Second Amendment IMHO

On a forum the question was asked:"How far will you go with "shall not be infringed"? Not in a what will you do, but what should we have done legislatively. Below is my response.
Shall not be infringed:
I will try to cover most bases but I am sure I will miss a few.
Everyone who is a US citizen, and walking on the outside (not incarcerated) should have the right to bear arms in my opinion. Self defense is a basic right of all living beings, including plants and animals. It is the natural way.
Types of arms: For lack of a better term “the cat is out of the bag.” If there is a chance, however slight, that I may come up against a threat with any weapon imaginable (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Conventional or Explosive) I believe I have the right to defend as I see fit within my means. This does not mean I am owed a chem. suit, Barrett 50 cal, and an M16 by birthright, but if I can provide these tools for myself and family I should have that right. If I think, and can provide, claymores and defensive charges on my property that should be my right. You want them on yours, cool we can talk placement and compare and contrast our options. But what about “public safety”? Fine legislate that I must post if NBC, or explosives defenses or weapons are in the area, but do not infringe my right to have them. In regards to firearms in particular, arms of a military origin should be the norm if desired for tactics and defense. This was their sole purpose in design, to allow you to kill instead of being killed. Legislate an ownership requirement such as the cards required in Illinois and DC, or a registration list? Violations in my opinion. No public safety claim can be legitimized under these, similar to “3 million jobs created or saved.” Not a legitimate statistic or verifiable claim through an actual study of facts.
Felons, if they have “paid their debt” should be allowed ALL of the natural, “unalienable”, and Constitutional rights. If they cannot be trusted with the basic right of self defense, or they have done a crime so heinous we as a society choose to remove that right, remove the person. Death is not required, banishment, imprisonment and death are all options. Just as any other defensive action…remove the threat, not the rights and abilities of the threatened. Removing the 2A from some one “charged or accused” of any crime is a definite violation, “innocent until proven guilty” should not be a catch phrase, but a culture.
Class III should be a third level training class, not a government classification.
If you act improperly with the above rights, we as your neighbors and fellow citizens have an opportunity and in-fact in obligation to respond with force. This is where a jurisdictional police force, posse, and a very limited federal government could come into play. This is where legislation comes in again. The idea of legislating what I “might do” is another breach of the innocent until proven guilty culture. If I want to run around naked and anally rape dogs, the elderly and everything else with less than 6 legs, no law will stop me, nor should it pretend to. Now if you want to legislate that anyone doing the previous, individually or as a whole, are sentenced to the punishments listed under the felons subject that would be allowed and “fair.” It would not prevent the illegal activity, but would outline the “what if” that a potential criminal can weigh out as pros/cons. Crimes happen, just like accidents and we should all have the ability to defend and react to both. The ATF, FFL, 4473 and such are not directly allowed under the specific Amendment but subsequent legislation that I believe should be repealed. I understand I am on the “extremist minority” with this, and am willing to accept some of the above mentioned violations to keep the peace with the majority. You did however ask for opinions and this is mine, “shall not be infringed” is an intentionally simple and plainly worded statement.

Rant over, thanks…
Jason

What Constitution?

What Constitution? They can beat a Pastor because they said so.


Watch yourself boys and girls,
Jason
III

For more offical evil deeds in AZ CLICK HERE

Bailouts, Stimulus, any Tramps of the Bill of Rights

Nuff said,

Jason

III

Good Drugs vs. Bad Drugs

The "O" has shown us again his infinite, infantile, wisdom, and himself to be a strong supporter of liberty and individual rights. With one of his newest rumored appointments Sanjay Gupta. Here is a quote from the good doctor:

"Perhaps. But I'm here to tell you, as a doctor, that despite all the talk about the medical benefits of marijuana, smoking the stuff is not going to do your health any good. And if you get high before climbing behind the wheel of a car, you will be putting yourself and those around you in danger."

Now, that is not surprising. But it does piss me off coming after this cut:

"Several recent studies, including a new one from the Scripps Research Institute, show that THC, the chemical in marijuana responsible for the high, can help slow the progress of Alzheimer's disease. (In fact, it seems to block the formation of disease-causing plaques better than several mainstream drugs.) Other studies have shown THC to be a very effective antinausea treatment for people--cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, for example--for whom conventional medications aren't working. And medical cannabis has shown promise relieving pain in patients with multiple sclerosis and reducing intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients."

So even though he acknowledges that there are many benefits medically, the chance that it would be abused is reason to make it illegal for anyone.

His full article is here

More can be read on part of the studies here

I am not pro marijuana per say, just anti legislation. Those that know me know that I am ANTI drug. That is my choice, if you want to IV drip heroin into your brain, I do not care. If you get sick from it, I will not help. I wonder if his "litmus test" would allow these to be legal
-Vicodin

-OxyContin

Here is another little tidbit

-"Five of the top six drugs abused by 12th graders
in the past year were prescription drugs or
cough and cold medicines." from here

The "war on drugs" is equal to the "war on guns" and the "war on poverty." All of these are simply WARS ON LIBERTY. War of control, for control over you and your choices. Benjamin Franklin said "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately." This is not to say expect the local NORML chapter to hang with the local Threepers but gentleman we are all in the same fight. Tolerance and Liberty are not just catch phrases. We must not allow legislation of things we would not do ourselves, or things we do will be legislated from us by others.

Stand true, stand hard,

Jason

III

Treason By Any Other Name

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITYTO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

Section 1.

Short Title.This Act may be cited as ____________________.

Sec. 2.

Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3.

Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.

Sec. 4.

Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5.

Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Sec. 7.

Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8.

Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Sec. 9.

Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10.

Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt

.Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11.

Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12.

Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.(2) Secretary.--The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.(3) United States.--The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.

What the F*(K??

Have they not read the United States Constitution?

Jason

III

Apathy?

Was speaking with a friend the other day. For all intensive reasons consider him educated and competent with what "they" are doing in the background. We were speaking mainly of the SPP, and the NAU, which all seemed to lead to the Bill of Rights and my rantings of sovereignty of te states. The conversation was going well until we hit a snag. Apathy, Websters defines this as "without feeling, from a- + pathos emotion".

The reason I bring this up is that it is a common theme among people I meet, and speak with. I can justify people who "follow the light" then live in the shadows. But to choose, beyond reason, to live under oppression because "it is what it is". I do not understand the process of thought that leads only to greater oppression, only to darker shadows.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Above I Linked to "wikipedia" for 2 reasons: 1- a ton of links for further research, 2- so some would say it is "conspiracy theory web rantings.

Well here is the explanation of the SPP from non other the the US Department of Commerce:

http://www.commerce.gov/NewsRoom/SecretarySpeeches/PROD01_004605

and here is the "official .gov" site

http://www.spp.gov/

Ain't that a bitch.

See they try to say that these 2 acronyms are not the same.

Union:1 a: an act or instance of uniting or joining two or more things into one: as (1): the formation of a single political unit from two or more separate and independent units.

Partnership:1: the state of being a partner : participation 2 a: a legal relation existing between two or more persons contractually associated as joint principals in a business b: the persons joined together in a partnership3: a relationship resembling a legal partnership and usually involving close cooperation between parties having specified and joint rights and responsibilities

Double bitch.

"Anyone who tells you that "It Can't Happen Here" is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no 'house rule' that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos."-Mike Vanderboegh

Read more from him here and here.

I don't know, so I'll add another acronym to the alphabet soup WTF?

Sempris Confusus