Second Amendment

[Matthew]

Well, I am not an advocate for coffee by any means, but I would not take things to such an extent, Barbara. Not saying you're wrong, but just that over the years I find it harder and harder to take a black and white position on the small stuff of life. On Religious issues that the Church has defined, yes. But on things like coffee, or was 911 and inside job, or are they really trying to take away american people's guns to prepare for a dictatorship, etc etc, No, I don't think I can make any hard conclusions, though I might feel some valid arguments could be made for various questions on various topics.

[Revnitel]

As a Second Amendment advocate, I will add a word of clarification. This amendment was drafted not only for hunters and for people to be able to defend themselves, no, its primary purpose was to insure the peoples' sovereignty and to insure that tyranny would never result, because the foundation of America was based on the very notion that the people were the sovereigns of their country. And the capability of establishing that sovereignty by being able to rise against tyranny insured that. That is why limitations on the types of weapons people can have and observance of the Second Amendment are mutually exclusive and contradictory. That is why there was a Revolution and a brake from England. That is why there is a Second Amendment. And that is why speaking out against this right is speaking out against constitutional rule and empowering tyranny. If one values the American constitution and American freedom, gun rights is how all this keep about and is maintained. That is the intent of the founders and the guarantor of liberty.

[Matthew]

Indeed, that seems to be a correct estimation of the situation in America. Unfortunately in Canada we do not enjoy such liberties. Nevertheless, I prefer to live in a monarchical state. Not that it is better in all respects, of course, but I grew up honouring our queen, and I am accustomed to having her as our leader and sovereign. And we did manage to get all the basic freedoms that come with democracy and sovereignty that the USA enjoys, but we did it without firing a shot or killing anyone. The down side is that it took us until 1982 to get our right to pass our own laws and get a constitution (which Her Majesty Elizabeth gave us in that year). So, if not in a rush (1776 as opposed to 1982) then a Monarch can be a good thing!

[Revnitel]

The difference for us Americans is that we are a collective citzen sovereignty and not the subjects of a monarch and/or her parliament. We are the arbiters of our liberty and not the recipients of the benefactions of one who exercises fealty over us. The fundamental difference is liberty vs. monarchical consent. We don't need permission to be free. We are free by virtue of being made in God's image.

[Matthew]

Yes, Alex Jones has brought up the very same points. However, this characterisation is rather simplistic and fails to really understand monarchical society, especially one in the category of an Orthodox Kingdom. For if what you say is really the correct evaluation of the two systems, suggesting that subjects of a Christian Monarch are not free despite being made in the image of God as much as citizens of a republic are, then we must conclude that Emperor Justinian, Constantine, on down the line to Czar Nicholas were inferior compared to the United States system of government, that their system was unethical compared to the USA and that the subjects were less free and the image of God was less respected and honoured than under the republic. I believe this is incorrect.

[Revnitel]

Alex Jones was right and told the Truth. It seems he echoed everything that has been said on this very board about the NWO over the years. Do you disagree with that now? Or just the premise that Americans have a right to rule themselves with their own Constitution which is founded on their citizen sovereignty and God given liberty? I don't think Thomas Jefferson was simplistic, nor were any of our founding fathers. I think countries which lack a concept of citizen sovereignty are both deficient in liberty, in understanding and in freedom. That would include nations of the (former) British Commonwealth. The fact of the matter remains we were fully cognizant of what it meant to be unfree British subjects and we chose liberty over it, without nuance or the police state of her majesty, and we established our citizen sovereignty. We are not subjects, but citizens. And try as the monarchists like to argue otherwise, they ultimately derive their rights from their monarch (or lack of them). We derive them from God alone, and that is why the American way is superior. No we aren't talking about Orthodox monarchy, but the British monarchy versus American citizen sovereignty. Yes, I argue that the American government is legitimate without a monarch and is God blessed in liberty for assuring the inalienable and God given (not monarch delineated) liberty of free citizens (who are subject to no one but God alone). Even in the Bible, Israel had different types of government from direct rule by God to judges to a king and God blessed all governments which honored and worshipped Him.

[Matthew]

God bless you, Revnitel. As for trying to address all the points you make which are not all on the same genus of fruit (apples and oranges cannot be used against each other to establish a proposition) I will simply say, nolo contendere because I haven't the time or stamina to sift through and compose an essay on what you have said. I have a job.

Take care, dear brother, and have a good day.

Symeon