Land Of The Free?

Who is Kidding who?

This may read a bit like I am rambling...and I guess to a degree it is.

Recently I wrote an essay about the fact that the first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment have been forgotten and ignored.

I also posted a question on Quora asking how many people in a group that leaned towards the 2nd amendment being a right realized that.

The problem being that most of the participants in the group would claim to have "2nd amendment rights" rather than the understanding that the 2nd amendment is a PROHIBITION on those administering government. THEY are being told SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I had reasonably asked for anyone who wanted to participate in the discussion to please read the article mentioned in the question so that we would be debating on equal ground. Then the answers started coming in and almost EVERY ONE had not read the article. They limited their response to the question itself. For instance, if I said the 2nd amendment has been pretty much nullified by legislation that is in place and effect and you were to respond with "no legislation can nullify the 2nd amendment", would I be correct in stating "pretty much nullified"? If you can't EXERCISE a right, is not "nullified" pretty much a description of "infringement"?

To me, "nullified" and " infringe" or "abolish" have similar understandings. So the 2nd amendment states SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, and yet if you walk into a post office with a firearm, concealed or otherwise, you are violating a "law" that OBVIOUSLY has abolished, infringed, nullified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED if you can be arrested, tried and convicted, and caged for the "crime" of violating that so called "law", haven't you? Sure it may be an ILLEGAL law in face of the 2nd amendment, but under the circumstances, have fun trying to get out of the period of incarceration you might end up with.

I believe that the Founding Fathers, as a whole had the good of the average person in mind when they put the Constitution together. And I may be wrong, since apparently it has been nothing but a paper tiger in reality all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion. What I mean is that there is no PROVISION for those who violate their oath of office to deter them from infringing on every single "right" enumerated in the Constitution. If there had been a clause in there that stated that anyone who is charged with violation of their oath can be tried, convicted and shot, I bet that we would have a hell of a lot less infringements on those enumerated rights, don't you?

And if the MILITIAS could have formed citizen grand juries and brought criminal charges against anyone who violated someone’s rights, and had them tried and convicted, maybe that was one reason “they” had to do away with those 13 words.

Let's look at some for instances. How about the RIGHT to freedom of speech? Sure, I can concur that yelling out FIRE in a crowded movie theater is not a right because of the harm it could cause as the patrons make a mad dash for the exits. But what about an idle threat? Which I would say is what most threats are. A guy who is half drunk, gets in a tussle with someone and the police are called in. The guy says to the police, "you better watch your back, because I'll be waiting for you somewhere and kick your ass", or worse yet, "I'm going to kill you." Not a nice thing to say, agreed, but now you've committed a felony called "terroristic threatening" and can be caged for SPEECH. No action, just nothing but a BARK from a pissed off DOG.

Or how about someone who BELIEVS something and has a national audience and he espouses his BELIEF to the audience. I’m supposed to believe myself that somehow that BELIEF damaged someone who heard it and now they can sue him for a TRILLION dollars? To basically punish him, bankrupt him and in the process send a message to anyone else with a national audience to shut up about your BELIEFS. Yes, can someone EXPLAIN to me how saying something to someone or about someone that isn't even directly about that someone can be held liable for that to such a degree? And that somehow we agree that this is right? I can understand LIABLING a person, with a false belief and that should be understandable by anyone. You can't say, so in so is a child molester because someone tells you that he or she is without first hand knowledge yourself. At which point you can't be held liable. But if you tell me someone is a child molester and I claim that that person is such in a public forum and there is no proof, than I'm liable for slander. So sure, there can be legitimate reasons to stifle certain types of speech. But in the case of Alex Jones, he went on his BELIEF that Sandy Hook was a hoax. He never claimed that any of the parents or whoever were liars. He just voiced his OPINION that Sandy Hook was a hoax based on some evidence he believed was true. And yet his freedom of speech was curtailed. He wasn't even allowed to proclaim his innocence in court without suffering a contempt charge by the corrupt "judge".

But I digress...I don't want this article to be 5000 words. I'll lose too many of you.

Here is the thing. The "state" or "government" is made up of PEOPLE. It isn't an entity that exists outside of the bounds of reality.

They are PEOPLE.

Taking that into consideration, consider the following...

Explain to me how or why you have to pay, in many states a "personal property" tax every year if it really is your "personal property"?

Who gives SOMEONE the RIGHT to basically extort how ever amount of time of your life you have to utilize to come up with the funds to cover that tax? If the tax is $1000 and you have to work for say 50 hours at twenty per hour aren't you a SLAVE to those who demand that $1000 from you for fifty hours of your life? And hasn’t SLAVERY supposedly been outlawed by the 13th Amendment? And that time can never be recovered in any way? And that THEY get to use the $1000 ANY WAY THEY SEE FIT? In my case it’s right about $1200 including my home and my cars and whatever else they stick on the list of "taxable" items. Then there is "income" tax on state and federal level. And if you don't pay up, won't men (and women) with guns come to steal your property from you? Or put you in a cage for not paying up? Isn't this sort of like a "legalized" crime syndicate that sends a representative into your business and tells you to pay so much a month or someone will burn your business down? Sure the "state" agent won't threaten to burn it down, because it would be valueless to them if they were to do so, but they will threaten to STEAL it from you and sell it to a good slave who will pay the RENT they want on your so called "personal property" won't they? AND NO ONE SEES A PROBLEM WITH THIS? Can my next door neighbor come with a gun and tell me to pay him blank amount of "dollars" so he can give it to the local school system? THEN SOMEONE TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE if he "votes" to have someone with a gun come to take my money for a purpose he/she supports?

What if I don't WANT to support a public school system and have never utilized it for one hour? What gives ANYONE the right to force me to pay for it? If 1000 people vote for it and I'm the only one who votes against it doesn’t that actually create ONE THOUSAND THIEVES using someone else to do their stealing. RIGHT? BTW...the "public school" system is the 10th plank of the communist manifesto and the 1st plank is that "personal property" tax that pays for the 10th plank. Read it for yourself.

And yes, in the list of "services" that I'm being extorted to provide are some local roads and library. For one thing, you want a library and you want to use it, WELL PAY FOR IT YOURSELF! Why should I have to pay for something I never use and see as a useless waste of money since they don't keep books in there that wake people up in the first place? Why do YOU feel you have the right to force me to pay for YOUR library? As for ROADS? Being paid for with PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES? That is obviously a theft. Roads should be paid for with use fees on gasoline, oil, tires, car repair parts or maybe with a toll gate. NOT from some one who has no car, or who doesn't use the roads except to walk on. They wouldn't be considered a tax. They should be considered a USE fee.

Honestly? FREEDOM would be able to keep anything you earn, do anything you want, go anyplace you want or own anything you want as long as you harm no one in the process.

When that is the NORM, then we will be THE LAND OF THE FREE. Until then...be a good slave. I have to admit, I've been a run away slave for a long time in many areas.

TYRANNY is having the fruits of your labor taken from you by force so that those who take it can do whatever they decide to do with it. TYRANY is limiting your activities to something that someone else decides you can do. TYRANNY is forcing you to comply with anything that goes against your will that you would be doing that harms no one. TYRANNY is keeping you from traveling anywhere you want unless you have a permission slip and registration and tag for your automobile. TYRANNY is keeping you from owning anything you want as long as what you own is not being used to harm anyone.

GET MY POINT?

This article could be a lot longer if I really got into the VIOLATIONS, INFRINGEMENTS, NULLIFICATIONS, and out right TYRANNICAL "laws" that infringe upon our right to do WHATEVER WE WANT, OWN whatever we want as long as we harm no one else. Those that administer government at all levels are continually violating the rights of others for their own selfish benefit!

Amy Jenkins Boone County Collector is nothing but a legalized THIEF. A LEGALIZE EXTORTIONIST and anyone who enforcers her collections is a CRIMINAL in the eyes of NATURAL LAW. Change my mind...

TAXATION IS THEFT. No matter how you look at it. THEFT IS A VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW.

NO ONE should be forced to pay for "services" that they don't use, have no use for or that really aren't "services" in the first place. If you want a service, PAY FOR IT YOURSELF, don't expect me to pay it for you. If you want your children to go to a certain school...PAY FOR IT YOURSELF!

~C.L.