First and Second Amendment Rights part 1

I am watching, and know that I am also being watched.

The rest of this post is to establish a backup for my Facebook pages, which appear to have been selectively edited. As a professional author and editor, I recognize the hallmarks of a "discredit" campaign: the stuff which was taken out was what I put there to encourage rationality. 

 

I have posted below, as a first step, the stuff which has remained on Facebook. There was a discourse on each step of King Obama's own press release, beginning with #1 and going through to #14, and several have disappeared, as well as some comments I made in between.

 

Unfortunately, despite my own verification that posts had made it, several of them have disappeared from Facebook. I will no longer use FB as a forum, because it is obviously subject to government censorship, or at least censorship AS ORDERED BY the current administration of King Obama. I cannot even be sure that stuff that is posted on there was written by me, because things that I actually wrote (and verified original posting) have disappeared or been selectively edited.

The first step is to put up what still remains. After that I will put in a new post, one for each piece that was deleted. When done with that, I will continue with the analysis of King Obama's campaign to remove and/or circumvent the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

So, here is what is left of more than twenty posts I put on Facebook.

The next one, I nearly busted a gut laughing:

"14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

Centers for Disease Control? Give me a break. The Presidential Memorandum (royal decree) most likely (especially since no one can access the actual "executive order") is directing the CDC to find that anyone who owns a gun is a potential granola bar (or, as one of my favorite fictional characters says it, "nutty as squirrel ****"), because they are so "inherently dangerous."

OBVIOUSLY, "anyone who owns a gun is a nut case," in our current society, because guns have been portrayed as "evil in themselves" for so many years by the liberal side of this country.

Next thing I expect to see is that King Obama is going to try to force a law through Congress to forbid the teaching of martial arts, because anyone who wants to defend himself is a paranoid schizophrenic. After all, we live in a sane society with no criminal elements, right, so no one needs to be able to defend himself from criminals or the government or police?

So anyone wishing to purchase a gun is now going to have to go through a psychiatric evaluation first? When did psychiatrists get enough knowledge to actually be able to accurately diagnose someone?

This ties in very well with earlier points in this press release:

"4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers."

So now, with the background checks already in place, we are going to have to be cleared by a psychiatrist as well?


[[Several Paragraphs Were REMOVED HERE from my FB post. I will try to recover or replace.]]

Or exercise his or her rights under the Second Amendment?

Or is this more government garden fertilizer, designed to force someone who wishes to own a gun to go under psychiatric care AND THE DRUGS THAT GO WITH IT? To "prevent" future incidents? Or, especially, to prevent government abuses and the negation of the Bill of Rights?

After the laws forbidding private ownership of guns, to be taken in sequence (already working on assault weapons or anything with a magazine of more than ten rounds, with handguns as the next item on the agenda), I expect to see King Obama forbidding private ownership of kitchen knives more than three inches in length, on the basis that they are "unsafe."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/#ixzz2JBlOC3Yg

Here is the next earlier:

Now we are again getting into REALLY SCARY STUFF, from the point of view of a citizen and a patriot.

This next one is so vague that it INVITES comments.

"13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

Let's take a look here: it all sounds so nice in a press release, but what does it really mean, coming from the mouth of a person who is already demonstrated to be committed to destroying the Bill of Rights?

First off, a review: the press release says "anti-gun violence plan." That means that the plan is "anti-gun," the way it is written. That means the originator is meaning to take away YOUR guns, despite the Second Amendment. He is already committed to taking away assault weapons, and magazines of more than ten rounds. Despite the language of the Second Amendment, already discussed.

The Fed has FBI and other SWAT teams, the National Guard, the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force. The nuclear arsenal is in the hands of a person who could not pass a background check to own a handgun. All of them are under the command of a Commander in Chief who will not release information relating to his eligibility for the office he has been elected to. And this person is talking about "maximizing" enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

What does this word "maximize" mean?

max·i·mize (from Dictionary.com)
1. to increase to the greatest possible amount or degree
2. to represent at the highest possible estimate;
3. to make the greatest or fullest use of

I don't think it is necessary to comment, but I am going to do so anyway.

1. to increase to the greatest possible amount or degree

What does this mean? it means to go as far as is possible, as much as you can get away with. THAT IS A LOT, WHEN YOU ARE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. It has literally no restrictions. He is sitting in the same place as King George III, at the beginning of the American Revolution, but without the logistical problems King George faced---3000 miles of transport plus on site supply. He, too, thought he could get away with anything due to his royal birth and position.

2. to represent at the highest possible estimate

Need I say more, in light of the last comment? Exactly what is the highest possible estimate, for the "person" who commands the greatest armed forces and the greatest arsenal on the planet? What does a private person look at, no matter what his resources?

3. to make the greatest or fullest use of

I am not going to say much more here, except that the resources of the entire Federal government and its armed forces could be levied against anyone who decided to oppose this person. It has happened before, during the Clinton administration: remember Ruby Ridge and remember the forces arrayed against the nut case in Waco, Texas. And Clinton was a wimp, which word I would NOT use against this person, because he has the backing of many forces inimical to the United States of America, which they view as the "Great Satan."

 Next earlier:

This is very interesting. Several of my posts had been removed from FB. My comments on King Obama's press release numbers 10, 11 and 12 were GONE. So were numbers 7 and 8. Why was this?

Is someone on FB censoring me, and abridging my free speech rights as guaranteed under the First Amendment? If so, at whose orders are they doing it?

I wrote the above in present tense, and then took a break and had a smoke while I considered whether to post it. When I came back, some of those posts had reappeared. This is becoming very strange. Perhaps I am being paranoid, and this is a FB phenomenon. But I don't believe in coincidences.

Next earlier existing post (note, I wrote these in sequence, so it was easy to see when something disappeared) :

#12 is still missing

"11. Nominate an ATF director."

Sounds innocuous, doesn't it? I think it is a given that the next ATF director, under King Obama, will have as his mission to make it impossible for Americans to own guns, no matter what he has to do to make it so.

The first step will be to make it illegal to own a clip of more than ten or twelve rounds. Even if you bought it years ago. Bureaucratic regulations will require American citizens to turn in large-capacity magazines.

This is how King Obama will circumvent the Constitution: this is not statutory law, which would have to be passed through congress, but bureaucratic law---very similar to IRS regulations, which have never been approved by Congress, and which are so irregular, so tied up in red tape, that NO ONE, not even the IRS itself, understands it.

That leaves it open to interpretation by individuals. This is the last thing we want in gun regulations.

The second step will be to require a Federal license to own a semi-auto weapon of any kind--handgun, rifle, shotgun. Sorry, but the writing is already on the wall. The King is ignoring, already, the Constitution. Ex post facto doesn't mean a thing any more, and neither does the second amendment.

King Obama wants to disarm the American public, so that his own agenda will be effectively unopposed.

Watch for it. jim

Next Earlier existing: Note that #10  and #11 are still missing

 Further comments, in sequence, regarding King Obama's decrees regarding gun ownership:

"9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. "

Looks good in print, but what does it actually mean? Nothing.

The criminals will always be able to obtain guns. They steal them, deal with criminal dealers, and obtain them by means which a normal citizen does not have.
This is simply spin-doctor crap, pardon the language.
In actual fact, it is a means of making it impossible for a private citizen to keep a gun, without prohibitively expensive means of securing it.
So you have a handgun and maybe a couple of deer rifles and a shotgun. Someone breaks into your house and steals them.
Now, according to this, you are liable for the actions taken with these pieces after they are stolen, unless you have an unbreakable gun safe (see #8 earlier).

I realize that this is not written into the statement by King Obama. But does anyone have any doubt as to the actual intent?

Next Earlier:  (#8 is still missing)

A new post: Spin doctor campaign. From King Obama's press release:

"7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign."

Who is willing to make a bet with me that this campaign will make it very apparent that no one should keep guns? I am betting (and I am not a gambling man) that the gist of this proposed spin-doctor campaign will be that it is "not responsible" for anyone to own and keep a gun who has a child in the home or anyone associated with them who is under medical care for psychological conditions, who has ever been arrested for anything, and which will put pressure on police to confiscate weapons from anyone who fulfills conditions as outlined in the campaign?

How many families out there are completely free of "black sheep," of troubled members, and of children?

Once again, King Obama will be trading a promise (which cannot be fulfilled) of security, for a basic right as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Except this time, he will be putting the pressure on----not through the law, which he cannot under the Constitution do, but through the press, which is much more powerful.

Think about it. jim

 Next Earlier Existing: (The second part of this is still missing)

I just noticed a discrepancy in the Fox headline.

I am not sure it is a discrepancy, even with Fox.

It says "anti-gun violence plan."

Note that it does not say "gun related violence plan." It says "anti-gun violence plan."

The way this is written, as read by an author and a person who uses the English language as a tool, is that the "plan" is anti-gun, and violent.

I leave it up to you to decide whether this is an error on the part of Fox news, or a message. Jim Goding

Next Earlier still exisiting:

I promised I would examine the Second Amendment and its language and its meaning. And a few other things.

First, the Second Amendment itself, as approved and adopted by the original thirteen colonies before they would accept the Constitution, and the legislatures and people of every state of the Union before its acceptance into the United States of America:

"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. "

I am not going to be a lawyer and examine any of the decisions made in courts, by fallible human judges, about this amendment since then. I am going to look at the amendment itself.

Let's start with the first phrase, "a well-regulated militia."

At the time of the American Revolution, a militia had several purposes. Among them were dealing with:
attacks by hostile Indian tribes
attacks by foreign powers (remember the French and Indian War)
attacks by bandits and highwaymen
dealing with other criminals,
as there were few actual police or other law enforcement
officers
dealing with encursions by the King's troops
who were by "executive order" from the King and his
delegated commanding officers, committing atrocities
upon our people
Revolution against the King,
who had abused his powers under the laws of England

Note that the militia had no function for hunting. The militia had the function of protecting the people directly against hostile outside forces, criminals, and dealing with a corrupt and tyrannical government, who came in and took what they wanted and punished who they wanted, without recourse to the law.

(See the third amendment: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. ")

Very similar to what we have today. At least in my opinion.
Except today, they at least take the trouble to cloak it in camouflage of the law and spin-doctor trash. Because they know that there are a few journalists and a few broadcast stations and the internet out there to make it public when thy go bad. This was not the case during the American Revolution, when this Amendment to the Constitution was originally adopted as a condition of adopting the Constitution itself.
The right to keep and bear arms had nothing to do with hunting. More about this later.
Enough about the militia, for the moment. Next phrase:

"being necessary to the security of a free state"

The security of a free state depends upon the ability of its people to defend themselves when the government goes bad. In the United States, this definitely includes when the elected officials violate their oaths to defend and uphold the Constitution.
Or when the people, in their infinite wisdom, have elected someone to highest office based on promises and purchased votes, despite questionable eligibility of citizenship, motives, and political alignment.
I can forgive most of the people who voted for the current president for that, because of their ignorance. Despite the fact I am not a Christian, I can forgive them: no one can act rationally based on lack of understood information and purposefully injected false information. The people who voted for Obama were ignorant of the Constitution, ignorant of the Bill of Rights, ignorant of the true motives because of lack of analyses on their own, and they accepted broadcast information as fact which may not have been true.

What I cannot forgive is that no one who had the power to do so forced the questions before the elections. I have to feel, despite the fact I am NOT a conspiracy theorist, that there were things that other people were hiding that forced them, otherwise, to accept this person's eligibility for office.

Back to the "security of a free state." That was not a side trail. It was part of the tracking involved.

In the current environment, private citizens simply do not have the power or the finances to arm themselves to oppose a tyrannical government, which the current one promises to become. It is already "infringing" upon the rights of its citizens to keep and bear arms. It is promising "security" as an exchange for these rights.
Unfortunately, "security" is not a promise it can keep.

With the policies of the current administration, the only arms left in the hands of the American public will be in the hands of criminals and terrorists. Criminals and terrorists can ALWAYS obtain guns and other weapons, of whatever kind they want. They have finances and untraceable contacts for obtaining weapons which are not available to the normal, law-abiding citizen.

Which means, under the current regime (a term unfortunately unfamiliar to Americans) creating a new class of criminals: anyone who wishes to defend his home, his property, his or her children, from attack by criminals or the government.
With the policies of the current administration, it will be next to impossible for a law-abiding citizen of the United States of America to obtain firearms for self-defense, or to defend herself or himself from the United States government or other criminal activity. See the text above: the Second Amendment, and my comments upon it.

Currently, the Obama administration is targeting "assault weapons," despite questionable motives and questionable "facts." For instance, no automatic weapons or "assault weapons" were actually used by the current criminals or nutcases so targeted by the tame press.
Yet these are the CURRENT targets of the administration. ((THERE ARE VERY QUESTIONABLE "facts" here. Look it up on the internet, try youtube.com; that is not my job; I have already looked, and this is NOT a research paper. LOOK FOR YOURSELF!))

Unfortunately those people's lawyers will sidestep the questions involved. That is their job.
There are other questionable "facts" as well, but that is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is to question the right of the Federal government to regulate (infringe) the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Next point: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

This is the point that has traditionally been contested by governments and liberal political parties. They have contested it in a myriad of ways.
They have been opposed in another myriad of ways, unfortunately, most of them incompetent. For instance, the NRA attempted to uphold the Second Amendment on the basis that colonists needed guns to hunt for their families.

Sorry for the language, but BULLSHIT. At this point I canceled my NRA membership, because they were obviously political incompetents. My mother had signed up and paid for lifetime, but she could not obtain a refund. My dad was already dead, but I am sure he was spinning in his grave, or more likely causing earthquakes where his ashes were scattered in the high Rockies.

This Amendment to the Constitution was written and accepted by the colonies because they FEARED THE POWER OF A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. Note the language of the ninth and tenth Amendments:

IX. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

X. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

More on this later, just THINK about it. That is enough of a discourse for tonight.
Right now, since I am still a working stiff, I have to sleep, so I can make a living.
ML Jim Goding


Next earlier existing (The second part of the last one, being written on a different day, only showed up for a few minutes. After that it was gone.):  

There are no further comments on the second amendment or the Bill of Rights still surviving on Facebook. Several of the comments I made have been deleted, and some of the ones above have been edited, not by me. My next post will be trying to restore what I wrote. Hopefuilly my new sites, and the ones I have come back to, will not have been deleted from the net while I sleep.

Jim

Jim Goding