Maine Constitution Quote

     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.

The individual states will also follow in accordance

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...