♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 31, 2016 0:19:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 31, 2016 10:03:17 GMT
that has ALWAYS been the truth. washington dc had a total gun ban while it was always number one in the country in gun crime. ONLY the most abjectly stupid think that banning guns reduces crime
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on May 31, 2016 13:08:59 GMT
Yes, crime is out of control in cities like Detroit and Chicago with a high black population. That's not a racist comment, just a basic fact. Even more worrisome, is the prospect that crime is likely to get even worse in those cities should Hillary be elected President. She's been applauding the Black Lives Matter movement, which aims to curtail policing of inner city neighborhoods, and to reduce the mostly black prison population. More criminals on the streets and less policing could be a toxic recipe for disaster. ♫anna♫ iamjumbo @menantol
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 31, 2016 13:55:42 GMT
Yes, crime is out of control in cities like Detroit and Chicago with a high black population. That's not a racist comment, just a basic fact. Even more worrisome, is the prospect that crime is likely to get even worse in those cities should Hillary be elected President. She's been applauding the Black Lives Matter movement, which aims to curtail policing of inner city neighborhoods, and to reduce the mostly black prison population. More criminals on the streets and less policing could be a toxic recipe for disaster. ♫anna♫ iamjumbo @menantol It's moral relativism, consumerism and the melting pot mongers which created an atmosphere that destroyed the Black family. The fake civil rights group the NAACP was created and financed by Globalist Plutocrats who envision a one world government. Some of these high finance bankers were direct descendants of the European bankers who financed the slave trade worldwide.
I met a member of the Creoles from Sierra Leone en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone_Creole_people a few months ago. They are the descendants of American African slaves who were repatriated to Africa. They have formed very stabile, low crime communities and keep the diseases of moral relativism and multiculturalism out of their communities. This remarkable man stressed they were always very polite towards these international multiculturalists and seemed very afraid of them. I don't blame him. He was delighted when I expressed my deep admiration for Malcolm X and quoted the African proverb "You need a village to raise a child". This proverb of course doesn't apply when consumerist multiculturalism rules.
You probably only need guns to protect the border to such a community. I'm sure the Native Americans didn't have to arm themselves apart from protecting their borders nor have significant crime when they lived in stabile pre-multuraltural communities. iamjumbo
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 15:48:57 GMT
Those communities (nation states?) which are fundamentally a functional singular culture, have little problem maintaining what they consider as a stable society. The United States is a good example.
While the pseudo historians (such as Howard Zinn) have described a homogenous European culture invading into the Americas, such was never the reality. Even those which settled in the Americas under the protective umbrella of the English monarch were anything but the same. Although quite complex, the enforced mixing of these separate cultures under the Constitution of the United States led increasingly to growing complexities and differences that were not compatible. This resulted was the internal War of the 1860s which only loosely can be defined as a Civil War.
The result of this war has been a created common culture which is as much a myth as a reality. However, to the degree it has worked, the country progressed more or less as a singular oriented culture, in desire if not in fact. That is until the 1880s and 1890s when there was the introduction of the alien concept of Progressivism established on the foundation of European economic socialism and Woodrow Wilson’s ‘Administrative Theory of Government. With these began the intrusion of the concept of cultural moral relevance. That is, one culture is as good as another. While there is no logic or history to support this myth, it has become the operating paradigm by which today we operate.
Anna and I might have interesting dialogs as to causative elements, however, in my opinion that matters less than the reality of the myth of which we must now live which is destructive of the historic cultural ethics and morals that are our roots. The result being that government (nationally) has grown in power and is under control of transitional leaders, meaning that the ethical and moral foundations of government have become watered down with each passing year. Clearly (and historically) this will lead to a form of dictatorial government and the reduction of individual rights.
|
|
|
Post by blc on May 31, 2016 16:33:22 GMT
Yes, crime is out of control in cities like Detroit and Chicago with a high black population. That's not a racist comment, just a basic fact. Even more worrisome, is the prospect that crime is likely to get even worse in those cities should Hillary be elected President. She's been applauding the Black Lives Matter movement, which aims to curtail policing of inner city neighborhoods, and to reduce the mostly black prison population. More criminals on the streets and less policing could be a toxic recipe for disaster. ♫anna♫ iamjumbo @menantol Can you imagine the death rate if police stop policing black neighborhoods? Black on black crime is horrific.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 31, 2016 17:20:23 GMT
Those communities (nation states?) which are fundamentally a functional singular culture, have little problem maintaining what they consider as a stable society. The United States is a good example. While the pseudo historians (such as Howard Zinn) have described a homogenous European culture invading into the Americas, such was never the reality. Even those which settled in the Americas under the protective umbrella of the English monarch were anything but the same. Although quite complex, the enforced mixing of these separate cultures under the Constitution of the United States led increasingly to growing complexities and differences that were not compatible. This resulted was the internal War of the 1860s which only loosely can be defined as a Civil War. The result of this war has been a created common culture which is as much a myth as a reality. However, to the degree it has worked, the country progressed more or less as a singular oriented culture, in desire if not in fact. That is until the 1880s and 1890s when there was the introduction of the alien concept of Progressivism established on the foundation of European economic socialism and Woodrow Wilson’s ‘Administrative Theory of Government. With these began the intrusion of the concept of cultural moral relevance. That is, one culture is as good as another. While there is no logic or history to support this myth, it has become the operating paradigm by which today we operate. Anna and I might have interesting dialogs as to causative elements, however, in my opinion that matters less than the reality of the myth of which we must now live which is destructive of the historic cultural ethics and morals that are our roots. The result being that government (nationally) has grown in power and is under control of transitional leaders, meaning that the ethical and moral foundations of government have become watered down with each passing year. Clearly (and historically) this will lead to a form of dictatorial government and the reduction of individual rights. @menantol America was conceived as an ethnic mosaic and not a melting pot. Perhaps some of the larger cities like New York were somewhat ethnically and culturally mixed. The Mennonites, Quakers, Catholics, Protestants, etc. tended to form their own monolithic ethnic and or religious communities with their churches, towns or cities and surrounding farming land. There was no need or desire for central big government to intervene in these communities. If trouble came to these communities it was usually from non resident intruders.
Woodrow Wilson was a traitor who signed the US economy over to international bankers with the Federal Reserve Act. They soon started their agenda to destroy culture in the US and get Americans involved in senseless foreign wars.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 31, 2016 17:29:01 GMT
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 31, 2016 18:17:48 GMT
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 31, 2016 18:36:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2016 21:45:28 GMT
Thank you for the comment Anna. There is very little you say with which I disagree. Yes, those of the Founders saw the United States as a mosaic and not a melting pot, regardless of the propaganda myths of a pseudo historian as Howard Zinn. If there is a change since the time of the Founders it is as how they saw the demographics of the country, that is, then primarily rural. As we are all aware today it is primarily urban. Moreover, they saw it as separate countries (13 evolved to 50) that establish a ‘limited’ national government (this is established in Article One of the 1783 Treaty of Peace).
National government was (is) to function only within the delegated powers of the Constitution of the United States. Within that context it is delegated no power (except in a very limited Sense) to interfere in any of those local State governments. Education is an obvious one where it oversteps those limitations, as are gun laws, and additional legislation (such as the Posse Comitatus Act that keeps the National Military out of State jurisdictions), the point is that the ‘Founders’ Constitution (ratified by the peoples of the States) controls the federal government. In 1868 the 14th Amendment provided some of the same controls on the federal government to also be applied to State governments. The point being that the Constitution is a contract among the peoples of the various States, that is the people of the various States created this contract, and; as a contract it created a federal government, that is, the federal government is the creature of the contract. That creature exists only in that constitutional contract. And yet. . . . . . . . . as we all are aware, the federal government has gone far beyond its delegated powers.
Woodrow Wilson is an interesting person. He was trained by college instructors who were protégés of Philosopher Hegel and from that came his Theory of Administrative Government which (in short) sees the individual as someone to serve government. That is just backwards to the Constitution but Woodrow Wilson places Efficient government as more important than the Constitution.
At the same time the concept of Progressivism was evolving from poorly received (by the public) concepts of socialism and communism; and, as Classic Liberalism was coopted to mean more to socialism without the label. Overtime Classical Liberalism has all but disappeared, and Liberalism has become more labeled as Progressive-Liberalism, or, nearly the same as Progressive-Socialism. By and large the foundation for all of this was established under Woodrow Wilson.
In addition to that reality, Woodrow Wilson is one of the most racist Presidents we’ve ever had. When he became President he had a fully integrated Civil Service and Military. Since he didn’t believe that whites and blacks could work well together he began the process of ending that integration. If that hadn’t happened, you could make the case that there would have been no need for the demonstrations of the 1960s.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on May 31, 2016 22:45:37 GMT
It's a pity that paranoid conspiracy theories have crept into this thread just as it's a pity that the idea that somehow gun crime in America is all the fault of progressives/liberals/moral relativists or whatever other convenient scapegoat you want to find.
As it happens I am a former gun owner (before Blair took away my right to bear arms) so I strongly support the Second Amendment and wish we could have our freedom to bear arms restored in my country.
But supporting or opposing it isn't necessarily agreeing with the conclusions drawn from comparing chalk and cheese.
As Disraeli said, 'there are three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics.' If you go on statistics alone, for example, states without the death penalty have lower murder rates than those with it. But that's NOT a 'cause and effect' relationship.
Nor is crime and gun ownership.
Let's at least argue honestly rather than trying to muddy the waters.
And if you interpreted the Second Amendment in one way you could argue that prison inmates ought to be allowed to bear arms.
After all, it's their constitutional right!
So it's a question for me of sanity and common sense.
Let the people bear arms but that does NOT mean that some kind of control isn't necessary as well.
It's dishonest to pretend that gun control is the same as REMOVAL of the right to bear arms.
It's only removing the right of those who are either criminal or lunatic to bear arms.
But for some reason that elementary truth seems too hard for some to grasp.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 1:43:28 GMT
It's a pity that paranoid conspiracy theories have crept into this thread just as it's a pity that the idea that somehow gun crime in America is all the fault of progressives/liberals/moral relativists or whatever other convenient scapegoat you want to find. As it happens I am a former gun owner (before Blair took away my right to bear arms) so I strongly support the Second Amendment and wish we could have our freedom to bear arms restored in my country. But supporting or opposing it isn't necessarily agreeing with the conclusions drawn from comparing chalk and cheese. As Disraeli said, 'there are three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics.' If you go on statistics alone, for example, states without the death penalty have lower murder rates than those with it. But that's NOT a 'cause and effect' relationship. Nor is crime and gun ownership. Let's at least argue honestly rather than trying to muddy the waters. And if you interpreted the Second Amendment in one way you could argue that prison inmates ought to be allowed to bear arms. After all, it's their constitutional right! So it's a question for me of sanity and common sense. Let the people bear arms but that does NOT mean that some kind of control isn't necessary as well. It's dishonest to pretend that gun control is the same as REMOVAL of the right to bear arms. It's only removing the right of those who are either criminal or lunatic to bear arms. But for some reason that elementary truth seems too hard for some to grasp. Big Lin, there is a lot in your posting and your points are things with which I am familiar as they are part (only part) of what is offered by those who are antigun. First, let me address your comments relative to paranoid conspiracy theories, as I do not believe that I made mention of conspiracy theories. I do admit to an indirect reference to a person who has written a lot about conspiracy theories (without using that label), and that is Howard Zinn and his book “A People’s History of the United States.” I say that, as it is in the context of many conspiracy theories as replete with incorrect interpretations if not simply out and out mistruths. If that can be considered a conspiracy theory, then I cry (proudly) guilty. I should also say that your comment, “ . . . so I strongly support the Second Amendment and wish we could have our freedom to bear arms restored in my country. . . . “demonstrates a strong difference between your country and mine as to individual rights (gun or not) and a misunderstanding of what the 2nd Amendment represents. As has been most recently demonstrated in Supreme Court cases. First with District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which declared the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right as applied in federal enclaves. Then, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court declared that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right in the various States individually and/or together. This is very different than what I understand exists in your country as the government here cannot ‘take away’ an individual right. In fact, the federal government (as created by the Constitution) has no rights to give and cannot take any rights away except as a power attached to the Delegated Powers (of the Constitution) or through an amendment. This Individual Right (of the right to keep and bear arms) was considered so crucial by the Founders that they emphasized it via the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment is one of the Articles of the Bill of Rights which can be referred to as an exclusionary right. That is, it is not part of a list of rights as much as it excludes the federal government from ‘any’ infringement of that right relative to any citizen who has all rights. Infringement is a strong word usage, even stronger than ‘shall pass no law.’ The federal government cannot enact a different law for a different purpose that even indirectly infringes on this right to keep and bear arms. This is the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. That meaning Original Word Meaning by the Founders combined with the recent two court cases (mentioned above) specifically bans the federal government from infringing on a full citizen’s rights. With the implementation of the 14th Amendment these same restrictions on the federal government were also placed on the State governments. You may have notice my use of the phases, “citizen who has all rights” and “full citizen’s rights.” This is the path into legal (Constitutional) restriction of an Individual Right. For this to occur a specific citizen must have their individual rights restricted by the act of a court. For example, if a citizen is convicted of a felony they do not have full rights, such as they have no right to vote and no right to be armed. However, the government cannot simply remove these individual rights for a category of citizens. Now we both know that such acts of government have occurred but as they eventually reach the court they are reversed and often the citizen is able to receive redress. Interestingly, when it comes to the right to be armed, people (at least some of them) seem to go nuts. They do things like enacting a law that a person legally licensed to carry a weapon cannot carry it in some environments. If we are talking about someone’s home or privately owned business, that private party has the right to bar the carrying of a weapon on his private property. Certainly a governmental jurisdiction has the same right in its owned properties such as a city hall. But there have been attempts to enact local laws for an entire city (private as well as public property) to allow that no one the carrying of weapons. As these cases reach courts they are declared illegal. A person who has been through a court declaring the mentally incompetent also cannot carry a weapon. So what I am saying Big Lin is that your perspective is understood but not applicable here. This is a different country with a different foundation of law. We recognize many of the same problems but have developed our own approach to solving them.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 1, 2016 20:47:41 GMT
Big Lin, there is a lot in your posting and your points are things with which I am familiar as they are part (only part) of what is offered by those who are antigun. First, let me address your comments relative to paranoid conspiracy theories, as I do not believe that I made mention of conspiracy theories. I do admit to an indirect reference to a person who has written a lot about conspiracy theories (without using that label), and that is Howard Zinn and his book “A People’s History of the United States.” I say that, as it is in the context of many conspiracy theories as replete with incorrect interpretations if not simply out and out mistruths. If that can be considered a conspiracy theory, then I cry (proudly) guilty.
There are conspiracy theories in every area of life from the Moon landing, religious conspiracies, left and right-wing nutjobs and David Icke (who's a total fruitcake).
Howard Zinn (like Ernst Zundel and his ilk) is just another looper.
I should also say that your comment, “ . . . so I strongly support the Second Amendment and wish we could have our freedom to bear arms restored in my country. . . . “demonstrates a strong difference between your country and mine as to individual rights (gun or not) and a misunderstanding of what the 2nd Amendment represents.
I beg to differ. I believe we are FAR freer in Britain than we are in America in spite of the attempts of successive British governments to reduce our rights and in spite of the attempts by the EU to destroy democracy by stealth.
I also believe that it isn't me who misunderstands what the 2nd Amendment represents; it's the extremists on BOTH sides of the gun debate.
Of course the gun owners have a vested interest; so too do others who make their living in a gun-related way (such as gun shops, hunters and of course criminals); so too do many of those who support gun control.
As has been most recently demonstrated in Supreme Court cases. First with District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which declared the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right as applied in federal enclaves. Then, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court declared that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right in the various States individually and/or together.
The logic of which is that it's 'unconstitutional' for prisoners NOT to be allowed to bear arms.
This is very different than what I understand exists in your country as the government here cannot ‘take away’ an individual right. In fact, the federal government (as created by the Constitution) has no rights to give and cannot take any rights away except as a power attached to the Delegated Powers (of the Constitution) or through an amendment.
Both Federal and State governments routinely take away individual rights. And your interpretation of the 'rights' of the Federal government is simply wrong. Wrong in fact and wrong in law.
This Individual Right (of the right to keep and bear arms) was considered so crucial by the Founders that they emphasized it via the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment is one of the Articles of the Bill of Rights which can be referred to as an exclusionary right. That is, it is not part of a list of rights as much as it excludes the federal government from ‘any’ infringement of that right relative to any citizen who has all rights.
This was laid down in the eighteenth century when the situation was completely different. To say nothing of the fact that it clearly refers to a 'militia.'
And actually ANY part of the US Constitution - including the 'Bill of Rights' - CAN be amended. It is NOT an exclusionary amendment.
Infringement is a strong word usage, even stronger than ‘shall pass no law.’ The federal government cannot enact a different law for a different purpose that even indirectly infringes on this right to keep and bear arms. This is the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. That meaning Original Word Meaning by the Founders combined with the recent two court cases (mentioned above) specifically bans the federal government from infringing on a full citizen’s rights.
Yes it can. That's wrong in fact and wrong in law. ANY part of the Constitution CAN be amended at any time. Frankly, speaking as someone who's read it many times, about HALF of it NEEDS further amendments.
I could say a lot more but there's not much point.
The US Constitution is NOT holy writ but something drawn up by a bunch of slaveowning men.
Now I've said quite frankly that I'm NOT in favour of removing the right of people to bear arms; I'm in favour of having restrictions and controls which is not at all the same.
I think there are gun nuts on both sides; the extreme pro-gun lobby and the extreme anti-gun lobby.
But like with most things in life moderation and compromise is the way forward.
A blind worship of an eighteenth-century anachronism is only pointing back towards the caves.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2016 21:50:16 GMT
With the following exchange Big Lin you mis state my comments and demonstrate a misunderstanding of the Constitution of the United States: ********************************** This Individual Right (of the right to keep and bear arms) was considered so crucial by the Founders that they emphasized it via the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment is one of the Articles of the Bill of Rights which can be referred to as an exclusionary right. That is, it is not part of a list of rights as much as it excludes the federal government from ‘any’ infringement of that right relative to any citizen who has all rights.
This was laid down in the eighteenth century when the situation was completely different. To say nothing of the fact that it clearly refers to a 'militia.'
And actually ANY part of the US Constitution - including the 'Bill of Rights' - CAN be amended. It is NOT an exclusionary amendment. ********************************* To begin with, an exclusory Amendment merely means that the federal government cannot act in the way which is defined in that particular Amendment and is applicable to the first 3 Amendments directly and indirectly to the 9th and 10th. That is, in this case it (the federal government) is ‘excluded’ from doing anything which infringes on the rights listed in this Amendment. In this case the people, ‘keeping and bearing arms.’ It doesn’t stop any Amendment but the federal government cannot write and implement an Amendment without ratification of ¾ of the States.
It has nothing to do with the year it was written and ratified. It is a contract between the States as to the structure of government and the creation of a federal government entity which is defined in its entirety within that Constitution. As it was understood at the time of ratification in the word meanings of the time (Originalism) so it is today with the same meanings. To change that sans an Amendment destroys the Constitution and the nation.
Your reference to a ‘militia’ has been used many times and is always in error, an error rectified once and for all with the two cases (Heller and McDonald) referred to where the court clearly opinion that this is an individual right. The structure of the Amendment supports that decision of the court.
i.e., "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."
As you will notice the 2nd Amendment is comprised of 2 clauses. The first “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” is a dependant clause and is without meaning on its own. The second clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is an independent clause fully meaningful on its own. That is ,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It shall not be infringe by any federal government act or law or the necessity of having a militia. ***************************
Again Big Lin you are referring to two different things, that is, an Amendment and legislative enactment. Certainly it can be changed by Amendment but it is not the federal government by itself that can make an Amendment but only with the ratification of ¾ of the States. In fact, ¾ of the States can enact an Amendment without the involvement of the federal government.
It matters little if you have read the Constitution of the United States 100 times or more, you have done so without understanding the design or intent of the Constitution or the process of reasons for Amendments.
Your attempt to set aside the existing case law and the existing legal process because you believe that it has a need for Amendments is nothing new, others have done the same feel good unsupported assertions. Apparently on the unfounded assumptions that needed (if actually needed) social changes can only be made by changing (Amending the Constitution of the United States) and that is simply not true. If you strongly feel that way, please feel free to present the case law supporting such a perspective. You surely will not find it from past case law and not from the members of the court and not from nearly all of past and current legal scholars (socialist tripe excluded).
Moreover, your comment, “ . . . A blind worship of an eighteenth-century anachronism is only pointing back towards the caves. . . “ merely demonstrates your lack of understanding of what the Constitution of the United States is and its direct applicability to modern and current situations.
I have to admit to being surprised at your throwing in the old canard of “ . . . something drawn up by a bunch of slaveowning men. . . . “ This is something at best used by those without understanding, and often as an attempt to demean the other side in a dialog.
*************************** Infringement is a strong word usage, even stronger than ‘shall pass no law.’ The federal government cannot enact a different law for a different purpose that even indirectly infringes on this right to keep and bear arms. This is the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. That meaning Original Word Meaning by the Founders combined with the recent two court cases (mentioned above) specifically bans the federal government from infringing on a full citizen’s rights.
Yes it can. That's wrong in fact and wrong in law. ANY part of the Constitution CAN be amended at any time. Frankly, speaking as someone who's read it many times, about HALF of it NEEDS further amendments.
I could say a lot more but there's not much point.
The US Constitution is NOT holy writ but something drawn up by a bunch of slaveowning men.
Now I've said quite frankly that I'm NOT in favour of removing the right of people to bear arms; I'm in favour of having restrictions and controls which is not at all the same.
I think there are gun nuts on both sides; the extreme pro-gun lobby and the extreme anti-gun lobby.
But like with most things in life moderation and compromise is the way forward.
A blind worship of an eighteenth-century anachronism is only pointing back towards the caves. **************************
|
|