May 26, 2018

Historic Perspective on the Second Amendment Does Little to Stop Mincemeat Making of It

I found Mark Alexander’s piece published at the Patriot Post to be one of the better attempts at explaining the historical background of the founding of the Second Amendment. This piece also includes information from what is described as an expert on linguistics who, it is claimed, understands the use of words and the structure of the Second Amendment at its birth to deliver an unquestioning description of what it meant.

What does this historical perspective actually do that is going to stop what is being described as  “Deconstruction and Repeal of the Second Amendment?” My short answer would be, nothing really.

Whether it is believed or not that the Second Amendment or any other amendment cannot be “amended” matters little when you give what’s been happening an honest assessment. Alexander writes, “Given the preeminent status of the Second Amendment and the growing chorus of leftists calling to amend it until they can rally enough populist support to fully repeal it, we should be clear that our Founders never intended for this right to be infringed.”

Well, what does that mean precisely – to never be infringed?

A dictionary defines the word infringe as: “actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).” and “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.”

In referencing the Online Etymology Dictionary for the word infringe, we find this: “mid-15c., enfrangen, “to violate,” from Latin infringere “to damage, break off, break, bruise,” from in-“in” (from PIE root *en “in”) + frangere “to break” (from PIE root *bhreg- “to break”). Meaning “encroach” first recorded c. 1760. Related: Infringedinfringing.”

The American Language expert says that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted to the people by this Amendment to the Constitution – that it reaffirms the assumption that there is no question of a person’s God-given right. He is directly quoted as saying: “The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional..”

When the expert was asked to present the Second Amendment as it might appear if it were written today, he writes: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”

It is interesting that he chose to replace the word “infringed” with “abridged.”

A dictionary defines abridged as: “shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.” and “curtail (rights or privileges).”

The Online Etymology Dictionary tackles abridged in this manner: “c. 1300, abreggen, “make shorter, shorten, condense,” from Old French abregierabrigier “abridge, diminish, shorten” (12c., Modern French abréger), from Late Latin abbreviare “make short,” from Latin ad “to” (see ad-) + breviare “shorten,” from brevis “short, low, little, shallow” (from PIE root *mregh-u- “short”).

Abbreviate is the same word directly from Latin. The sound development that turned Latin -vi- to French -dg- is paralleled in assuage (from assuavidare) and deluge (from diluvium). Of writing, “shorten by omission,” late 14c. Related: Abridgedabridging.”

Puzzling to me, after this author goes to such lengths to substantiate the exact meaning of the 27 words of the Second Amendment, he would write that there have been no successful attempts to “infringe” on the Second Amendment. He writes: “Historically, there have been no successful attempts to modify the Second Amendment’s assurance of the innate rights of the people to defend their Liberty, but there are now threats to do so.” This was followed by: “That notwithstanding, Second Amendment rights have most certainly been subject to much alteration by judicial misinterpretation and outright activism.”

Is this author suggesting that he is willing to accept those “reasonable” limits on a right he just finished defending as one that is clear-cut, unamendable and shall NEVER be infringed, disregarding all these actions as not infringements? I don’t get it! Isn’t this a direct contribution in and of itself toward the “Deconstruction and Repeal of the Second Amendment?” Many of the same people all aghast at the brazen attempts of late to destroy the Second Amendment fully support putting more and more restrictions on a right this author just described as one that was intended to never be changed. Isn’t this contradictory and perhaps even insane behavior? I’ll say it again, I don’t get it!

Upon examination of the word “infringe” and the American Language expert who might change that word to “abridge” if he was attempting to rewrite what the Second Amendment said in 1789 and how it might be worded today, how can any real supporter of the Second Amendment be willing then, with a God-given right that the Founding Fathers stated as unalienable and “shall never be infringed” see every hurdle in place in order for a lawful citizen to keep and bear arms, as “no successful attempts to modify the Second Amendment?”

What then is the purpose of having the Second Amendment or any other amendment if it can be amended without amending it and infringed upon without infringing upon it?

I understand that probably the author is attempting to delineate between court rulings and other legislative actions that place limits on the Second Amendment as being different than actually changing the wording of the Second Amendment or a complete tossing of the Amendment into the garbage.

Offering all this glamorous historical perspective on what the Founding Fathers meant and what the words and phrases at the time meant is certainly interesting, but so long as the Congress and the Courts can simply ignore any and all of the Amendments and make them into what they damn well please, while Americans applaud their efforts, what good is understanding what any of the Founders meant?

Isn’t this just more of the same of Congress exercising their powers of Article I, Section 8 “To make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

This is easily interpreted to mean Congress will do just as they damned well please. You lose!

Paper documents worthy of nothing I’d say!

Share

Former Justice Steven’s Call For Repeal of 2A Should Be a Call to Repeal Many Amendments

In former Associate Justice John P. Steven’s opinion piece in the New York Times that calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment, he describes the Second Amendment as “a relic of the 18th century.” His belief that the Second Amendment is a relic seems to be based on his narrow interpretation that the only purpose of the Second Amendment was for the formation and useful perpetuation of a “well regulated militia.”

If we, therefore, justify the repealing of the Second Amendment because it is no longer effective and precise today as it was when written, then why stop at the Second Amendment?

For the purest, one would have to ask if the Second Amendment has ever been completely recognized in its simplest form. No other amendment states that the terms of such amendment are qualified as “shall not be infringed.” The dictionary defines “infringe” as “actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)” and “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.” And yet, from the very beginning, someone or group of someones has actively sought to “break the terms” and/or “limit or undermine” the Second Amendment.

If we base our modern appraisal of all the other amendments on whether or not they are fitting and suitable in today’s society according to how they are used and abused by Congress and the Courts, then applying Justice Stevens’ way of thinking toward the Second Amendment, perhaps we should consider repealing the First Amendment.

After all, isn’t it a “relic?” Congress seems to operate liberally in making laws that favor or protect one religion over the other. Mostly in today’s America people are seeking a uniform religion with idealism and ideology as its head. We are already beginning to see the call by some for the State to rid the country of at least certain religions in favor of one.

And how much real free speech do we have anymore? Censorship is running rampant in social media as well are other forms of limitation of free speech on display.

The Press gets to exercise their freedom to the extent that they are no longer reliable for truth. While it is ultimately up to the individual to decern truth from fiction, surely I can argue that such a dishonest and dangerous profession does not deserve a constitutional amendment that will protect their lying and cheating ways providing them an avenue toward propaganda and public influence.

It is rare these days that any protest is a peaceable assembly. Because this is now allowed, evidently the right to peaceably assemble is a relic of the 18th Century.

Of what real value does the Fourth Amendment carry? Your protection against “illegal searches and seizures” works well when it conveniently fits the narrative of the law enforcement/government at the moment. But when the government really wants to disregard that right of protection, no piece of paper is worth the ink that is written on it.

As an example that should be at the forefront of all American’s memory was during the Boston Marathon Bombing fraud. We were being told that the perpetrators went down a particular street and authorities were searching door to door. During this period armed thugs went door to door, breaking them down if necessary, without due process or any consideration of the Fourth Amendment. Obviously, by today’s progressive standards, what use is the Fourth Amendment? Shouldn’t it also be repealed, Mr. Stevens?

Amendment VI: Speedy trial? That’s a joke and has been for a long time.

Amendment X: The Corporate States have only those rights and sovereignty granted to it by the Corporate United States.

This effort pointing out the obvious could go on, but I digress.

It would seem that when ideology, and in particular, political ideology, doesn’t care much for certain bills of rights, the call is to repeal them or demand “reasonable” limitations. Perhaps if the Second Amendment hadn’t become so bastardized from its original intent and the people were actually allowed to keep and bear arms without infringement from any other source, there would be no calling out by some of the people to repeal the Second Amendment in an attempt to rid this nation of private ownership of arms. On the same token, if all the other Amendment had not been so muted and muddled, that protection of rights might be worth fighting to save.

Logical conclusions might be drawn when, upon examination, we discover that along with a downward spiraling society, the more the Second Amendment has been “reasonably” destroyed by all, the more of a problem this nation is seeing when it comes to violence and the ease in which a mentally deranged individual (or not) can enter a school property, or other “Gun Free Zone” and slaughter people.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. I’m not sure what it’s called when you take the same failure and work on increasing the rate of failure hoping for a better outcome.

Thomas Lifson’s article in the American Thinker says that all the events of late about guns and gun violence have resulted in the exposure of the true intentions of the Left. For many decades now, many of us have attempted to expose those seeking to limit or destroy the rights of people, along with our American Heritage, as carrying out acts of incrementalism, i.e. chipping away at those rights one tiny law at a time. Lifson says now we are seeing the true colors and uses the opinion piece of Justice Stevens as proof of the Left’s real intent of a full repeal of the Second Amendment.

I won’t argue with Lifson’s observation. One thing is for certain. The divide in this country grows. Where it will end up is anyone’s guess. One possibility is a terrible one.

The Global Power Structure is in control over all of this. The events we are seeing before us are mostly planned, and being carried out for sinister reasons. Justice Stevens’ call for a repeal of the Second Amendment is part of the plan.

The stage is being set. THEY have been working on it for a long time. It won’t be long before something breaks. What? I don’t know, but for certain something.

Share

Obamacare Individual Mandate Repeal: House of Representatives Should Follow Senate Lead

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Health Care Expert Says Congress Can Fix Gross Violation of Individual Liberty

Mandate to Buy Insurance Failed to Make Obamacare Exchanges Function Properly

Washington, DC – With the Senate version of tax reform containing a repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate, a health care expert with the National Center for Public Policy Research says the House of Representatives would be wise to embrace this restoration of individual liberty as the chambers conference on a final version of the bill to be sent to the White House.

“If Congress can’t repeal Obamacare all at once, then repealing it piece by piece is the next best thing. That’s what the Senate did Friday when it rolled back the individual mandate,” notes David Hogberg, Ph.D., a National Center adjunct fellow specializing in health care policy.

In a new National Center commentary published by the American Spectator, Dr. Hogberg suggests that the House of Representatives “now follow the Senate’s lead” in its own version of tax reform by adding a repeal of the penalty that compels Americans to buy health insurance, so that it is included in the final version sent to President Donald Trump.

“The Senate struck a blow for freedom,” adds Dr. Hogberg, the author of the bookMedicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care Program Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians. “The House should do the same. This was never anything more than a gross encroachment on liberty. Nowhere in the Constitution or in constitutional law is there any justification for letting the government force people to buy health insurance. Chief Justice John Roberts erred greatly when he sided with the Supreme Court’s liberals in letting the mandate stand.”

In the commentary, Dr. Hogberg refutes Obamacare supporters who argue that the Obamacare exchanges will fall apart without the individual mandate. “The individual mandate has never worked as advertised,” he says. “It was supposed to keep premiums low and keep insurance companies in the exchanges. It has done neither.”

Also noted in the commentary:

  • The lowest-cost plan for a 27-year-old has risen 77 percent in cost since the exchanges started operating in 2014. The second lowest-cost silver plan has risen a whopping 88 percent in cost since that time.
  • Exchanges had over 250 insurance companies participating in 2014. In 2018 that number will fall to under 170, a drop of over one-third.
  • In 2014, 76 percent of exchange enrollees had at least three insurers to choose from. Only six percent had just one. Due to so many insurers leaving the exchanges, the percentage of enrollees with a choice of only one insurer will rise to 26 percent in 2018, while those with three or more insurers will fall to 48 percent.

“In short, the individual mandate does not now, nor will it ever, work as Obamacare supporters claimed it would,” writes Dr. Hogberg. “Considering that the mandate is also a gross encroachment on individual freedom, there is no reason why Congress shouldn’t repeal it in the name of tax reform.”

Share

Trump Signs EO: Katahdin W&W Exempt From Direct Review

When word began to circulate through the dark and dank world of the political cesspool of hell that President Trump was going to create an executive order concerning the designation of national monuments, the two fake political sides erupted in polar opposite rounds of ad nauseam, i.e. America will be great again versus, the sky is falling.

Trump has signed his Executive Order. You can read the order and the comments of other criminal politicians working to shore up the hate fomenting rhetoric of their fake political parties. Talk about ad nauseam!!!

Few will take the time to read it or consider anything other than what is spoon fed them. It is much like the teaser and link I just posted earlier today of how everybody loves and wants Nature protected but have little desire to change any part of their lifestyle to take advantage of the millions of dollars taxpayers cough up each year to make it available. I guess this action is a mirror action of creating hunting “opportunities.” I’m sure that’s gone right over your head.

Incapable of mustering an attention span beyond 141 characters, people can and do choose to only digest bits of lies…mostly those they want to hear. However, if you are capable beyond that, you might be still with me on this post.

The Trump Executive Order (EO) is crafted as a “REVIEW.” He wants to review the process of the hows, whys and wherefores that decisions are made to designate lands as national parks and/or monuments. The Antiquities Act, which the lying bastards say gives them authority to designation protected land, was enacted in 1906. Maybe it’s time for a review. At the end of the review process (120 days from the signing of the EO) a report might have suggestions included on how the process can be made better. It doesn’t order the compilation of a list of protected federal lands that should be removed from that protection. Do you get it? It goes something like this: Suggest words that can be used so that the current and all future presidents can continue to do what they are doing but the words will cause people to think they are being hung with a new rope…and like it.

Trump wants specific reviews of all land designations made since 1996 (magical year?) that are over 100,000 acres in size. Maine’s newly appointed totalitarian forest of black flies and mosquitoes, Katahdin Woods and Waters (KWW) falls short at about 58,000 acres.

Unless the review process suggests that there must be some kind of process that follows a bureaucratic procedure to include any and all public input first, and retroactive, it appears Maine’s Katahdin Woods and Waters (and black flies and mosquitoes) is here to stay. However, we are referring to U.S. politics and the lie we all live believing the U.S. is a government of and by the people.

Understand one thing. Obama designated Roxanne Quimby’s land as a national monument for corrupt and political reasons. You and I in that process were nothing more than a bothersome black fly or mosquito. Do you really think anything Trump or his fake Right will do to change what Obama and his fake Left did, will be meaningful? If you do, you don’t have clue about the real ruling establishment or how the global power structure works.

So if you are one of those in Maine who thinks that Governor LePage is going to go to Washington and have lunch with Trump and make America great again, I do have a bridge in New York I’d like to sell.

Share

Utah Senate votes to repeal 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The Utah Senate on Wednesday called on Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment — so that state senators could again select U.S. senators.

It voted 20-6 to pass SJR2, and sent it to the House. It calls for Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1913 to allow people to directly elect U.S. senators.

Source: ConstitutionAlly | Utah Senate votes to repeal 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Share

Second Amendment: a “FUCKING BOY’S COAT?”

*Editor’s Note* – Progressive are really stupid. No really, they are! They so much epitomize the “True Believer” that they are willing to destroy all the good in order to protect the “belief.” Progressives believe that government, laws, social morality, etc. etc. all must change with a changing society. Instead of preserving and protecting those things of value that made us once great, a country of morals and values, along with a strong belief and following of the Word of God, because we desire a decadent lifestyle, along with central control, socialism achieved through fascism, and communism and a ban on self-determination, because it is Progressivism it must be carried out without consideration of the results.

I have said for many years that gun ownership of 30, 50, 80 or 100 million Americans holding onto 100, 200, 300 million guns, is the last and ONLY deterrent from complete dictatorial rule. Progressives, who believe society no longer has a need for guns, evidently desire dictatorial rule. Instead of working to destroy the Second Amendment, they should be thanking those Americans who understand what a RIGHT is and are willing to protect that right instead of pushing for a lifestyle that resembles that of the days of Noah. Yeshua told his disciples, when asked how they would know of His Second Coming, that times would be as they were in the days of Noah. Maybe it’s time to go study up on how things were in the days of Noah.

Talk is cheap, but persuading Americans to surrender their rights will be expensive, difficult, and time-consuming.

Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games. And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the Heller decision. You’re not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution.

Source: Rant: Second Amendment Repeal | National Review Online

Share

5-Point ObamaCare Repeal Plan Proposed

National Center for Public Policy Research Proposes 5-Point Plan for Achieving Repeal of ObamaCare and Replacing It with a Free-Market Alternative

“First You Win the Argument, Then You Win the Vote”

Washington, DC – Saying Congress needs to be more aggressive about repealing ObamaCare, a Washington D.C. conservative think-tank is proposing a 5-Point Plan to help Members of Congress engage with each other and with the American people to develop an alternative to ObamaCare and get it enacted into law.

“Margaret Thatcher once said, ‘First you win the argument, then you win the vote.’ Republicans need a strategy for winning the argument,” says Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow and health care policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

To that end, the National Center for Public Policy Research proposes a 5-point action plan to help Republicans repeal ObamaCare and replace it with a better system:

1. Sponsor Regular Congressional Hearings. Congress should hold weekly hearings on key health care issues, including mounting problems with ObamaCare and alternatives for more free-market reforms. Hearings on the latter will enable lawmakers and the public to debate free-market alternatives and help give ObamaCare’s critics an opportunity to coalesce around one plan. Hearings on the former will help Members of Congress learn from the ObamaCare experience.

2. Hold Regional Town Hall Meetings. Republicans should hold town hall meetings across the nation, soliciting advice from Americans on what works and hat doesn’t work about our current health care system and learn from the public what it believes would help our health care system perform better. These should be high profile meetings structured to allow for maximum public input.

3. Appoint Congressional Working Groups. Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should appoint health care working groups consisting of Members of Congress/Senators they trust who are committed to ObamaCare’s repeal. Each member would be a “go to” expert on a specific aspect of health care reform and act as a sounding board for the leadership. These working groups also would coordinate and participate in such activities as the Town Hall meetings and would regularly engage with the news media.

4. Put Health Care Bills on the President’s Desk. Nothing gets a policy conversation started faster in Washington than sending a bill to the President’s desk. Bills in this instance can include (1) bills that repeal parts of ObamaCare, such as the individual mandate or the so-called ‘Cadillac tax,’ or (2) bills that make legal and permanent some of President Obama’s unconstitutional unilateral actions, like exempting businesses between 50-99 employees from ObamaCare’s employer mandate.

5. Be Transparent. ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber said, “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage… call it the stupidity of the American voter… but basically that was really, really critical in getting [ObamaCare] to pass.” Americans should not have to wait for reform to pass to find out what’s in it.

“Transparency is the enemy of bad legislation. The hearings, town hall meetings, working groups and public debates of this 5-Point Plan will help insure that the process of evaluating, repealing and replacing ObamaCare is done in a transparent manner, which in turn will help insure that the next health care policy approved by Congress is one the American people are happy to live with,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

“Republicans in Congress need to educate the American people about the benefits of free-market health care reform,” says Dr. Hogberg. “We need to repeal ObamaCare and replace it, and 2017 represents our next best opportunity. But it will be a heavy lift getting there.”

Margaret Thatcher offered up another wise saying the GOP must never forget: “You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.”

?”Some Republican elected officials may be tired of fighting ObamaCare, but health care reform is literally a life-or-death matter, and one Americans must continue to work on until we get it right,” added Ridenour.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here.

Share

People Willingly Signing Petition to Repeal Bill of Rights

Share