Concept of Second Amendment.

[RandomThoughts]

The purpose of the second amendment is so that people have the same capability as 'some governmental entity'

The purpose of the second amendment is to give people the ability to shoot people in positions of some claimed authority.


However it is also said to be well regulated militia. That means not lone wolves or crazies, but is the concept of decentralization of power.

So as said before, the federal government should not be able to nationalize State Guard units, nor set up Federal control over state police.


However Bullets don't work, the weapons used against people, (including against people in government) by some that claim to have authority, including private sector governments are other weapons. They started using information control, money control and many other methods as weapons against people. Threats of economic sanctions against people by removal of health care, or removal of jobs and food, things like that are weapons.

Private sector governance are not using bullets against people, they are using system controls to trash the economy, or report the economy as trashed to move people to support what they want them to.

Private sector governances are using the claim that people need money to win an election so they can buy elections.



They are not using bullets on people(in most cases), and by using those systems even if someone does shoot someone, they shoot the wrong people, since they don't know where the problem is.


The following of the second amendment should be allowing groups of civilians to know of how information systems and threats of hardships can be used against people to move a governmental agenda, and theoretically by things like taxation and diversified media, and lack of secrecy in private sector manipulations of information systems or the economy.


And I am not talking about Government, I am talking about private sector money, both foreign and in the US, that is behind government.



On a side note if you think on Sun Tzu's writings he speaks about war and diplomacy as part of the same thing. Although he writes on that to move away from war to better diplomacy, but many people think if diplomacy does not work, wars, or bullets, are just another logical step. The concept of going to bullets would be used if diplomacy did not achieve a result in that philosophy. Many that do not get what they want will go to hurting people by controlling economic systems or removal of economic items as a weapon against society for their power.

Do you really think tax cuts for the rich was not done at the end of a 'gun'? There weapons are threats of hurting society in ways other then bullets.




On a side note, I am fairly certain some people are reading these posts, and many good people are trying to solve problems without violence, and to help people think on the better ideas of resolving differences without violence. I don't have any issues with them, nor do I think violence is the answer, since I think it is wrong, and it doesn't work anyways, it only hurts its own cause, and hurts the wrong groups. Many people are talking about better concepts and educational ideas in many places, that really is a good result.

However

There is something else, if people are reading these posts, and even making comments about them in many places, Why haven't they corrected the due of beer and travel money?


On a side note, making a bullet cost 5000 dollars would be moving power to money, that is a wrong concept, the correction is educating people to who the people are that are causing problems, and by giving them methods to correct problems.

So what if some groups will not listen to the people, nor the problems the people were wrongly put in? What if the people have a valid argument and claim and that is ignored?


I ask this, if the people have a valid claim and argument, and that is not enacted because of money forces behind the government, then what would you suggest people do about that situation?

They would say 'get use to it.'

I say, 'they get none.'



And because I can see this clip and song not about violence or wars, I think it is a good song and clip.
Red Dawn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_I4WgBfETc

[RandomThoughts]

1. No comments?

Why is that?


Side note

"The Chair

Is Against

The Wall"


Wolverines - Going Under
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWnKEOJw-Ok

[beevul]

2. I'll comment.

First, by your post, you do not appear to know what the second amendment is.

The reason I say that, is you claim that "However it is also said to be well regulated militia."

Heres the truth of the matter. And keep in mind, this is not my opinion, this is fact, and I'll verify that for you here and now:

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 insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

Do you understand what that says?

It says in simple terms, that to prevent the federal government from abusing or misconstruing its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

With me so far?

The second amendment is a restrictive clause telling the federal government what it SHALL NOT do. "A well regulated militia" is WHY it whall not do what the amendment says it shall not do.

If it said "fried green banannas" instead of "well regulated militia", it would still tell the government what it shall not do.

If you doubt that the original bill of rights was a "the government shall not" document, I'll simply refer you to the first amendment that says "congress shall make no law".


The meaning of the second amendment is crystal clear, should the person reading it bounce it off the preamble as the framers intended.

[RandomThoughts]

3. You do make the point, that I paraphrased.

I don't think we disagree on the concept of the Second Amendment.

It is to limit governmental authority by having a possibility of push back if it gets corrupted, that push back is diversified powers in the states. The use of National Guard under federal control would not be that concept.

The Constitution is a conceptual document about how civilization functions. If the governing body is private sector money, then the conceptual arguments around topics of diversified non central powers are still valid.

I am not arguing the specific laws from the Constitution versus elected Federal government, I am discussing the topic of the powers and decisions of society being with people, even if the government is based on something like money.

Once the private sector starts to govern, they are under the same concepts that are in the Constitution. My point is that 'money first' should not be involved in governmental decisions, but if they take that role by buying elections or excessive lobbying, or even the buying of methods of communication to people, then they are under the same concepts the Constitution wrote about.

[RandomThoughts]

4. Rachel made a coment on Second Amendment.

In theory she is correct. The problem is she does not see what the 'governmental item' in question is. When commenting on people being able to fight against US military, however it would be correct if US military was a part of some other group.

She does have many interesting shows.

She is talking about 'overthrowing government' The concept is breaking up consolidated power.

That has nothing to do with government, except where government is fronting for something else. And many in government do much good, and it is the consolidations that limit their abilities to correct problems.




So any group that has any capability to consolidate power, money, information control, spying, data collection, censorship, then those same items should be available to people.


Guns are silly and stupid, they really don't do much accept hurt your own cause, since someone with information control can get people to shoot the wrong people. And concepts of some regulation does make sense.


When I watch that Red Dawn Clip, I replace chemically propelled guns, with concepts of thought and better feelings. I can watch that clip by ignoring the violence and instead think of distribution of concepts that are better. When the machete movie shows priest carrying weapons, I think about it as them having goodness and kindness. In the song in that clip, it has many sad parts to it, so I think of not hitting bottom as living by what you think and feel is correct, not some effect created by people that do not educate why something should be the better way. Or as a comment of those that race to the bottom. Either way I can see it without having a judgment of the singer or concepts in the songs, and think such thoughts can also be about better feelings that help inspire.



But my point is when the government enacts the patriot act, then citizens should have access to governmental data. If information dispersal systems exist in the hands of money or consolidations of money, then people should have some other method of broadcasting ideas. If people that write laws are not answerable to constituents, then people should be able to write laws that effect those groups.

Although while thinking on that, the methods should not be methods that hurt people, or dumb them down, nor make them scared. Nor should they be using the methods that hurt people, so if some group uses censorship, I don't try and censor, but instead try to go against secrecy.

Many that wont give up the concept of 'being mean and bad' believe the 'gun' is being able to be hard and mean. They think in concepts of 'the gun' being able to fight for things. There was a good clip on that mentality of those that feel those of peace have given up there guns. I think 'the guns' are better thoughts not violence or intimidation.





But yea, the concept of the second amendment is diversified control over society to stop any 'unit' in society from becoming dominate, since if it does, that power will corrupt it, and other bad effects. That does not mean those groups have to fight each other, or can not work together, but they have to be transparent and be able to be changed by the thoughts of most people.


The reason I disagree with chemically propelled guns, and violence, is not only because it is wrong in my view, but also because it does not have the effect the person using such a thing thinks it does.


Not a Bruce Willis show, it is not a Rachel Maddow show either. Although her show is interesting, there are thoughts and ways to learn of many thoughts from many shows. And many of the 'movies' can show many concepts if you dig past filters in them to the concepts in them that you can think on. Since still don't have beer and travel money, might as well find best things in many shows, or at least things to think and feel on.



Although I do agree with many of the methods and concepts Rachel uses, I also know that these posts are read, and people have not corrected what should be corrected. So that means there is either a filter that needs to be removed between the post and the needed effect, or people think the comments are wrong.

Either way things have to accelerate to correct the problems.



Wanted to add something on the 'big brain box doctrine'
Side note, I posted the 'doctrine' of brain box size that are part of many organizations. It creates problems of different size empathy circles, it also creates problems of superiority complex. Since then people think some are big brains, and some are not, when it has nothing to do with physical brain size, but got into many writings.

The Solomon story, it says he was wise, then he started talking in gibberish, then he ran around living with animals living wild, then getting better.

He had some thoughts on concepts, an increase in wisdom, then those thoughts led to some ways of talking that people thought was gibberish, or could not understand, not by him having more knowledge but by some level thinking in different ways that can lead to that.

Then he ran around like an animal, becuase he was told the doctrine of people should be like animals. Then he figured out that was not best. The same doctrine gets people to walk out of their houses and live as vagrants on the streets only doing what they are told by some spiritual thing. Although there can be good things that get you to move into new situations, there are also bad.


And to those that might think my posts or some songs are based on something they are told they can not understand in those very writings.


Truth corrects problems.
I know that there is good and bad in most things, and in my view all people.
That is a truth,

I know that people say something is evil or good to support it or go against something without feeling or thought.
That is a truth. They might be right or wrong, but people do that, I know some people do that.

I know that you can choose to see the good or bad in something, and discuss and speak of the good in things in your action and life.
That is a truth.

I know that everything from the spiritual is told to people by the spiritual, so you can't know for sure its intents or purpose.
That is a truth.


And I don't have to post a music or movie clip if I don't want to. Although I enjoy many of the songs and stories.



And a funny side note, I think I know how some might see some of the songs, they see them as they think they were originally made to about. Then they think what I see in them is wrong. Why would they mean what the original writer thought they meant? Why would someone elses view of what they mean be really what they mean. That is an arrogance of thinking some interpretation of some idea is the only way to see it or the only thing it could mean.





And the concept of something wrestling with a snake, is the story of Thor also, was that the intent?



Here is the funny thing, people find what they want to find in things, they can say what they think it means, or what they want to think it means, as if they define what things are. They even can say it is some claim made by something else, because they want to think that way. Just go one more level, and then what does it mean.

For instance, if someone dying for a person was the honorable best intents of a person, then why wouldn't multiple times be the same thing. So it could be a compliment, and why would anyone believe something in some song or movie clip without thinking and feeling beyond the labels. And if you think it is about some politician, might it be about something that put the correlating concept in there posts that they did not have the knowledge of, so did not make the free will choice. Some think it could be about a person that was put in a position, just to make people with that persons concepts look bad, then wouldn't it be the people behind them the comment is about?

Either way, I am still due beer and travel money, and those that have far more then they need have not corrected that, and they probably should, since it is shown to be an accurate debt.