The Maine Constitution and The Right To Bear Arms

Image result for gun control Maine

The Maine Constitution and The Right To Bear Arms

Article I, Section 16. To Keep and bear arms. “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

The constitution of the State Maine (1820) was not written to regulate the citizens of the state of Maine. It was written to regulate the government of the State.  In other words, the constitution is not saying that a citizen of the state  cannot question the right to bear arms, but it is saying that a government officials that have sworn an oath to up hold the Constitution of Maine cannot even question the right of Maine citizens to own and bear arms.

You might be asking yourself how could government every change this section of the Constitution? The simple answer is that it could not change this section of the Constitution without breaking the law.  The reason for the concreteness of this section is that the writers believed that the right to bear arms (to protect yourself) is a self-evident truth that no rational person would dispute. If a person is not rational they should be removed from government.  If you do not believe in self-evident truth, well take it up with the founding fathers.

Also note that it does not say members of the militia has right to bear arms, but rather ‘Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms’. It also does not say that we have the right to keep arms for hunting only. Be sizes who bear arms against dear and moose. I think the Maine Constitution being the forth state constitution to be written and being review by Jefferson is a great commentary on the meaning of the US Constitution.  Leave it to Mainers to make it simple.

Call to action: If you hear a Maine official questing the rights of Maine people to keep and bear arms, turn them into law enforcement for breaking their oath of office and the law of the State of Maine, which is its Constitution.

Points to ponder: What does ‘arms’ mean? What does the phrase ‘bear arms’ mean? Who would the people be ‘bearing arms’ against?  What are the limits to bearing arms? Can a person own a rocket launcher or a tank?  Who is to determine the limits of bearing arms, the people or government officials?  Who is the government, the people or the officials?

Carl Jung Thoughts on Atheism

 

In following video, Carl Jung presents some material that should make the new atheist type rethink the virtue of their constant attacks on religion as though virtuous.  Jung points out that a loss of faith and religion is the reason why so many people today are despondent.  Young also shows that a loss of faith tends to move a culture towards State-ism along with the development and growth of a will for power in the human spirit, which results in mental disorders and the totalitarian state.

In a past article I pointed out that atheism is a phenomenon which seems to take place at the end of a civilization and is one of the marks of a decaying culture.  It is hard to tell whether atheism is the cause, or the fruit, of a culture in declension.  However, either way it is not a positive force in the human community.

An honest unbeliever, Dr. E. Wengraf does not seem to share the enthusiasm of the new atheist in debunking people’s faith,  “Every piece of anti-religious propaganda seems to me a crime.  I surely do not wish it to be prosecuted as a crime, but I consider it immoral and loathsome.  This not because of zeal for my convictions, but because of the simple knowledge,  acquired through long experience, that, given the same circumstances, a religious man is happier than the irreligious.  In my indifference and skeptical attitude toward all positive faith, I have often envied other men to whom deep religiosity has given a strong support in all the storms of life.  To uproot the souls of such men is an abject deed.  I abhor any proselytizing.  But still, I can understand why one who believes firmly in a saving faith tries to convert others.  But I cannot understand a propaganda of unbelief.  We do not have the right to take away from a person his protecting shelter, be it even a shabby hut, if we are not sure we can offer him a better, more beautiful house.  But to lure men from the inherited home of their souls, to make them err afterward in the wilderness of hypotheses and philosophical question marks, is either criminal fatalism or criminal mindlessness.”