Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Revision of the 2nd Amend. & Article V Convention

freedomfighter
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.

ballot.init.prop.text.jpg
0

Comments

73 comments

Date Votes
  • Don McManus
    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? 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.
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    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.
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    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.
    0
  • Don McManus
    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 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.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    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.
    0
  • NeoBlackdog
    Freedomfighter, I believe the cheese done slipped off yer cracker!
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
    0
  • Rich-D
    Freedomfighter, I don't intend to be mean or harsh, however here is the only thing that comes to mind. I believe that a "Mentally Sound" citizen could not possibly endorse your proposed changes to our Bill of Rights!
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    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.
    Originally posted by Don McManusIf 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.


    Just by exposure it is stopped. No need to grant anything and the revised amendments do not do that.
    0
  • freedomfighter
    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?
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
    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?
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by NeoBlackdog
    Freedomfighter, I believe the cheese done slipped off yer cracker!
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it!


    It is so broke, that you've lost the pieces. You probably don't even know how Title 42, Chapter 21, ?1988 is being used to remove Constitutional rights since Wilson V Garcia.

    Why didn't you identify the missing victor that forced the signing of the Magna Carta peace treaty? Why didn't you explain why the Washington monument is an Egyptian solar alignment instrument?

    Are you trying to say food jokes and ridicule attempts are better than secrets? Brother, lets keep our guns AND our Constitution by not being afraid to engage each other in agreement that is appropriate for the day and update the social contract JUST as Jefferson envisioned it happenning, but every 20 years
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    quote: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?Factually, what you advocate is nonsensical and contrary to the text of our enumerated fundamental rights.

    Nice babble though.

    As for drug dealers and gang members or the mentally ill, "I" don't let them run amok, government does.

    Here is a simple concept for you to attempt to wrap your 'healthy mind' around...

    Individuals who commit a specific 'bad-act' are to be sanctioned/punished individually for that specific 'bad-act'.

    Wrap your 'healthy mind' around that, then refocus your energy and effort in engendering THAT change, rather than psycho-babble which has the direct effect of further eroding, diluting or outright abrogating any of our constitutionally enumerated, fundamental liberty.

    The only whack-job conspiracy nut I see is YOU.

    YOU are advocating lunatic-esque changes in our Constitution. YOU are fixated on the Magna Carta which is a non-issue as it related to our already codified Constitution.

    Not only do liberty advocates and constitutionalists, like me, have to stand guard against collectivists from the right, center and left who attempt to restrict fundamental individual liberties, but now, I see YOU pop up, babbling about Magna Carta secrets and Egyptian alignments of the Washington Monument and secret jedi-mind tricks... quote: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.Take a step back and look at what you write...dude.

    You propose what are, frankly, stupid revisions to Amendment II, as in... quote: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.You are a fruit-loop, simply put and IMO.

    Look at what YOU wrote...dude.

    'Shall not be infringed' is changed to 'can be infringed' and you go on to attempt to tie your ridiculous nonsensical jabber to the founding principles and the Constitution.

    Unbelievable.

    As for my being afraid to amend the Constitution...if it needs amendment, I would be first in line.

    I must point out, however, that the deadly and clear danger of a con-con and of amending the Constitution is exemplified BY THOSE LIKE YOU and the STUPID ideas, off-kilter desires and liberty destroying filth that dribbles out of your strange mind.

    I rarely label someone in such a manner, but the clown-shoe fits you, perfectly.

    Just so you know. It is what it is.

    Unbelievable.


    *Edit...spelling
    0
  • Horse Plains Drifter
    quote: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.

    This has got to be one of the most assinine things I have ever laid eyes on. Under NO circumstances would I ever support that. "....shall not be infringed.".....read it.....know it....believe in it....
    0
  • Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
    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:Originally posted by Don McManusIf 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.


    Just by exposure it is stopped. No need to grant anything and the revised amendments do not do that.


    Only if the infiltration is performed by Government could it be unconstitutional. Your suggestion, however, that 'Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech' would make it Constitutional, and is (regardless of your protestations of denial) a granting of power to Congress that is not currently possessed.

    I simply cannot get on board with the premise that charging Congress with limiting the speech of some in order to supposedly protect it for others is a good idea. I am sure that I will not like what some will do following the 'Citizens United Decision', for example, but what I do with it is my responsibility, not that of Congress. The correct decision was made.

    All the best.

    Don
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
    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:Originally posted by Don McManusIf 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.


    Just by exposure it is stopped. No need to grant anything and the revised amendments do not do that.


    Only if the infiltration is performed by Government could it be unconstitutional. Your suggestion, however, that 'Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech' would make it Constitutional, and is (regardless of your protestations of denial) a granting of power to Congress that is not currently possessed.

    I simply cannot get on board with the premise that charging Congress with limiting the speech of some in order to supposedly protect it for others is a good idea. I am sure that I will not like what some will do following the 'Citizens United Decision', for example, but what I do with it is my responsibility, not that of Congress. The correct decision was made.

    All the best.

    Don


    I see your point Don, and technically your are correct.

    I cannot see that 'Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech' is really very different than "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech," because in both cases congress must obey he same critria whether they are acting themselves or limiting the action of another entity. In this case corporations that currently have status that is not constitutional from the beginning.

    Either our congress knows what is constitutional and what is not relating to its own behaviors AND those that are empowered under law, while being able to control the behaviors of both, or it does not know and does not act to support and defend the constitution.

    Can we imagine one person abridging free speech. No way. Can we imagine corporations colluding and executing a campaign to do so? Absolutely, and they have. The "astroturfing" issue shows that.

    That link in the last post is about the infiltration that government secretly did.

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

    I am absolutely certain such infiltrations have been happening since 2004 in a large way.

    You will notice in the revised amendments that here is a "check and balance" created in the peoples rights that use the 1st amendment to provide constitutional correction by the people. A lot has changed in 200 years, and our social contract needs to be kept current.
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote: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?Factually, what you advocate is nonsensical and contrary to the text of our enumerated fundamental rights.

    Nice babble though.

    As for drug dealers and gang members or the mentally ill, "I" don't let them run amok, government does.

    *Edit...spelling


    Correct, and it is our duty to stop government from doing that. You appear to be against us honing our tools.
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
    quote: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.

    This has got to be one of the most assinine things I have ever laid eyes on. Under NO circumstances would I ever support that. "....shall not be infringed.".....read it.....know it....believe in it....


    Enforce it in any way possible.

    Why didn't you explain why the Washington monument is an Egyptian solar alignment instrument. Your ommission shows your fear of secrecy. Your position shows your alliance with un constitutional ridicule, or attempts at it.
    0
  • jpwolf
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    You are a fruit-loop, simply put and IMO.

    Look at what YOU wrote...dude.

    'Shall not be infringed' is changed to 'can be infringed' and you go on to attempt to tie your ridiculous nonsensical jabber to the founding principles and the Constitution.

    Unbelievable.

    As for my being afraid to amend the Constitution...if it needs amendment, I would be first in line.

    I must point out, however, that the deadly and clear danger of a con-con and of amending the Constitution is exemplified BY THOSE LIKE YOU and the STUPID ideas, off-kilter desires and liberty destroying filth that dribbles out of your strange mind.

    I rarely label someone in such a manner, but the clown-shoe fits you, perfectly.

    Just so you know. It is what it is.

    Unbelievable.


    *Edit...spelling


    Agreed.[^]

    But after giving the example laid out for all of us some thought, and considering the fact that it is human nature, especially if you are liberal, to "project", I am starting to understand why this poster would include such strange wording as all of this mental health gibberish. He must be afraid....... of himself most specifically. Apparently, if he truly believes in muddling up 2A this much, he has good reason to want "menatl health" wording.

    I think he means to recuse himself from the protection of his new fangled 2nd amendment. He has...... issues. Projection.

    edited to remove unnecessary posting, and to say that I wholeheartedly vote to stick with 2A as-is of course, and to use it as intended when the time comes.[^]

    In the mean time I accept the dangers and responsibilities that come with freedom. I just wish the government would let me, as we already are far from the true 2A.[V]
    0
  • Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
    I see your point Don, and technically your are correct.

    I cannot see that 'Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech' is really very different than "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech," because in both cases congress must obey he same critria whether they are acting themselves or limiting the action of another entity. In this case corporations that currently have status that is not constitutional from the beginning.


    The difference is not technical, freedomfighter, it is fundamental. Currently the 1st Amendment limits Government and only Government from abridging the freedom of speech, etc. Your suggested change (Congress shall see that nothing abridges...) mandates that it ensures that private entities and citizens do not abridge free speech, etc. As private entities and citizens have no enforcement tools, they cannot abridge these freedoms.

    Private entities and citizens can and will make statements and flood the media with information that is self-serving, but these actions in no way threaten the freedom of speech of anyone else. Broadcasters and publishers can control what is presented in the programming and publishings, but this also limits the freedom of speech of no-one.

    quote:
    Either our congress knows what is constitutional and what is not relating to its own behaviors AND those that are empowered under law, while being able to control the behaviors of both, or it does not know and does not act to support and defend the constitution.

    Can we imagine one person abridging free speech. No way. Can we imagine corporations colluding and executing a campaign to do so? Absolutely, and they have. The "astroturfing" issue shows that.


    Sorry, I guess I got ahead of myself.[:)]

    Astroturfing shows nothing of the sort. There is no sensible argument that can make the case that astroturfing abridges any-one's freedom of speech. By definition it creates a falsified movement, and misleads people who allow themselves to be mislead. It does not however, restrict the freedoms of any of these people. Empowering Congress to squelch that which they view as wrong, however, does not address the actual problem, which is rooted in the willingness of people to be mislead.

    I will never be convinced that limiting the freedoms of others can in any way preserve or protect my own, but this is in a nutshell, what you advocate.

    quote:

    That link in the last post is about the infiltration that government secretly did.

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

    I am absolutely certain such infiltrations have been happening since 2004 in a large way.

    You will notice in the revised amendments that here is a "check and balance" created in the peoples rights that use the 1st amendment to provide constitutional correction by the people. A lot has changed in 200 years, and our social contract needs to be kept current.


    I am also certain that government infiltrations occur in arenas where the Constitutionality of it is questionable. The check and balance you mention already exists through our court system, which from a practical standpoint is the mechanism that would be used to redress grievances and defend the Constitution in your re-do.

    Of the changes that have occurred over the past 200 years, the greatest, IMO, is the size, influence and intrusion of the Federal Government upon the private sector. These modifications you suggest can do nothing but encourage more of the same.
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    You are a fruit-loop, simply put and IMO.

    Look at what YOU wrote...dude.

    'Shall not be infringed' is changed to 'can be infringed' and you go on to attempt to tie your ridiculous nonsensical jabber to the founding principles and the Constitution.

    Unbelievable.

    As for my being afraid to amend the Constitution...if it needs amendment, I would be first in line.

    I must point out, however, that the deadly and clear danger of a con-con and of amending the Constitution is exemplified BY THOSE LIKE YOU and the STUPID ideas, off-kilter desires and liberty destroying filth that dribbles out of your strange mind.

    I rarely label someone in such a manner, but the clown-shoe fits you, perfectly.

    Just so you know. It is what it is.

    Unbelievable.


    *Edit...spelling


    Agreed.[^]

    But after giving the example laid out for all of us some thought, and considering the fact that it is human nature, especially if you are liberal, to "project", I am starting to understand why this poster would include such strange wording as all of this mental health gibberish. He must be afraid....... of himself most specifically. Apparently, if he truly believes in muddling up 2A this much, he has good reason to want "menatl health" wording.

    I think he means to recuse himself from the protection of his new fangled 2nd amendment. He has...... issues. Projection.

    edited to remove unnecessary posting, and to say that I wholeheartedly vote to stick with 2A as-is of course, and to use it as intended when the time comes.[^]

    In the mean time I accept the dangers and responsibilities that come with freedom. I just wish the government would let me, as we already are far from the true 2A.[V]


    It appears you are as afraid to amend as lt496, and as unwilling to communicate to fellow Americans the underlying principles in the spirit of enforcement. Or as afraid to recognize that stuff written 200 years NEEDS amendment, particularly IF it cannot be enforced, . . . and you provided NO WAY TO ENFORCE the 2nd, oops, it looks like your gun don't mean that much to you after all.

    Guess what? They are going to take your gun if you cannot address the authority they operate under.

    Well, I am unafraid of my fellow Americans ability to understand and apply the principles of this nation to constitutional amendment.
    0
  • Mr. Perfect
    I'm not going to read all the previous comments on this, but I do want to say this:

    Assuming you are even remotely serious, I have likely never read a bigger pile of horse hockey than this. It is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I have seen a person put into writing on the internet, and I've been reading postings made onto the web for a very long time.

    I actually laughed out loud when I read this part:

    "keep and bear arms in their homes"


    What the sam-hill are you trying to prove here?

    I will say this much, you're making a lot of people look like geniuses by throwing the curve so low. The bell curve has mean-shifted because of you.

    Carry on.

    edit to add: if you're joking, keep your day job.
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
    I see your point Don, and technically your are correct.

    I cannot see that 'Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech' is really very different than "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech," because in both cases congress must obey he same critria whether they are acting themselves or limiting the action of another entity. In this case corporations that currently have status that is not constitutional from the beginning.


    The difference is not technical, freedomfighter, it is fundamental. Currently the 1st Amendment limits Government and only Government from abridging the freedom of speech, etc. Your suggested change (Congress shall see that nothing abridges...) mandates that it ensures that private entities and citizens do not abridge free speech, etc. As private entities and citizens have no enforcement tools, they cannot abridge these freedoms.

    Private entities and citizens can and will make statements and flood the media with information that is self-serving, but these actions in no way threaten the freedom of speech of anyone else. Broadcasters and publishers can control what is presented in the programming and publishings, but this also limits the freedom of speech of no-one.

    quote:
    Either our congress knows what is constitutional and what is not relating to its own behaviors AND those that are empowered under law, while being able to control the behaviors of both, or it does not know and does not act to support and defend the constitution.

    Can we imagine one person abridging free speech. No way. Can we imagine corporations colluding and executing a campaign to do so? Absolutely, and they have. The "astroturfing" issue shows that.


    Sorry, I guess I got ahead of myself.[:)]

    Astroturfing shows nothing of the sort. There is no sensible argument that can make the case that astroturfing abridges any-one's freedom of speech. By definition it creates a falsified movement, and misleads people who allow themselves to be mislead. It does not however, restrict the freedoms of any of these people. Empowering Congress to squelch that which they view as wrong, however, does not address the actual problem, which is rooted in the willingness of people to be mislead.

    I will never be convinced that limiting the freedoms of others can in any way preserve or protect my own, but this is in a nutshell, what you advocate.

    Again I see your points, and again they are correct within what address.

    What they don't address is that corporations, individuals and government are colluding in a fashion that pretty much completely abridges free speech. You don't know that because you haven't tried to share knowledge the infiltration opposes.
    All of this is happening within an environment of secrecy that keeps people from knowing why the Washington monument is an Egyptian solar alignment instrument. The people are not willing to be mislead. They were mislead to not know the difference, and it took almost 100 years. Granpa might have tried to tell the grandkids, but the cartoons on TV were too loud and attractive and ma/pa were busy working or recovering from a hangover. Norman Dodd explained how it started.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7373201783240489827#

    The transcripts.

    http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html

    What was removed that was most important were clues as to HOW the secret infiltration of government was to take place. Therefor no one here has a clue as to why the Washington monument is an Egyptian solar alignment instrument.

    quote:Originally posted by Don McManusquote:

    That link in the last post is about the infiltration that government secretly did.

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

    I am absolutely certain such infiltrations have been happening since 2004 in a large way.

    You will notice in the revised amendments that here is a "check and balance" created in the peoples rights that use the 1st amendment to provide constitutional correction by the people. A lot has changed in 200 years, and our social contract needs to be kept current.


    I am also certain that government infiltrations occur in arenas where the Constitutionality of it is questionable. The check and balance you mention already exists through our court system,

    Nope, the courts (some judges) are actually leaders in the infiltrations. They act as a shield. Have you filed any civil rights lawsuits lately? Do you know how Title 42, Chapter 21, ?1988 is being used since the supreme court decision in Wilson V Garcia? Well I do and we do not have constitutional courts.

    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    which from a practical standpoint is the mechanism that would be used to redress grievances and defend the Constitution in your re-do.

    Of the changes that have occurred over the past 200 years, the greatest, IMO, is the size, influence and intrusion of the Federal Government upon the private sector. These modifications you suggest can do nothing but encourage more of the same.


    Not in the environment where the basic secret is exposed. It changes the whole world and our perceptions of the past.
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    I'm not going to read all the previous comments on this, but I do want to say this:

    Assuming you are even remotely serious, I have likely never read a bigger pile of horse hockey than this. It is quite possibly one of the stupidest things I have seen a person put into writing on the internet, and I've been reading postings made onto the web for a very long time.

    I actually laughed out loud when I read this part:

    "keep and bear arms in their homes"


    What the sam-hill are you trying to prove here?

    I will say this much, you're making a lot of people look like geniuses by throwing the curve so low. The bell curve has mean-shifted because of you.

    Carry on.

    edit to add: if you're joking, keep your day job.


    Ha, you know what? That is a good point. That is why the revisions are drafts and that is why I'm posting here. Thanks! I'm changing it.
    0
  • Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter

    Nope, the courts (some judges) are actually leaders in the infiltrations. They act as a shield. Have you filed any civil rights lawsuits lately? Do you know how Title 42, Chapter 21, ?1988 is being used since the supreme court decision in Wilson V Garcia? Well I do and we do not have constitutional courts.


    This is basically my point. The enforcement mechanism that would have to be used by your 'new' check and balance already exists, and has proven to be less than effective. Nothing in your proposed modification will change this.

    quote:

    Not in the environment where the basic secret is exposed. It changes the whole world and our perceptions of the past.


    I have to get off this boat, now freedomfighter. I had at first thought your reference to the Washington Monument as an 'Egyptian solar alignment instrument' was presented as a joke. If it is a joke, I don't get it, and if it is not a joke, I believe I am beginning to understand why you feel your freedom of speech has been abridged at some point in your life.

    I would wish you good luck in your pursuits, but I see your goals as damaging to the fabric of our society, so I will not.

    All the best (the greater meaning, of course)

    Don
    0
  • jpwolf
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus

    This is basically my point. The enforcement mechanism that would have to be used by your 'new' check and balance already exists, and has proven to be less than effective. Nothing in your proposed modification will change this.


    Don


    Don, I suspect if he was serious, and then capable of comrehension, this thread would not exist based on the point you just made. If anything his "suggestions" make it far more unlikely that enforcement could happen. This is one strange bird if serious. Pegged the BS meter otherwise.
    0
  • NeoBlackdog
    Can someone please tell me what the hell an 'Egyptian solar alignment instrument' is and how it affects the 1st and 2nd Amendments? I only ask so that we all may better understand...
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    quote:Originally posted by NeoBlackdog
    Can someone please tell me what the hell an 'Egyptian solar alignment instrument' is and how it affects the 1st and 2nd Amendments? I only ask so that we all may better understand...


    It's all to be found in the Magna Carta, but you must unveil the secrets of who first forced its drafting.

    Try to keep up, please.[:)]
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter

    Nope, the courts (some judges) are actually leaders in the infiltrations. They act as a shield. Have you filed any civil rights lawsuits lately? Do you know how Title 42, Chapter 21, ?1988 is being used since the supreme court decision in Wilson V Garcia? Well I do and we do not have constitutional courts.


    This is basically my point. The enforcement mechanism that would have to be used by your 'new' check and balance already exists, and has proven to be less than effective. Nothing in your proposed modification will change this.

    quote:

    Not in the environment where the basic secret is exposed. It changes the whole world and our perceptions of the past.


    The missing knowledge returned through equal protecion of law restored and free speech made meaningful is what would change. That is just h peoples capacity to control their government. The revised amendments will create restructured laws which will stop the deterioration of constitutional, lawful government.

    quote:Originally posted by Don McManusI have to get off this boat, now freedomfighter. I had at first thought your reference to the Washington Monument as an 'Egyptian solar alignment instrument' was presented as a joke. If it is a joke, I don't get it, and if it is not a joke, I believe I am beginning to understand why you feel your freedom of speech has been abridged at some point in your life.

    I would wish you good luck in your pursuits, but I see your goals as damaging to the fabric of our society, so I will not.

    All the best (the greater meaning, of course)

    Don


    Thank you Don!

    It's not a joke tho. The fact you don't know why the first presidents national monument is an Oblisk (or what those are for) signifies the degree of dumbing down that has happened. You are very knowledgable and should know that in a normal world. That knowledge would make you much more effective at what you would like to do with what you know.

    My point is this. For the same reason you don't know about the Oblisk, the secrecy I've mentioned has hijacked the government and you don't know it is hijacked.

    There is no free speech on .com. Deprivals of equal protection of law by judges and government deprive me of what I need to make what I say have meaning. They did what they did to keep the secret you don't know, enabling the destruction of the Constitution.

    Our society is destroying itself, a few others and most of the environment with it so I doubt I can do any harm. It might have existed as we dream it for a decade or so, but soon overtaken in the ignorance/fear created with the dumbing down I've documented by referring to Norman Dodd. I can back with facts that our society is destroying itself, but they are off topic and only useful for protecting gun rights IF you stand under all conditions in support and defense of the the Constitution.
    0
  • freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Originally posted by NeoBlackdog
    Can someone please tell me what the hell an 'Egyptian solar alignment instrument' is and how it affects the 1st and 2nd Amendments? I only ask so that we all may better understand...


    It's all to be found in the Magna Carta, but you must unveil the secrets of who first forced its drafting.

    Try to keep up, please.[:)]


    I never said that and you do not know who forced the king and barons to sign.

    And neo has learned today that "an 'Egyptian solar alignment instrument' is an Oblisk.

    Now . . . explain exactly how you will enforce the Constitution cap'n.
    0
  • buffalobo
    quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    quote:Originally posted by NeoBlackdog
    Can someone please tell me what the hell an 'Egyptian solar alignment instrument' is and how it affects the 1st and 2nd Amendments? I only ask so that we all may better understand...


    It's all to be found in the Magna Carta, but you must unveil the secrets of who first forced its drafting.

    Try to keep up, please.[:)]


    I never said that and you do not know who forced the king and barons to sign.

    And neo has learned today that "an 'Egyptian solar alignment instrument' is an Oblisk.

    Now . . . explain exactly how you will enforce the Constitution cap'n.


    fighter, how will your changes enforce the constitution? I don't think you will have much luck with support for the con-con. Those citizens who would participate will see that what you propose is not the solution and could lead to worse situation. What you propose is dangerous, uneccesary and likely to be subverted.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?