Ironic how a federal government that cannot operate itself under the Constitution, seeks to remove people rights and their guns with new laws. This is only possible because federal courts will not recognize, follow and uphold U.S. laws.
People have filed federal suits against municipalities to initiate mental health care that would provide real alternatives to crazies who cannot control themselves. What happens? Well, we see the federal courts completely colluding with municipalities to enable evasion of state heath and welfare laws. We see the supreme court making local court rules designed to be unconstitutionally abrogated completely removing pro se access to courts, if they choose.
And they choose to because they WANT mental cases with guns conducting mass murders. They love it! It gives powerful impetus to their attempts to compromise the 2nd amendment.
Gee, how do we enforce the constitution on the supreme court and congress? Well, after examining the constitution, we find Article V. Surprising how few Americans know what it is. It defines that amendment of the constitution is the only possible way citizens of states can do anything like enforcement of it. Learn some facts about what an Article V Convention is.
http://www.foa5c.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=2Firstly, there have been many more times the needed state applications for an Article V Convention mandating congress convene a convention, they have not. Essentially congress is in violation of the constitution. This is not ambiguous. Is there any surprise gun rights under the 2nd amendment are being compromised?
Now, there are a bunch of Americans that are afraid of amendment. As if Americans don't know what they need and deserve under the constitution. This fear is promoted even by gun rights activists! Yes, they cling to unrealistic fears of "runaway convention" and the "elites using the opportunity to gain control". Nonsense, IF Americans look closely at the rights the Constitution sets forth that extend the principles Declaration of Independence.
Did Thomas Jefferson imply the Constitution was perfect and we should be afraid to change it? No, the reverse, he wrote that every 20 years we should have a small revolution and amend it so it keeps up with the changes in the nation. Logical. However in the never ending spin and manipulation of us by information from media, people know very little about the underlying principles of U.S. law.
It is simple. The Declaration of Independence protects "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution provides the 1st amendment so people can talk about HOW to protect, and the 2nd if discussion fails or there is a decision that the constitution is endangered to a degree where life is threatened. Now, what I've learned is that there are specific human emotions, basically instincts that can be awoken by discussion that are very positive, very peaceful and very powerful for human unity. Particularly when true justice is beheld, understood and supported
One problem. Free speech is completely trampled and cannot be given meaning in the environment of no access to national broadcasting. Media corporations have full access to mislead, corrupt and exploit Americans, but citizens with insight into the Constitution have no way to share meaningfully.
No, this medium, the internet does not protect free speech. This is all private property and if you are out of line with what site owner want, you are banned.
Gun rights are vital so I'm here hoping admins can respect the constitution despite their power.
Accordingly, I discovered a concept in researching old American history that indicates there is a thing called,
The Greater Meaning of Free Speech. It is something that is a product of using free speech and the human attribute (the most positive) called
understanding. From the understanding can come;
forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.[/i] This was not incorporated orginally, it appears, that was because religion felt that it would detract focus upon their purposes which are presented as the same.
These are things we try to teach our children so they might get along with their community better. We Americans should revise the first amendment so our national principles hold this concept for generations to follow. The 2nd amendment can benefit by requiring that the first amendment be a dominate, assuring their is communication before shooting if possible. The second can also protect gun rights by assuring that the very best mental health care is at least available, which it is not.
If government wants to control guns, it must follow laws that state the best medical care possible should be available so people with mental problems can seek effective help BEFORE resorting to violence.
In this economy (created by unconstitutional federal/corporate economic manipulation) people need mental health care more than ever or they are going to want a gun for survival or protection.
I have submitted text for a proposed California Ballot Initiative that can provide opportunity for citizens to direct their state legislation to communicate with other states about their ignored applications and then apply to congress for an Article V Convention.
If you truly support the 2nd amendment under the constitution, the 5th Article of the constitution needs to be upheld in order to logically and lawfully uphold the 2nd.
Please post your thoughts here on this proposal.
ON EDIT:
Realize that aquiesing to a deprival shows acceptance of it in the world of contract law. The Constitution is a social contract, simply by 34 states legislation applying for a convention to amend, congress must convene delegate.
Even if you have no idea of how you might amend, your right to do so diminishes with each allowed congressional failure to convene.
