to wade through all of the noise. First, it is essential for readers to understand that every power reserved to Congress is expressly enumerated within Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Not one of those powers pertains to regulations, limitations or prohibitions on firearms; indeed, not one part of the section pertains in any way to firearms, whether specifically or generally. Remember, Congress reserves the power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers , which in this case, regardless of subsequent acts or measures, do not extend to the matter of firearms. Congress ha

The political machine is always in motion, exploiting semantics, “syntactic destruction” and social sensibilities to its advantage, thereby trampling the liberty of the people, who are often found in celebration of their own sacrifice.  This is true across all of political history, and the story of America is no exception. One striking example of this is found in the pronouncements of President John F. Kennedy, in his September 19, 1960, speech at the United Steelworkers of America Convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey.  In his speech, Kennedy sought to “present to the American people an alternative course of action” for the country. By this he intended that “the period of the 1960's [be] a period in which we [cannot] conserve, in which we stand still.” On the contrary, Kennedy declared this “a time for new go-ahead for this country and the American people.” He implored his audience to join him in his campaign, to “Give me your help, your hand, your voice, and we can move this co

In the aftermath of the War between the States, the federal government asserted that "might makes right." As they mobilized troops throughout the Southern states, during and for many years after the war, they busied themselves with political reconstruction of the Union, flatly disregarding the question of constitutionality. Upon the surrender of the Confederate States, the federal government claimed that "might makes right."  Upon claiming victory, they celebrated the "preservation of the Union" as they brought the Southern states under their control as "conquered provinces". From their point of view, the truth was simply irrelevant, or otherwise whatever they determined it should be. Strangely their assertion that "might makes right" seems to stand alone today, as it did then, as a sufficient case for its acceptance. After all, upon having proven sufficient might, what use is there in any argument?  Should the argument prevail in reaso