The 2nd Amendment and Guns, From a Perspective of Experience

[rdunk]

The subject of "Guns" is being tossed around in today's news arena like a "political football", and everybody has an opinion on it, howbeit, not always informed. Well, like it or not, the framers of the Constitution of the United States understood very well the possible pitfalls the people could face at times, and included the 2nd Amendment to specifically address the right of the people to bear arms. And that right to bear arms is very specifically separate from "the militia".  And, the Supreme Court has ruled very directly, confirming the people's Constitutional right to bare arms/have guns.

It is strange that specific abhorrable instances continue to occur, which cause on-going go-around discussions visa vie the Constitutionality of gun ownership/possession by the people, and what kinds of guns are ok and/or not ok. Each time, the discussions are the "same song and dance", just to a seemingly different verse. But, the "song'" seems to mostly always be "blame the guns",  which are simply very inanimate objects.

Just one example of "instances" from the past, happened over twenty years ago, in Texas. And that raised all kinds of the same rigmarole then, as has been raised in the most recent terrible school shootings. To give us perspective understanding, I am posting a short video of a lady, who was "there" during the Texas shootings", shown speaking directly in a meeting with "Congressional legislators" about gun regulation.

I will also post a screenshot of "The Original Carry Permit".  (OOPS, well I can't do that because we still don't do "attachments" here I guess) 


                                         

[rdunk]

Just FWIW, with all of the apparent interest on another current gun subject thread, with many opinion comments, I find it very interesting that no one thus far has desired to make comment here. But then of course, this video is presented by someone who has had real life experience wherewith she speaks concerning guns.

For anyone interested, here is a wiki link to bio information on Suzanna Hupp. She was a Doctor of Chiropractic at the time of the shootings in 1991, and later spent several years in the Texas Legislature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

[Amaterasu]

I'm with  You all the way on this one, rdunk.  There should be NO infringement on Our right - though in practice, We have allowed it in the form of permits and all.  And THAT provided the slippery slope into being disarmed We presently are on.

[petrus4]

I'm with  You all the way on this one, rdunk.  There should be NO infringement on Our right - though in practice, We have allowed it in the form of permits and all.  And THAT provided the slippery slope into being disarmed We presently are on.

We would like to define the difference between rights and privileges. These words are not being used interchangeably. Privilege is something that is granted to you from another source. Right is inherent by your existence, innately. For instance, you have a right to celebrate God. But you're given the "privilege" of worshipping God when you go to church and pay your dues.

(Audience participant) We have talked a great deal about the nature of the agreement between the Zetas [Greys] and Homo Sapiens. If there is an assumption that we exist as a privilege (whether it's our belief or the ETs), this contract, whether it be a contract between us as a species with the Zetas or individual agreements with the Zetas, is similar to the drivers license issue. Is it exercised from our side without conscious knowledge of the consequences?

Absolutely. You have used the term implied consent. Because you believe your existence is a privilege, then your interactions with the Zetas are subject to the laws of that privilege in the masses' belief system, and some of those laws you may not even be aware of.

(Audience participant) Then it is like my having a drivers license and my belief that driving is a privilege granted by a higher authority. This "higher" authority grants me the privilege of using the roads, using an automobile, etc. By accepting that privilege, I've implied my consent; therefore I must agree to have insurance, registration and not let someone else use my car who does not have those things. All of this happens because I have accepted the privilege rather than exercised my right?

When you already have the right to travel automatically.

(Audience participant) And so the Zetas, of course, read our unconscious minds and know that we think our existence is a privilege. Therefore when we ask, "Why are you doing this?" they say, "We have the right".

Yes, because you have implied your consent by playing out the role of a helpless species. That's one way of looking at it. If you were sovereign, no one could have rights over you, but since you're not active sovereigns, someone assumes rights over you. There's always hierarchy in a nonsovereign atmosphere, but in a sovereign atmosphere there is never a hierarchy.

As a species, you have the right to interact with your galactic neighborhood, to know your heritage. You have a right to explore all levels of consciousness and reality. You have set up privileges to protect yourself from some of the scary things because you feel nonsovereign. And as you build this elaborate structure (based on privileges and not rights), you start distorting your own version of the universe. Those rights that we just mentioned are always active, but if you are not sovereign, you can't interface with them. Therefore, you will act out your right to interact with other species through the privilege structure you have set up, which will be equal to your belief systems.

To put this in another way, you will always act out your right to travel, but because you are not sovereign, you must act out that right according to the structure of the privileges. Therefore, you act out your right to travel through the privilege of your license, your insurance and your registration. Do you follow? This is a very significant point.

With the Zetas, you will always act out your rights as a species. Your rights will always be there, but you can't see them. You can't know your rights unless you are sovereign. Therefore, you must act according to the nonsovereign privileges, which seem as if they are given to you by someone else. Therefore, because you believe you are not sovereign and can be victimized, you will act out your right to communicate with other species through that belief system and the structure that allows you to be victims.

You are, in fact, always in touch with your rights. You've cloaked them, you've twisted them, you've distorted them into your privileges and have come to believe that privileges are rights, when they are really two different things. In terms of the Zetas, the only framework within which you could interact with them has been one of inequality, hierarchy, manipulation, control or fear because those are the very structures upon which your society is built. Do you follow?
-- Germaine

As far as I am concerned, the only ethical laws which mean anything, are those which prevent us from causing either material harm or loss to another individual.  We all need to begin to recognise the fact that government does not actually have any form of inherent sovereignty or authority at all.  The only form of contract that human beings can make that counts for a proverbial hill of beans, is one that they sign themselves.  No Constitution or government legislation that exists is actually binding, because virtually none of us are direct signatories to it; and to the extent that we are, it is usually under duress.

The only power governments have, comes directly from their ability to inflict violence; which again, means that any contracts (law) that they try to make with us, are under duress, and are therefore illegitimate.

This is where my limited degree of activity as a magician has been very useful in understanding this as well, because when it comes to evocation, you have to learn about covenants and contracts.  People also need to begin to appreciate the fact that being human is something that is very highly prized in certain other domains.  If you are here, then you are meant to be, and you have a right to be; and you have a level of creative ability that is far greater than most non-magickally active people realise.

[ArMaP]

No Constitution or government legislation that exists is actually binding, because virtually none of us are direct signatories to it; and to the extent that we are, it is usually under duress.

Wouldn't it be considered a tacit agreement if people accept that all things around them are regulated that way? And even more so when the people claim their rights according to the constitution or government?

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

I really don't understand Petrus4 that we're not binded by our constitution. If your a U.S. citizen, then the constitution is everything. If you've ever taken an oath, especially if you've served in some capacity i.e. public or military, then you are binded by the oath you've taken...

Just a 'vets' take on things..

Rock.

[petrus4]

I really don't understand Petrus4 that we're not binded by our constitution.

If you look at the Declaration of Independence as one example; that was actually signed by the people who were there at the time.  All of these things are contracts; which means, that they only apply if you explicitly enter into them.

If your a U.S. citizen, then the constitution is everything. If you've ever taken an oath, especially if you've served in some capacity i.e. public or military, then you are binded by the oath you've taken...

Exactly.  An oath is a verbal contract.  So for you, yes; defense of the Constitution (among other things) is something you are bound by.

The point, however, is that the government does not have the inherent right to simply pass whatever legislation it wants, and then expect everyone in the country to automatically be bound by it, despite what it thinks.  The only means that it has of gaining/maintaining the ability to do that, in practice, is its' ability to employ force, in the case of people who don't agree.

Because of this, in turn, any governmental declaration of rights is completely arbitrary.  Essentially what a right is, when defined by a governing body, is an exception to their power which they have decided to grant you.  In other words, if they declare that you have the right to live, as one example, then what they are really saying is that that is one exception to what is otherwise total tyranny on their part; that they have graciously decided to refrain from making use of their monopoly of violence, and kill you.

[burntheships]

Rdunk,

No doubt about it, our right to bear arms is under attack.

In my opinion, guns are not the problem.

Here, in this instance a woman was likely saved from sexual assault
due to the fact that she had a loaded gun in the house. Or worse,
they man may have killed her and her baby.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605

There is an agenda at work, our right to bear arms is constantly
under attack.

[edited: posted wrong story initially

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

If you look at the Declaration of Independence as one example; that was actually signed by the people who were there at the time.  All of these things are contracts; which means, that they only apply if you explicitly enter into them.

Exactly.  An oath is a verbal contract.  So for you, yes; defense of the Constitution (among other things) is something you are bound by.

The point, however, is that the government does not have the inherent right to simply pass whatever legislation it wants, and then expect everyone in the country to automatically be bound by it, despite what it thinks.  The only means that it has of gaining/maintaining the ability to do that, in practice, is its' ability to employ force, in the case of people who don't agree.

Because of this, in turn, any governmental declaration of rights is completely arbitrary.  Essentially what a right is, when defined by a governing body, is an exception to their power which they have decided to grant you.  In other words, if they declare that you have the right to live, as one example, then what they are really saying is that that is one exception to what is otherwise total tyranny on their part; that they have graciously decided to refrain from making use of their monopoly of violence, and kill you.

but your arguement is flawed by the fact that by 'voting' for your preferred representative you inherently are giving your approval of said government body, eninty, representative..ie a REPUBLIC...thats what our country is a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy....If you feel your represntative is not representing your needs, ideas, then vote for someone else...all else is anarchy....or France.

Rock....

[ArMaP]

...thats what our country is a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy....

Isn't it (supposedly) both?

I have seen many people from the US making that distinction but I never understand why they do it.

A republic means only that who controls the country (at several levels) is an elected, not inherited, position. A democracy means that the people are the ones responsible for the choosing of who controls the country by using their votes (directly or indirectly) to make their choice.

What am I missing (or not)?

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

re·pub·lic  [ri-puhb-lik]  Show IPA
noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2.
any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3.
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
4.
( initial capital letter  ) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Repub.
5.
( initial capital letter, italics ) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.

de·moc·ra·cy  [dih-mok-ruh-see]  Show IPA
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3.
a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4.
political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5.
the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

I guess what I'm trying to say is a Republic is a Democracy but a Democracy need not be a Republic.....

I know, I know, I confuse myself sometimes...

Rock

[petrus4]

but your arguement is flawed by the fact that by 'voting' for your preferred representative you inherently are giving your approval of said government body, eninty, representative..ie a REPUBLIC...thats what our country is a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy....If you feel your represntative is not representing your needs, ideas, then vote for someone else...all else is anarchy....or France.

If you vote.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

If you vote.

Shame on you if you don't.

[ArMaP]

Shame on you if you don't.

Yes, those are the biggest losers; they don't vote and complain about things don't changing...

[robomont]

i agree with petrus on the sovereign rights.

democracy is the stupid overulling the smart.
guns are used to keep the stupid at bay.
im a felon ,that doesnt stop me from having guns.
i havent murdered anybody.
laws are for ignorant folks,the smart live by their own rules.
soveriegn citizens party sounds like a good party name.

last november is probably the last time im voting.
the game is rigged and if cannabis laws cant be changed ,then i have no faith in this country.

our governments are not legit anyway.
in very few elections,51% of a certain qualified voter pool ,votes any candidate into office.usually its about five percent that puts somebody in office,and thugs with guns enforce their rules because they idol worship a piece of shiny metal on their chest.
thats why i support unrestricted gun sales.
to keep away the dogs and pigs ,and wild animals too.