In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Revision of the 2nd Amend. & Article V Convention
freedomfighter
Member Posts: 84 ✭✭
See your state enforce the Constitution. Submit a proposed ballot intiative providing opportunity for voters to direct their legislators to call upon congress to convene an article V convention.
It is your constitutional right and when 2/3 of the states legislatures call for one, congress has a constitutional duty to convene states delegates. Long ago they neglected their duty under law. Your state is the enforcer.
I propose these amendments to the 1st and the 2nd. They are very comprehensive to the issues artificially used to justify gun control.
REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.
EXISTING:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
REV. Amendment II
A well regulated Militia and people mentally sound, as they might find through use of the first amendment, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed in the absense of development of the most effective mental health care possible in the interest of the peoples unity under the principles and defense of this Constitution.
EXISTING:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Here is the proposed intiative text submitted in California.
It is your constitutional right and when 2/3 of the states legislatures call for one, congress has a constitutional duty to convene states delegates. Long ago they neglected their duty under law. Your state is the enforcer.
I propose these amendments to the 1st and the 2nd. They are very comprehensive to the issues artificially used to justify gun control.
REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.
EXISTING:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
REV. Amendment II
A well regulated Militia and people mentally sound, as they might find through use of the first amendment, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed in the absense of development of the most effective mental health care possible in the interest of the peoples unity under the principles and defense of this Constitution.
EXISTING:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Here is the proposed intiative text submitted in California.
Comments
Any other alternative points to lunacy and/or ill intent.
Brad Steele
You have referenced this thread in another. From that, are we to take it that you are actually serious in this matter?
While I am all for an Article 5 Convention, I see it as an avenue to re-affirm that which exists in the Constitution, not as a means to replace or, as listed in the OP, add muddled and imprecise phrasing to the document.
Please confirm that this is a joke for those of us who may be just a bit behind the curve as to your sense of humor.
Brad Steele
Freedomfighter:
While I am all for an Article 5 Convention, I see it as an avenue to re-affirm that which exists in the Constitution, not as a means to replace or, as listed in the OP, add muddled and imprecise phrasing to the document.
Please point out the muddling and explain the need for precision that is not already, properly generalized.
From a human standpoint, do you love the "greater meaning of free speech"?
BTW, check the Article V wording in the constitution and you will see it is for amendment not affirmation. The dumbing down (& nwo) can make people believe they are not smart enough to amend so are afraid to support such a suggestion. Where do you stand with that?
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Freedomfighter:
While I am all for an Article 5 Convention, I see it as an avenue to re-affirm that which exists in the Constitution, not as a means to replace or, as listed in the OP, add muddled and imprecise phrasing to the document.
Please point out the muddling and explain the need for precision that is not already, properly generalized.
"Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
And:
"A well regulated Militia and people mentally sound, as they might find through use of the first amendment, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in their homes, shall not be infringed in the absense of development of the most effective mental health care possible in the interest of the peoples unity under the principles and defense of this Constitution."
I do like the phrase, however 'precision that is not already properly generalized'.[:)]
quote:
From a human standpoint, do you love the "greater meaning of free speech"?
I have trouble speaking from a human standpoint, sorry.
Even if I could, I am not at all certain that I wouldn't love the 'greater meaning of free speech', whatever that may mean.
quote:
BTW, check the Article V wording in the constitution and you will see it is for amendment not affirmation. The dumbing down (& nwo) can make people believe they are not smart enough to amend so are afraid to support such a suggestion. Where do you stand with that?
As this statement seems somewhat serious, I will respond.
The failure to ratify any proposed Amendment by more than 1/4 of the State Legislatures would be the affirmation. Such a failure would buttress the original language as law. It would also, at least temporarily, reduce the seemingly accepted practice of viewing that language as outdated and inapplicable.
I would also question the notion that people do not believe themselves smart enough to amend the Constitution. Many believe that there must be an extremely strong case for modification, as it would unsettling to exist in a country where the law of the land can be changed on a whim.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Freedomfighter:
While I am all for an Article 5 Convention, I see it as an avenue to re-affirm that which exists in the Constitution, not as a means to replace or, as listed in the OP, add muddled and imprecise phrasing to the document.
Please point out the muddling and explain the need for precision that is not already, properly generalized.
"Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."/quote:
Hmmmm, technically, with precision generalization, "the primary methods or systems" refers to TV and the internet. It is very uncompromising with wide implication that precisely rest on the root of the problem.
I bet you could speak from a human standpoint just fine, writing from one, however requires right brain discipline over left brain potentials for understanding. Consider, free speech promotes "forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love" and logically where those human emotions are dominant, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is protected.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManusAnd:
"A well regulated Militia and people mentally sound, as they might find through use of the first amendment, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in their homes, shall not be infringed in the absense of development of the most effective mental health care possible in the interest of the peoples unity under the principles and defense of this Constitution."
I do like the phrase, however 'precision that is not already properly generalized'.[:)]
That is very dense with properly generalized precision, implications reaching back to the implications of the first amendment. The first AM, practiced under the conditions following ratification, will produce the most effective mental health care. Once that is properly applied, and conditions of greater safety and security than we have ever known are proven, then perhaps gun control is acceptable. That will be so far down the road though that we will basically be different people. Most importantly, the II Amendment reading that way will get us there. Also, generalizing too far in this case, loses precision with regard to the intent.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Is it anyone's contention that people are more likely to advance liberty in these modern collectivist-infested times, than our founders?
From my perspective, we need to force compliance with the original, by whatever means is necessary.
I would ask why one would believe that a changed Constitution or changed Amendments would be obeyed when the clearly written one that we already have is ignored.
Is it anyone's contention that people are more likely to advance liberty in these modern collectivist-infested times, than our founders?
From my perspective, we need to force compliance with the original, by whatever means is necessary.
Enforcing the original was all I wanted too, but the Article V, which is our constitutional right, does not say enforcement. It says amendment. Like Don explains, non ratification is affirmation, however, if that is unconstitutional, then "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States," controls and the delgates of states with non ratifying representatives report to the state that the congress person or senator is opposing the "Intents and Purpose" of the constitution as the people of the state have seen it and the state deals with them.
The federal exists to assist the states in having a uniform coexistence and maintain maxims that are fully constitutional between the states. The states created the federal under the constitution and have the authority to enforce it.
Consider there is a reason that all representatives must live in the jurisdictions they represent.
Wish it was simpler.
Hmmmm, technically, with precision generalization, "the primary methods or systems" refers to TV and the internet. It is very uncompromising with wide implication that precisely rest on the root of the problem.
I bet you could speak from a human standpoint just fine, writing from one, however requires right brain discipline over left brain potentials for understanding. Consider, free speech promotes "forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love" and logically where those human emotions are dominant, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is protected.
The primary issue I have with the laundry list is that manipulators will use them as limits to the freedom. Just as many argue that the 2nd applies to the militia and push us to an unproductive exercise of defining militia, many will argue that speech that does not support the listed items is not protected.
Obviously speech the promotes harmony will never be as threatened as is speech that creates division and conflict. It is, however, precisely speech that creates division and conflict that advances a society. The original Amendment I is all encompassing 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech'. The ultimate in generalized precision.
quote:
That is very dense with properly generalized precision, implications reaching back to the implications of the first amendment. The first AM, practiced under the conditions following ratification, will produce the most effective mental health care. Once that is properly applied, and conditions of greater safety and security than we have ever known are proven, then perhaps gun control is acceptable. That will be so far down the road though that we will basically be different people. Most importantly, the II Amendment reading that way will get us there. Also, generalizing too far in this case, loses precision with regard to the intent.
Strongly disagree. The suggested replacement for the second is a gun controller's wet dream. Not only does it empower the prefatory clause with the inclusion of the an individual's mental state, it also (apparently) tacks on a provision that infringement becomes fully Constitutional once we achieve 'the most effective mental health care possible'.
If we are to amend the 2nd, I would suggest the following:
'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'
How's that for general precision?
quote:
I see your point, but it be one assumed in fear and serving the illicit control too much. From my perspective, not acting is far more fearful
I have long advocated for an Article 5 Convention for the reason I stated above, to push for clarification that Article 1 Section 8 establishes limits, not goals, and finally that the restrictions on the states listed in Article 1 sections 9 and 10 are specific and are thus limited as written.
Many will point out that there is a risk of an Article 5 Convention in that it opens the door to the complete re-writing of the Constitution. While this is true (Amendment 28 could conceivably render the entire document null and void for example), we must keep in mind that following the Convention, 38 individual State Legislatures must approve each and every change. Radical changes are extremely unlikely, particularly given that population centers become disproportionately under-represented in this system.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
Hmmmm, technically, with precision generalization, "the primary methods or systems" refers to TV and the internet. It is very uncompromising with wide implication that precisely rest on the root of the problem.
I bet you could speak from a human standpoint just fine, writing from one, however requires right brain discipline over left brain potentials for understanding. Consider, free speech promotes "forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love" and logically where those human emotions are dominant, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is protected.
The primary issue I have with the laundry list is that manipulators will use them as limits to the freedom.
Only if we fail to use free speech adequately enough to find the greater meaning for ourselves. People must become involved and more educated and no process enabling the dumbed down can be entertained in fear. The manipulators will certainly try. The "intent and purpose" of the constitution is clear enough in the minds of we the people to expell their twistings.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Just as many argue that the 2nd applies to the militia and push us to an unproductive exercise of defining militia, many will argue that speech that does not support the listed items is not protected.
Obviously speech the promotes harmony will never be as threatened as is speech that creates division and conflict. It is, however, precisely speech that creates division and conflict that advances a society. The original Amendment I is all encompassing 'Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech'. The ultimate in generalized precision.
I agree complely and know, more or less the basis of knowledge of history and law you come from. Good points, Good selection for the ultimate in generalized precision" too. However, you unwittingly share a basis deficient of some profound aspects and those that would manipulate history benefit from. That deficiency underlies the founders inability to use t he greater meaning of free speech in its entirety.
There is the dumbing down, then there is "Missing Knowledge" and that knowledge changes the whole picture and perhaps removes. the capacity for optimism I know while swelling fears you may respond to.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:
That is very dense with properly generalized precision, implications reaching back to the implications of the first amendment. The first AM, practiced under the conditions following ratification, will produce the most effective mental health care. Once that is properly applied, and conditions of greater safety and security than we have ever known are proven, then perhaps gun control is acceptable. That will be so far down the road though that we will basically be different people. Most importantly, the II Amendment reading that way will get us there. Also, generalizing too far in this case, loses precision with regard to the intent.
Strongly disagree. The suggested replacement for the second is a gun controller's wet dream. Not only does it empower the prefatory clause with the inclusion of the an individual's mental state, it also (apparently) tacks on a provision that infringement becomes fully Constitutional once we achieve 'the most effective mental health care possible'.
If we are to amend the 2nd, I would suggest the following:
'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'
How's that for general precision?
Well, if you take it in context, " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." the gun controllers have been pedaling that wet dream for decades. They say "only militia". Not that I agree, but it is stated first.
The "Missing Knowledge" issue I mentioned, has EVERYTHING to do with the context of the constitutional intent implied through free speech and the implications of the first amendment revision supporting the security of a free state. I've intgrated dynamics of group psychology that are very positive.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:
I see your point, but it be one assumed in fear and serving the illicit control too much. From my perspective, not acting is far more fearful
I have long advocated for an Article 5 Convention for the reason I stated above, to push for clarification that Article 1 Section 8 establishes limits, not goals, and finally that the restrictions on the states listed in Article 1 sections 9 and 10 are specific and are thus limited as written.
Many will point out that there is a risk of an Article 5 Convention in that it opens the door to the complete re-writing of the Constitution. While this is true (Amendment 28 could conceivably render the entire document null and void for example), we must keep in mind that following the Convention, 38 individual State Legislatures must approve each and every change. Radical changes are extremely unlikely, particularly given that population centers become disproportionately under-represented in this system.
And all of them are missing the same knowledge. In the light of that knowledge, it is a different picture and significant changes in those conditions, really will not be seen as radical.
The most important thing is that the most effective mental health care prempt the gun controllers. That premption and the effect of free speech enabled will change the conditions. The gun controllers loose credibility in the environment where supremely positive human attributes are invoked; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love. We are justifiably so inurred by garbage TV (manipulation) and other media (manipulation) that the potentials are blunted for us.
The states delegates will be the ones that initiate a change of perspective. The change will be in every state and there will be no representation of the federal government, it is not a state. It is only there to serve the states under the control of the constitution.
Bullpoop.
This whole con-con issue is in my mind, unnecessary and dangerous.
How much more demonstration is needed to show that most of 'we the people' are abjectly ignorant of the Constitution and of the principles it was founded upon?
How much evidence does one need to see that the Constitution is largely seen as a roadblock, an annoyance, or some quaint old document that only rarely is even mentioned in the stampede to tyranny?
The Constitution needs no clarification, the BOR needs no clarification.
I ask again, regardless of what changes one would make, what would possess one to believe that our government would adhere to the 'new improved' Constitution any more than they follow the existing Constitution?
The answer is not in tinkering with the original document. The answer is accountability, forced or otherwise and a con-con ain't gonna get it done.
'We the people' are going to have to step up, or we are lost as a free Republic, regardless of such proposed actions.
As I see it.
quote:The "intent and purpose" of the constitution is clear enough in the minds of we the people to expell their twistings.
Bullpoop.
This whole con-con issue is in my mind, unnecessary and dangerous.
How much more demonstration is needed to show that most of 'we the people' are abjectly ignorant of the Constitution and of the principles it was founded upon?
How much evidence does one need to see that the Constitution is largely seen as a roadblock, an annoyance, or some quaint old document that only rarely is even mentioned in the stampede to tyranny?
The Constitution needs no clarification, the BOR needs no clarification.
I ask again, regardless of what changes one would make, what would possess one to believe that our government would adhere to the 'new improved' Constitution any more than they follow the existing Constitution?
The answer is not in tinkering with the original document. The answer is accountability, forced or otherwise and a con-con ain't gonna get it done.
'We the people' are going to have to step up, or we are lost as a free Republic, regardless of such proposed actions.
As I see it.
+1, simple, straight forward and desperately needed.
I would ask why one would believe that a changed Constitution or changed Amendments would be obeyed when the clearly written one that we already have is ignored.
Is it anyone's contention that people are more likely to advance liberty in these modern collectivist-infested times, than our founders?
From my perspective, we need to force compliance with the original, by whatever means is necessary.
Well put Cap'n, there is absoutely no need for changing the wording, just enforce the thing!!!
quote:The "intent and purpose" of the constitution is clear enough in the minds of we the people to expell their twistings.
Bullpoop.
This whole con-con issue is in my mind, unnecessary and dangerous.
How much more demonstration is needed to show that most of 'we the people' are abjectly ignorant of the Constitution and of the principles it was founded upon?
Again, the "Missing Knowledge" issue clouds the fact that unconsciously, each of knows somehow that the constitution protects our interests, both long term and short term in many ways.
Herein is what is emerging. You know little of the unconscious human mind and your society knows less probably. However, because we each have one, and the unconscious very much controls us because it actually respects needs.
Tell me, when was the last time you had the constitution explained to you relating to the unconscious psychological issues of the group addressed with the social contract?
Natural law is there, but must be identified for another to recognize it. Much natural law relates to our unconscious existence.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:The "intent and purpose" of the constitution is clear enough in the minds of we the people to expell their twistings.
Bullpoop.
This whole con-con issue is in my mind, unnecessary and dangerous.
How much more demonstration is needed to show that most of 'we the people' are abjectly ignorant of the Constitution and of the principles it was founded upon?
How much evidence does one need to see that the Constitution is largely seen as a roadblock, an annoyance, or some quaint old document that only rarely is even mentioned in the stampede to tyranny?
The Constitution needs no clarification, the BOR needs no clarification.
I ask again, regardless of what changes one would make, what would possess one to believe that our government would adhere to the 'new improved' Constitution any more than they follow the existing Constitution?
The answer is not in tinkering with the original document. The answer is accountability, forced or otherwise and a con-con ain't gonna get it done.
'We the people' are going to have to step up, or we are lost as a free Republic, regardless of such proposed actions.
As I see it.
+1, simple, straight forward and desperately needed.
Show me where he constitution identifies who is accountable to who when?
I can show you Article V which says we get to amend under the conditions of 2/3 of the states legislatures calling for congress to convene the states.
As far as I can tell, Article V is final enforcement guaranteed. It happens to look like amendment. Is it oo difficult to agree to amend and therefore for the highjackers get the nation, and your guns?
quote:Originally posted by lt496
I would ask why one would believe that a changed Constitution or changed Amendments would be obeyed when the clearly written one that we already have is ignored.
Is it anyone's contention that people are more likely to advance liberty in these modern collectivist-infested times, than our founders?
From my perspective, we need to force compliance with the original, by whatever means is necessary.
Well put Cap'n, there is absoutely no need for changing the wording, just enforce the thing!!!
Yea Cap'n. Are you Cap'n? If my rights are violated can I call on you to enforce them? Do you think you can do it with your gun?
See what I mean? It's all about agreement and if you tried to get it enforced you would have no way to do so. In an environment where so many are deprived of so much truth, agreement is much more difficult, however, if you know how important it is, maybe you can manage.
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:The "intent and purpose" of the constitution is clear enough in the minds of we the people to expell their twistings.
Bullpoop.
This whole con-con issue is in my mind, unnecessary and dangerous.
How much more demonstration is needed to show that most of 'we the people' are abjectly ignorant of the Constitution and of the principles it was founded upon?
How much evidence does one need to see that the Constitution is largely seen as a roadblock, an annoyance, or some quaint old document that only rarely is even mentioned in the stampede to tyranny?
The Constitution needs no clarification, the BOR needs no clarification.
I ask again, regardless of what changes one would make, what would possess one to believe that our government would adhere to the 'new improved' Constitution any more than they follow the existing Constitution?
The answer is not in tinkering with the original document. The answer is accountability, forced or otherwise and a con-con ain't gonna get it done.
'We the people' are going to have to step up, or we are lost as a free Republic, regardless of such proposed actions.
As I see it.
+1, simple, straight forward and desperately needed.
Show me where he constitution identifies who is accountable to who when?
I can show you Article V which says we get to amend under the conditions of 2/3 of the states legislatures calling for congress to convene the states.
As far as I can tell, Article V is final enforcement guaranteed. It happens to look like amendment. Is it oo difficult to agree to amend and therefore for the highjackers get the nation, and your guns?
What would you amend to that you believe the government would follow, any more than the clear text of what we already have, really?
THAT is the point.
A changed constitution or added amendments will be ignored, abrogated or eroded, just as that which our founders provided to us.
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:The "intent and purpose" of the constitution is clear enough in the minds of we the people to expell their twistings.
Bullpoop.
This whole con-con issue is in my mind, unnecessary and dangerous.
How much more demonstration is needed to show that most of 'we the people' are abjectly ignorant of the Constitution and of the principles it was founded upon?
How much evidence does one need to see that the Constitution is largely seen as a roadblock, an annoyance, or some quaint old document that only rarely is even mentioned in the stampede to tyranny?
The Constitution needs no clarification, the BOR needs no clarification.
I ask again, regardless of what changes one would make, what would possess one to believe that our government would adhere to the 'new improved' Constitution any more than they follow the existing Constitution?
The answer is not in tinkering with the original document. The answer is accountability, forced or otherwise and a con-con ain't gonna get it done.
'We the people' are going to have to step up, or we are lost as a free Republic, regardless of such proposed actions.
As I see it.
+1, simple, straight forward and desperately needed.
Show me where he constitution identifies who is accountable to who when?
I can show you Article V which says we get to amend under the conditions of 2/3 of the states legislatures calling for congress to convene the states.
As far as I can tell, Article V is final enforcement guaranteed. It happens to look like amendment. Is it oo difficult to agree to amend and therefore for the highjackers get the nation, and your guns?
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
A changed constitution or added amendments will be ignored, abrogated or eroded, just as that which our founders provided to us.
No way. The Article V will purge the ignorant because they will shown to be unconstitutional. That is not legal. The states can enforce the constitution through amendment and if they are not allowed they can enforce it upon those in their state who are representatives acting unconstitutionallly under oath to it.
Are you Cap'n? If my rights need enforcement are you the one that can do it? Have you already given up?
We do it together by agreement. Without that we are weak. How do you choose to be?
quote:Originally posted by lt496
A changed constitution or added amendments will be ignored, abrogated or eroded, just as that which our founders provided to us.
No way. The Article V will purge the ignorant because they will shown to be unconstitutional. That is not legal. The states can enforce the constitution through amendment and if they are not allowed they can enforce it upon those in their state who are representatives acting unconstitutionallly under oath to it.
Are you Cap'n? If my rights need enforcement are you the one that can do it? Have you already given up?
We do it together by agreement. Without that we are weak. How do you choose to be?
Are you drunk, or simply a bit 'off'?
Nonsensical blather is all I am seeing.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X[/b]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I really do not see anything specific to enforcement there.
Enforcement is through amendment by delegates an Article V Convention, then agreement, then ratification.
What is it about the constitution that you think cannot be amended, much in the way Jefferson suggested with each generation? It is not through its perfection that the issues of Thelan Paulk laments with inquiry.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=96734
quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
quote:Originally posted by lt496
A changed constitution or added amendments will be ignored, abrogated or eroded, just as that which our founders provided to us.
No way. The Article V will purge the ignorant because they will shown to be unconstitutional. That is not legal. The states can enforce the constitution through amendment and if they are not allowed they can enforce it upon those in their state who are representatives acting unconstitutionallly under oath to it.
Are you Cap'n? If my rights need enforcement are you the one that can do it? Have you already given up?
We do it together by agreement. Without that we are weak. How do you choose to be?
Are you drunk, or simply a bit 'off'?
Nonsensical blather is all I am seeing.
So you've given up pretending you don't understand?
What is it about our existing Constitution, which has very specific and very strict limitations on government that are being ignored, that you fail to grasp.
Why is it that you believe some new Amendment(s) will be followed, when our existing ones are not?
Frankly, your original post with its suggested modifications of Amendment I and Amendment II are ridiculous, nonsensical and stupid, IMO.
What the hell is your issue, really?
freedomfighter, you are rambling and babbling.
What is it about our existing Constitution, which has very specific and very strict limitations on government that are being ignored, that you fail to grasp.
I grasp that fine, I've even filed numerous law suits to learn much more about enforcement, or the failure of it, than you realize. Why do you think I'm doing this?
Consider I'm still waiting for you to show where in the constitution it states we can enforce the constitution or that congress and courts cannot ignore it then how we make accountability if they try.
It is now and always will be about what the states and 'we the people' allow them to get away with.
Government is not going to be restrained by any document, that should be obvious. We have allowed it to grow to big, become to intrusive and act in an outright predatory and tyrannical manner.
I am certain that you are familiar with the old adage of the 'soap box', the 'ballot box' and the 'cartridge box', well, liberties teeth were afforded to us for a reason.
We also have the IX and X Amendment, which at this time seem to be our only available card to play prior to the cartridge box, as I see it.
You keep referencing back to enforcement of our Constitution and BOR's. The answer is above and is codified in the following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Any other questions, freedomfighter?
Any response to my commentary on your, as I see it, unnecessary con-con?
Any comment, response or rebuttal to my calling your proposed changes of Amendment I and Amendment II ridiculous, nonsensical and yes, even stupid, IMO?
At least your last response to me was understandable and I appreciate the clarity of it.
As to why you are on your mission, as I perceive it, I have no idea?
I can only say that your proposed Amendments I and II would be a collectivist's wet-dream and they would weaken the textual prohibitions placed on government by our BOR.
See your state enforce the Constitution. Submit a proposed ballot intiative providing opportunity for voters to direct their legislators to call upon congress to convene an article V convention.
It is your constitutional right and when 2/3 of the states legislatures call for one, congress has a constitutional duty to convene states delegates. Long ago they neglected their duty under law. Your state is the enforcer.
I propose these amendments to the 1st and the 2nd. They are very comprehensive to the issues artificially used to justify gun control.
REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.
EXISTING:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
REV. Amendment II
A well regulated Militia and people mentally sound, as they might find through use of the first amendment, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in their homes, shall not be infringed in the absense of development of the most effective mental health care possible in the interest of the peoples unity under the principles and defense of this Constitution.
EXISTING:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Here is the proposed intiative text submitted in California.
I don't see any reason to change the Bill of Rights. It is perfectly clear as written. We need to get rid of the progressives and elect the traditionalist. Nothing more nothing less.
I don't see any reason to change the Bill of Rights. It is perfectly clear as written. We need to get rid of the progressives and elect the traditionalist. Nothing more nothing less.
I'm not even sure that the election system works as it should across the nation. I am clear on the fact that it was hijacked, if it is still, I can't say.
I know in California there is a decent chance the system works from what I've learned.
It certainly would be better if the traditionalists were running it, but still, if it was hijacked, then they might have been overcome as well.
Realize that the progressives were impowered by media that blurred the differences betwee needs and wants. Such a mental state makes far more profits for corporations and a psychological environment of disassociative indulgence imposed upon populations makes easy work of hijacking opinion.
The true traditionalist will thrive in an environment where the greater meaning of free speech is practiced. Simply because it was the correctness of tradition that got us to a point where the hijacking took over and I would say that is about 1925. Mass media, publishing, became prominant and the great misleading began. Had free speech been more honored in the 1st amendment, the traditionalists would have had a great deal more influence.
I would say that would have been particularly true relating to the 19th amendment, but media made it so only a few had the ability to speak to the new women voters.
Clearly congress, the executive and the judiciary can exceed the limitations placed up them by the Constitution and also directly violate prohibitions placed on them in our enumerated fundamental rights (BOR).
It is now and always will be about what the states and 'we the people' allow them to get away with.
Government is not going to be restrained by any document, that should be obvious. We have allowed it to grow to big, become to intrusive and act in an outright predatory and tyrannical manner.
I am certain that you are familiar with the old adage of the 'soap box', the 'ballot box' and the 'cartridge box', well, liberties teeth were afforded to us for a reason.
We also have the IX and X Amendment, which at this time seem to be our only available card to play prior to the cartridge box, as I see it.
You keep referencing back to enforcement of our Constitution and BOR's. The answer is above and is codified in the following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Any other questions, freedomfighter?
Any response to my commentary on your, as I see it, unnecessary con-con?
Any comment, response or rebuttal to my calling your proposed changes of Amendment I and Amendment II ridiculous, nonsensical and yes, even stupid, IMO?
At least your last response to me was understandable and I appreciate the clarity of it.
As to why you are on your mission, as I perceive it, I have no idea?
I can only say that your proposed Amendments I and II would be a collectivist's wet-dream and they would weaken the textual prohibitions placed on government by our BOR.
The perceptions you have exist in a state not aware or not acknowledging the missing knowledge that secretly controls our world. And do you know what "astroturfing" is? If so the "systemns and methods" part of the revised 1st amendment gain meaning. If you don't know what "astroturfing" is, then find out and realize that about 70% of the internet is such activity when it comes to opinion exchange.
Excellent point about the Declaration of Independence (DI) and the right it confers to enforce. Very good point indeed.
However, in reference to my first paragraph and "missing knowledge", and your point about the Declaration drawing from prior social contracts, I am compelled to do the same and refer to an earlier social contract that structured the tone of the DI and the later reconstruction era civil rights.
The Magna Carta (MC) is recognized by the California state assembly as the first in a series of contracts ending with the California Constitution.
Great, I love it! However, big problem (missing knowledge) the MC is a peace treaty. In that case history left out the war and the victors while the losers agree to follow the clauses of the treaty.
History completely misrepresents the conditions of the motives of the parties. Why you might ask? I would answer that the Archbishop of Canterbury was there to assure that no heresy would be recorded by the church in the making of the treaty. Certainly no admission would be made that the victors were raging heretics.
Again, modern publishing hijacks the truth. Dan Browns novels have a hero with nearly the same name as the Archbishop. What it exposes, rather than any secrets (= missing knowledge) is secret society trivia in a sensationalist atmosphere.
Could you suggest what other, much earlier publishing scam was used to obscure the victors, compelling the treaty that the Magna Carta was?
Yes, cartridge box politics have their place and I would not see that diminished an iota. However, when I create a thread here called "People kill people not guns", about mental health care that could stop the psychotic violence that the gun control psyops has been running (missing knowledge) and no gun rights advocates here jump on the new facts to protect gun rights, I have to draw attention to it again.
I'm talking psychological care that could save lots of lives by helping people to control their behavior, saving a lot of states money too.
Laws say government has to provide experimental medical care (some states) if lives can be lost as a result of the care not being provided. No court will recognize, follow and uphold the law and collude with government to evade lawful action. Why you might ask?
Well, it turns out that human behavior is primarily determined by the unconscious mind. Logically mental health care should treat the unconscious directly. However, such a proposal is heresy therefore government and courts collude to evade.
They want us to relinquish proper mental health care because they want to control us rather than allowing us to control ourselves. They use the instances where loss of control by an individual leads to extreme gun violence to make a case for gun control, but CANNOT be made accountable for the government and courts failure to follow law that would stop the violence.
I like to think that doing the same thing over and over, getting the same results, without changing, is not too functional. All the different boxes, soap, or cartridge or whatever amount to about the same thing.
I propose that treating people rather than controlling guns is far more effective and helps people. Logically if you want your gun rights you should seek to create focus upon the causes of violence used by controllers by compelling the same authority they appeal to, trying to get them to take your guns, to follow laws providing mental health care under the logic that "people kill people not guns."
Can you make a more common sense proposal, more realistic with expectations, law and common sense in the present conditions that can be as reasonably supported by the general public?
Did you know there is no free speech on .com?
EXPLANATIONS of: Curative amendments to the constitution
The revision of the 1st amendment addresses two critical issues. Primary is the literal expression of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Those principles are extended through the specific mention of human social, psychological attributes that promote unity and cooperation which preserve and promote the conditions needed for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Secondary is the Congressional duty of seeing that the peoples practice of free speech is not abridged by powerful forces that might use technology or artificially assembled groups of people to subvert the people natural uses of it. Specifically, the manipulation of the internet from its first form that was properly provided to the people through the usenet, the first form of internet that was subverted and given to commercial interests with .com. This would include television and radio as the human psychological part of the "method" with its the knowledge of themselves or their purposes as they are controlled by the common form of social sharing of information.
Mention of the 1st amendment in the 2nd amendment revision relates the peoples use of the 1st in the proper creation of a well regulated militia as having or forming intents parallel with the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution mentions the ""Law of Nations" (Article I, section 8) and it is referred to in this revision to create continuity under Roman law but as the "people of the day" perceive it.
The mention of "mental health care" in the 2nd amendment is due to the fact that people with violent psychosis who obtain guns, instead of the absent mental health care they need, then commit mass murder etc., which is in turn used by anti gun rights factions to justify un constitutional gun laws. The mention of "mental health care" specifically counters the effect of gun rights activists inability to recognize deficiencies in "mental health care" or taking acttion action to correct them, with regard to preventing the gun violence anti gun rights activists use in attempts to justify un constitutional gun control.
* Through this California State Ballot Intiative, and the Article v Convention the state can contribute to national sustainability, peace and perhaps help to begin to address the many issues of the emergency powers statutes, gatt and nafta while purifying the US government.
Suffice it to say that it merely confirms my previous assessments and, I expect, will speak volumes to those who may read it.
I will simply close by summing up my impression of what you advocate...unbelievable, unnecessary, ridiculous and destructive of textual prohibitions placed on government.
No thanks, I ain't buying any of your snake-oil.
I have a general explanation and integration of the basic reasons I can show for amendment to the BOR.
EXPLANATIONS of: Curative amendments to the constitution
The revision of the 1st amendment addresses two critical issues. Primary is the literal expression of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Those principles are extended through the specific mention of human social, psychological attributes that promote unity and cooperation which preserve and promote the conditions needed for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Secondary is the Congressional duty of seeing that the peoples practice of free speech is not abridged by powerful forces that might use technology or artificially assembled groups of people to subvert the people natural uses of it. Specifically, the manipulation of the internet from its first form that was properly provided to the people through the usenet, the first form of internet that was subverted and given to commercial interests with .com. This would include television and radio as the human psychological part of the "method" with its the knowledge of themselves or their purposes as they are controlled by the common form of social sharing of information.
Mention of the 1st amendment in the 2nd amendment revision relates the peoples use of the 1st in the proper creation of a well regulated militia as having or forming intents parallel with the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution mentions the ""Law of Nations" (Article I, section 8) and it is referred to in this revision to create continuity under Roman law but as the "people of the day" perceive it.
The mention of "mental health care" in the 2nd amendment is due to the fact that people with violent psychosis who obtain guns, instead of the absent mental health care they need, then commit mass murder etc., which is in turn used by anti gun rights factions to justify unconstitutional gun laws. The mention of "mental health care" specifically counters the effect of gun rights activists inability to recognize deficiencies in "mental health care" or taking action action to correct them, with regard to preventing the gun violence anti gun rights activists use in attempts to justify unconstitutional gun control.
* Through this California State Ballot Intiative, and the Article v Convention the state can contribute to national sustainability, peace and perhaps help to begin to address the many issues of the emergency powers statutes, gatt and nafta while purifying the US government.
Couple of quick points.
1. Amendment 1 specifically places limits on Congress, and through incorporation (rightly or wrongly, it is unimportant for the purposes of this discussion) upon State and Local Governments. The suggestion that it be used to empower Congress with the obligation of 'seeing that the peoples practice of free speech is not abridged by powerful forces that might use technology or artificially assembled groups of people to subvert the people natural uses of it.' is 180? out from the original intent.
Your suggestion increases the power of government at the expense of private citizens. Legitimizing 'The Fairness Doctrine' in the Law of the Land does not serve freedom, and will limit free speech to that which a contemporaneous Congress will allow.
Extremely bad and dangerous idea, IMO.
2. Likewise tying the 2nd Amendment to 'Mental Health' empowers Congress, State, and Local Governments with an additional Constitutional tool for restriction. Coupled with the extents you appear to be willing to go in assigning society's ills to mental health and knowledge deficiency, this tool will obviously grow into the most powerful anti-2nd Amendment tool Governments of all types will have.
While it is true that many in our country seem to lack a basic understanding of freedom and the responsibilities necessary (educating oneself being of the highest importance) it is premature, IMO, to codify this condition into law, and empower a benevolent overseer in the form of a transient Congress to correct the problem.
Government is the answer to some problems. Less government addresses more of them.
Brad Steele
I appreciate the lengthy response, freedomfighter. I am not going to go through it point by point, nor address your assertions of my ignorance and my perceptions.
Suffice it to say that it merely confirms my previous assessments and, I expect, will speak volumes to those who may read it.
I will simply close by summing up my impression of what you advocate...unbelievable, unnecessary, ridiculous and destructive of textual prohibitions placed on government.
No thanks, I ain't buying any of your snake-oil.
Since you have not acknowledged an awareness of "astroturfing" then an appreciation of how American society has been recently infiltrated and mislead is not present.
No freedom will result from that.
And, without recognition of the primary social contract or its hidden origins (the Magna Carta), then its contribution to the contracts of this nation, its doubtful that your positions can do anything to extend the peoples authority into the future because you have no idea of their potential.
The draft amendments I propose are for those who would end secrecy and without recognition of the unconscious mind, all you can do is promote it.
quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
I have a general explanation and integration of the basic reasons I can show for amendment to the BOR.
EXPLANATIONS of: Curative amendments to the constitution
The revision of the 1st amendment addresses two critical issues. Primary is the literal expression of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, "Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Those principles are extended through the specific mention of human social, psychological attributes that promote unity and cooperation which preserve and promote the conditions needed for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Secondary is the Congressional duty of seeing that the peoples practice of free speech is not abridged by powerful forces that might use technology or artificially assembled groups of people to subvert the people natural uses of it. Specifically, the manipulation of the internet from its first form that was properly provided to the people through the usenet, the first form of internet that was subverted and given to commercial interests with .com. This would include television and radio as the human psychological part of the "method" with its the knowledge of themselves or their purposes as they are controlled by the common form of social sharing of information.
Mention of the 1st amendment in the 2nd amendment revision relates the peoples use of the 1st in the proper creation of a well regulated militia as having or forming intents parallel with the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution mentions the ""Law of Nations" (Article I, section 8) and it is referred to in this revision to create continuity under Roman law but as the "people of the day" perceive it.
The mention of "mental health care" in the 2nd amendment is due to the fact that people with violent psychosis who obtain guns, instead of the absent mental health care they need, then commit mass murder etc., which is in turn used by anti gun rights factions to justify unconstitutional gun laws. The mention of "mental health care" specifically counters the effect of gun rights activists inability to recognize deficiencies in "mental health care" or taking action action to correct them, with regard to preventing the gun violence anti gun rights activists use in attempts to justify unconstitutional gun control.
* Through this California State Ballot Intiative, and the Article v Convention the state can contribute to national sustainability, peace and perhaps help to begin to address the many issues of the emergency powers statutes, gatt and nafta while purifying the US government.
Couple of quick points.
1. Amendment 1 specifically places limits on Congress, and through incorporation (rightly or wrongly, it is unimportant for the purposes of this discussion) upon State and Local Governments. The suggestion that it be used to empower Congress with the obligation of 'seeing that the peoples practice of free speech is not abridged by powerful forces that might use technology or artificially assembled groups of people to subvert the people natural uses of it.' is 180#65533; out from the original intent.
Your suggestion increases the power of government at the expense of private citizens. Legitimizing 'The Fairness Doctrine' in the Law of the Land does not serve freedom, and will limit free speech to that which a contemporaneous Congress will allow.
Extremely bad and dangerous idea, IMO.
Below is my draft of the revised 1st amendment. What here assigns the expense of increasing government power to private citizens? What the draft revision does is end the secrecy which is used to deceive the citizens into supporting increasing government power without knowing it actually works against their constitution.
Corporations have successfully evaded the fairness doctrine with the secret creation of many false issues, this in collusion with government secretly. But you won't know that.
In this condition real issues cannot be shared with the public. You have an unconscious mind. For example, I wish to share knowledge of our unconscious mind and you are not interested. The unconscious mind is used by the elite to usurp the Constitution.
Without knowing your experience with "astroturfing" there is no way your appreciation for the revised 1st can be qualified because you've not even asserted to have knowledge of the usenet, how it was sold to the public and how it was taken away.
The last sentence, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution." resolves any potential issue that you have mentioned.
REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus2. Likewise tying the 2nd Amendment to 'Mental Health' empowers Congress, State, and Local Governments with an additional Constitutional tool for restriction. Coupled with the extents you appear to be willing to go in assigning society's ills to mental health and knowledge deficiency, this tool will obviously grow into the most powerful anti-2nd Amendment tool Governments of all types will have.
While it is true that many in our country seem to lack a basic understanding of freedom and the responsibilities necessary (educating oneself being of the highest importance) it is premature, IMO, to codify this condition into law, and empower a benevolent overseer in the form of a transient Congress to correct the problem.
Government is the answer to some problems. Less government addresses more of them.
Yes, education is vital. The issue of the Magna Carta, and the truth of the conditions that created it are absolutely needed to realize how government of and for the people operated before the written word.
REV. Amendment II
A well regulated Militia and people mentally sound, as they might find through use of the first amendment, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in their homes, shall not be infringed in the absense of development of the most effective mental health care possible in the interest of the peoples unity under the principles of, and defense of this Constitution.
Are people who are deceived and mislead mentally sound, would they know if they weren't?
If the people could communicate readily and freely they could determine exactly who the mis-leaders are and how they mislead. If they understood, the unconscious secrecy could never be used to control them. In rejecting these draft amendments you embrace secrecy, but you are not educated enough to know that. No offense intended. Your knowledge of the face meanings of our Constitution is better than most.
My issue is that there is secret control that you either do not know of or will not discuss and it has to do with the unconscious human mind which also controls mental health. The draft revisions counter that directly, and the violence, mental illness gun controllers use, but you know nothing of that and instead argue to blindly allow the secrecy to continue.
If this is not true, then you will reveal the secret of who compelled the signers of the Magna Carta and how they did it. Then you will explain why the Washington monument is an Egyptian solar alignment instrument.
Below is my draft of the revised 1st amendment. What here assigns the expense of increasing government power to private citizens? What the draft revision does is end the secrecy which is used to deceive the citizens into supporting increasing government power without knowing it actually works against their constitution.
Corporations have successfully evaded the fairness doctrine with the secret creation of many false issues, this in collusion with government secretly. But you won't know that.
In this condition real issues cannot be shared with the public. You have an unconscious mind. For example, I wish to share knowledge of our unconscious mind and you are not interested. The unconscious mind is used by the elite to usurp the Constitution.
Without knowing your experience with "astroturfing" there is no way your appreciation for the revised 1st can be qualified because you've not even asserted to have knowledge of the usenet, how it was sold to the public and how it was taken away.
The last sentence, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution." resolves any potential issue that you have mentioned.
REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus2. Likewise tying the 2nd Amendment to 'Mental Health' empowers Congress, State, and Local Governments with an additional Constitutional tool for restriction. Coupled with the extents you appear to be willing to go in assigning society's ills to mental health and knowledge deficiency, this tool will obviously grow into the most powerful anti-2nd Amendment tool Governments of all types will have.
While it is true that many in our country seem to lack a basic understanding of freedom and the responsibilities necessary (educating oneself being of the highest importance) it is premature, IMO, to codify this condition into law, and empower a benevolent overseer in the form of a transient Congress to correct the problem.
Government is the answer to some problems. Less government addresses more of them.
Yes, education is vital. The issue of the Magna Carta, and the truth of the conditions that created it are absolutely needed to realize how government of and for the people operated before the written word.
REV. Amendment II
A well regulated Militia and people mentally sound, as they might find through use of the first amendment, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in their homes, shall not be infringed in the absense of development of the most effective mental health care possible in the interest of the peoples unity under the principles of, and defense of this Constitution.
Are people who are deceived and mislead mentally sound, would they know if they weren't?
If the people could communicate readily and freely they could determine exactly who the mis-leaders are and how they mislead. If they understood, the unconscious secrecy could never be used to control them. In rejecting these draft amendments you embrace secrecy, but you are not educated enough to know that. No offense intended. Your knowledge of the face meanings of our Constitution is better than most.
My issue is that there is secret control that you either do not know of or will not discuss and it has to do with the unconscious human mind which also controls mental health. The draft revisions counter that directly, and the violence, mental illness gun controllers use, but you know nothing of that and instead argue to blindly allow the secrecy to continue.
If this is not true, then you will reveal the secret of who compelled the signers of the Magna Carta and how they did it. Then you will explain why the Washington monument is an Egyptian solar alignment instrument.
You operate under the fundamental misconception that documents that were considered during the writing of the DOI and the Constitution have any bearing within the U.S. They do not. The Constitution is rightly the Law of the Land, and references to the 'Law of Nations' when specifically addressing piracy in no way legitimizes the consideration of Natural Law, The Magna Carta, the 10 Commandments or any other external legal or moral framework in the consideration of its function, and in the relationship of our Federal Government with its citizens.
The suggestion that it is the job of the Federal Government to evaluate whether the Koch brothers were 'astroturfing' (or hydroseeding perhaps?) will only ensure that the end result will be a consistent landscape across the country, absent the differences in ideas and thought processes that have historically advanced our society. A homogeneous citizenry is more easily controlled and is more easily swayed, particularly when one establishes a Ministry of Truth to ensure that everything that to be published or broadcast is pre-approved.
If there is indeed the secret control of which you write, the best way to ensure its continuance is to grant a current co-conspirator the power to see to it that such control is stopped.
Brad Steele
If this is not true, then you will reveal the secret of who compelled the signers of the Magna Carta and how they did it. Then you will explain why the Washington monument is an Egyptian solar alignment instrument.
Priceless.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
Below is my draft of the revised 1st amendment. What here assigns the expense of increasing government power to private citizens? What the draft revision does is end the secrecy which is used to deceive the citizens into supporting increasing government power without knowing it actually works against their constitution.
Corporations have successfully evaded the fairness doctrine with the secret creation of many false issues, this in collusion with government secretly. But you won't know that.
In this condition real issues cannot be shared with the public. You have an unconscious mind. For example, I wish to share knowledge of our unconscious mind and you are not interested. The unconscious mind is used by the elite to usurp the Constitution.
Without knowing your experience with "astroturfing" there is no way your appreciation for the revised 1st can be qualified because you've not even asserted to have knowledge of the usenet, how it was sold to the public and how it was taken away.
The last sentence, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution." resolves any potential issue that you have mentioned.
REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus2. Likewise tying the 2nd Amendment to 'Mental Health' empowers Congress, State, and Local Governments with an additional Constitutional tool for restriction. Coupled with the extents you appear to be willing to go in assigning society's ills to mental health and knowledge deficiency, this tool will obviously grow into the most powerful anti-2nd Amendment tool Governments of all types will have.
While it is true that many in our country seem to lack a basic understanding of freedom and the responsibilities necessary (educating oneself being of the highest importance) it is premature, IMO, to codify this condition into law, and empower a benevolent overseer in the form of a transient Congress to correct the problem.
Government is the answer to some problems. Less government addresses more of them.
Yes, education is vital. The issue of the Magna Carta, and the truth of the conditions that created it are absolutely needed to realize how government of and for the people operated before the written word.
REV. Amendment II
A well regulated Militia and people mentally sound, as they might find through use of the first amendment, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in their homes, shall not be infringed in the absense of development of the most effective mental health care possible in the interest of the peoples unity under the principles of, and defense of this Constitution.
Are people who are deceived and mislead mentally sound, would they know if they weren't?
If the people could communicate readily and freely they could determine exactly who the mis-leaders are and how they mislead. If they understood, the unconscious secrecy could never be used to control them. In rejecting these draft amendments you embrace secrecy, but you are not educated enough to know that. No offense intended. Your knowledge of the face meanings of our Constitution is better than most.
My issue is that there is secret control that you either do not know of or will not discuss and it has to do with the unconscious human mind which also controls mental health. The draft revisions counter that directly, and the violence, mental illness gun controllers use, but you know nothing of that and instead argue to blindly allow the secrecy to continue.
If this is not true, then you will reveal the secret of who compelled the signers of the Magna Carta and how they did it. Then you will explain why the Washington monument is an Egyptian solar alignment instrument.
You operate under the fundamental misconception that documents that were considered during the writing of the DOI and the Constitution have any bearing within the U.S. They do not.
The California Assembly considers the Magna Carta as the first in a chain of contracts that ends with the California Constitution. The force of common law today was created by the Magna Carta. Aspects of the US Constitution BOR carry principles first written down in 1215. Fifty-three nations around the globe use the Magna Carta as a model for their social contracts/constitutions. Post cvivil war reconstruction era civil rights show the influence of the Magna Carta.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
The Constitution is rightly the Law of the Land, and references to the 'Law of Nations' when specifically addressing piracy in no way legitimizes the consideration of Natural Law, The Magna Carta, the 10 Commandments or any other external legal or moral framework in the consideration of its function, and in the relationship of our Federal Government with its citizens.
Read how I use the law of nations again.
in context of the intent of the Law of Nations as is held by the people of the day under this constitution, using the first amendment,
It's all about context and intent, not about the literal reference. People need to familiarize themselves with this to keep government accountable. Conquest and war are not apart of our Constitution.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManusThe suggestion that it is the job of the Federal Government to evaluate whether the Koch brothers were 'astroturfing' (or hydroseeding perhaps?) will only ensure that the end result will be a consistent landscape across the country, absent the differences in ideas and thought processes that have historically advanced our society. A homogeneous citizenry is more easily controlled and is more easily swayed, particularly when one establishes a Ministry of Truth to ensure that everything that to be published or broadcast is pre-approved.
It's a lot bigger than 'astroturfing'. Typically the gov comes out and admits they were thinking about what they were actually doing for years, just to regain some impresson of transparency.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein
I have personally seen MASSIVE infiltrations into every arena of American activism. It is disgusting and completely un American, unconstitutional and un acceptable.
quote:My issue is that there is secret control that you either do not know of or will not discuss and it has to do with the unconscious human mind which also controls mental health. The draft revisions counter that directly, and the violence, mental illness gun controllers use, but you know nothing of that and instead argue to blindly allow the secrecy to continue.
If this is not true, then you will reveal the secret of who compelled the signers of the Magna Carta and how they did it. Then you will explain why the Washington monument is an Egyptian solar alignment instrument.
Priceless.
WHy you would leave a tool like mental illness in the hands of the gun controllers to use to compromise your COnstitutional right, I'd like to know.
I mean drug dealers and gangsters have a basic mental problem that probably can be treated, but Noooooooooo, you let them run amok so the gun takers can take our guns. What nonsense.
How about the wakjob conspiracy nut with a pistol. You let them go off and make a giant media sensation that immediately turns into serious talk about cun control?????? WTH????
Then you appear afraid to amend our constitution. Like you can't understand that: forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a good thing.
Dude, are you sure you are here to protect gun rights?
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:My issue is that there is secret control that you either do not know of or will not discuss and it has to do with the unconscious human mind which also controls mental health. The draft revisions counter that directly, and the violence, mental illness gun controllers use, but you know nothing of that and instead argue to blindly allow the secrecy to continue.
If this is not true, then you will reveal the secret of who compelled the signers of the Magna Carta and how they did it. Then you will explain why the Washington monument is an Egyptian solar alignment instrument.
Priceless.
Why you would leave a tool like mental illness in the hands of the gun controllers to use to compromise your COnstitutional right, I'd like to know.
I mean drug dealers and gangsters have a basic mental problem that probably can be treated, but Noooooooooo, you let them run amok so the gun takers can take our guns. What nonsense.
How about the wakjob conspiracy nut with a pistol. You let them go off and make a giant media sensation that immediately turns into serious talk about cun control?????? WTH????
Then you appear afraid to amend our constitution. Like you can't understand that: forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a good thing.
Dude, are you sure you are here to protect gun rights?