"Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms;
and this right shall never be questioned."
by:
Source:
article I, section 16.
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
Until a person has been declared a criminal in a court of Justice (imagine that) or been declared menatlly ill by a panel of physicians.... every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms. And it is a natural right granted by the laws of nature or nature's God. It is NOT granted by the state.
 -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 1
  •  
    Gun grabbers pay no attention to the Constitution whether Maine's are the U.S.
     -- jim k, Austin, Tx     
  • 1
  •  
    We hold this truth to be self evident.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
  •  
    What part of "and this right shall never be questioned" is not clear?
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Doesn't the amendable characteristic of a constitution imply that there will always be a developmental process to any right, and therefore with consideration of the changes inherent of any right or privilege, it will eventually meet it's questioned opposition?
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  •  
    It is the law for the government: you may not question the right.  The rights are and forever shall be out of the hands of government.  The Constitution does not grant rights  rights are not from government.  Therefore the law for the government is that the government may not question the right  they are not authorized to do so.  They may question the prohibitions, but the very foundation of the republican government (not a democracy) is that people are born with their rights, and the government's job is to protect them and may not write laws that abridge them.  That is the Bill of Rights.

    So it is a violation of the Maine Constitution for an elected official to question whether the people have the right or not  they DO, and always will.  If Maine congress people swear to uphold the Maine Constitution then THEY MAY NOT QUESTION THE RIGHT.  Clear as day.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
  •  
    Mr Archer: This idea of constitution is a problem if it inhibits inquiry.  As a human being we need relevant and free flowing information as urgently as free flowing blood in our arteries, and if a constitutional clause blocks arterial information paths we must be prepared to ignore it's stipulations. I'm sorry I'm complicating a little here. The point is that I feel the obligation I have is to bring forth the belief to the idea to people of Maine is that there is no need for firearms therefore no need to question the right, and therefore nullification of the constitutional exercise. We must change hearts and minds to produce the most productive course, therefore I believe the constitutional device is  plagued with primitiveness and must be constructively updated.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  •  

         Sillik, Your entire diatribe is based on a conditional lie. By example: the idea of a constitution in a "republican form of government" does NOT! ! ! inhibit inquiry! You are not complicating anything. You are simply displaying a tyrants misdirection and solution to a problem that does not exist. AND, any change to said Constitution only changes the procedural administration to the inalienable right that exist - with or without a third party governing party. Your attempt to change the meaning of words and scenarios is typical of a socialist's need to deceive.

         Also, your theocratical beliefs and ideas of "need" are a misdirection and and off topic. The topic is "rights". According to your word salad, faculties of birth, such as rights {as is according to nature's law, individual sovereignty and the sentient noble being's creation and articulation} are not conducive to "the most productive course". Please define your vision of "the most productive course". Please be constructive in your (non-ethos related) description with comprehensive, detailed, exhaustive, elaborate, exacting, meticulous, minute and specific articulation so that we lower forms may begin to understand the gods.

    Maine’s Constitution speaks to each individual sovereign “Every citizen” (it does not address a social ethos); it speaks to “right(s)’ - “has a right to keep and bear arms”. And lastly, because Constitutions within the de jure States united uniquely addresses the third party / body politic and not We The People, the clause: “this right shall never be questioned”, is legalese for the inalienable right of the individual sovereign is just that, NOT touchable by the servants that are hired to protect rights and liberty. Procedures may change to protect the right but, the “right” is unalienable No where does "need" enter the topic.


     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 2
  •  
    Mr Archer: A man of reason concludes that if it related to life it simply grows.  The rights of today will have no bearing on tomorrow because men naturally grow. In the future men will look back at the record and be appalled that individuals actually considered shooting others, hence the second amendment. The most productive course  is to open up avenues of change and growth. The firearms supporter is not being challenged on the right to bear arms and therefore it not a productive course because it not being questioned as is the characteristic of infectious social diseases.  The constitution is related to life therefore it will grow and overturn the second amendment.  The most productive course is to believe "the wisdom of the people" will always steer the course of this nation the correct direction and abandon the second amendment as contrary to the beliefs and motives of success of this great nation.

    The individual states will also follow in accordance


     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
  •  

    Lofty ideals.  I don't have a problem with people pursuing non-violent solutions as their 'way' in life.  The issue is how socialists will 'make it so.' 

    A republican knows that morality cannot be legislated and thus works to improve himself and bear witness to the history of the follies of men, so that all of us may learn to avoid the pitfalls.  A democrat (socialist) simply follows the herd — 51 may enslave the 49 if they vote to do so. 

    A republican is personally responsible, a democrat can only blame the leaders of the group and to change anything, they need their leader in power. 

    A republican respects the rights of others as innate and a faculty of birth.  A democrat only has the rights the group leaders allow — some are 'more equal' than the others.

    Socialists favorite slogan is 'change' but never identify what that change is.  "You can make a difference."  Yes, but what difference and should that difference actually be made?  Why?  The common good has been the excuse for every despot, and it is the go-to excuse for totalitarianism all with the help of democrats who have granted themselves the right to vote on how much of your property and labors will go to the state.

    The promises of socialism have never and can never be kept.  It is the very trick of socialism to treat a promise as the real thing, but eventually it is just hot air, and power is sucked from the people in exchange for empty promises.  It is plain as day for anyone who is not invested in the lies...


     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
  •  
    I refer to republicans (small 'r') as those that profess a republican form of government, as has been established by the US Constitution.  I refer to a democrat as one who believes that everything is up for vote, majority rules  you have only the rights the leaders have granted and can be as easily taken away.  Whenever a democrat warns of "losing our democracy" they mean losing their power.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
  •  
    Mr Archer: the biggest change has to be the child into adult. The conventional individual is without a doubt a child ("we are the world, we are the children").  CHILD INTO ADULT is the change we need.  The Socialist says no more playing, the time for constructive labor has arrived.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
  •  
    "The Socialist says no more playing, the time for constructive labor has arrived."  You are certainly right about that, the socialist claims authority over people and dictates what they may do, what is deemed 'constructive' for the state, no more 'playing around' making your own decisions about what is constructive or not. 

    I'm torn as to what this sounds most like, fascism under Hitler or communism under Stalin and Mao (or Xi, Castro, Maduro, Kim, Trudeau, etc.).
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
  •  
    Mr Archer: For the children to be guided to the responsible position by the adult is a unwavering performance of fortitude, courage, devotion, and love.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  •  
    No doubt.  Your arrogance is sure to meet with much resistance.  It is the choice between free will and servitude.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    Mr Archer: Doing the correct responsible action is the true freedom we humans have been seeking since the beginning of our emergence.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  •  
    Mr Archer: We must earn our way to freedom through justification of the freedom.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  •  
    Mr Archer: Its honesty and integrity that meets the most resistance in an psychotic atmosphere that is the conventional societal arrangement and yes I face it daily.
     -- Fredrick William Sillik, Anytown     
  • 1
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2024 Liberty-Tree.ca