Featured Post- click on title

The CHRISTIAN part of the Christian States of America

Some time back, in an article called The WHY of the Christian States of America, I explained the reason why we- our country, that is- needed...

Monday, June 6, 2016

TIDBITS- 07 June 2016

“Hate speech” means, roughly, anti-egalitarian speech. It is a way of saying that none can claim the Emperor has no new clothes on at all, because then the herd would panic, and goal Number One is keeping the herd together at all costs. Even if that means we sacrifice our long-term future such that we are undergoing downfall like Rome and Athens did. Especially that.

The liberal college campus where when someone is “triggered” a great witch-hunt is launched shows us the beginnings of this trend. In the future, these groups will not attend the same colleges, but everyone will behave like SJWs, but as if those SJWs were Crips who read Machiavelli. “You disagree with me so you must be silenced” is the new “racism”: of course they disagree, and that is why they separate; they hate each other and the very existence of the other group is offensive. The degree of radicalization that is shortly coming will seem unreal to us, but it’s straight out of West Side Story: if you let the sun set on you in another group’s territory, you will wind up dead and no one will have seen anything or be willing to testify. Cameras and police cars will malfunction. It will be open war to hold territory, which means excluding everyone else.
(More @ link)

There are more than 50,000 blatantly unconstitutional gun laws and regulations on the books across the 50 states today.  Virtually every single one of them other than those that deal solely with constraints on firearms ownership while under felony indictment, imprisonment or post-incarceration supervision is flatly unconstitutional.
That's not my opinion, it's fact, as there is no ambiguity in the Second Amendment just as there is none in the First when it comes to your right of free speech.

There are those who argue that the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written 200+ years ago and we live in a different time.  I'm inclined to agree.  However, what I think is immaterial; what matters to statutory construction is what's on the page.
One, and only one, lawful means exists to modify the Constitution: Write and pass an amendment.
It's hard to do, and it's hard on purpose.  It requires great public support that must either exist already or be developed through a robust debate.  And by the way, The Bill of Rights has a preamble -- a reason for being.  It reads:
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
Have you ever seen that before?  Do you know it's in the original document, and precedes the 10 Amendments that were adopted?
(More @ link)