 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 726, June 23, 2013 Governments are worse than anything they pretend to protect us from. They are worse, in fact, far worse, than anything you can imagine.
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Re: "Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 14" by Neale Osborn Neale Osborn states: There is only ONE way to remove the 2nd Amendment. And you'd think a man claiming to be a lawyer would know that. It's called "Pass another Amendment". With all due respect, that is true in general. However, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, one must consider the consequences. The sole purpose of an Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment would be the overt disarmament of the people, thereby disbanding the irregular Militia. Since disarmament of a defensive force is by definition an act of War, I would argue that the initiation of such an Amendment, or the voting and/or ratification of the same, would be an act of Treason under the United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 3. In other words, the 2nd Amendment cannot legally be repealed by any rigorous interpretation of the Constitution. (Which does not mean that gun control analysts, including Federal court justices, wouldn't dispute that "primitive" interpretation, but knowing that it could never be repealed anyway, they are attempting to circumvent it by legislation. I'm confident that the Framers would agree 100%. Of course, I've actually read parts of the Federalist Papers...) For the same record, the same argument applies to efforts to sign and ratify the so-called United Nation's Small Arms Treaty, which is further by definition providing aid and comfort to the Enemies of the United States who seek to promote said treaty. Terence James Mason
Re: "Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 14" by Neale Osborn Part way down he stated, in pertinent part:
Um, no. There is NO WAY to remove any part of the Bill of Rights, without nullifying the entire constitution and the republic that it purports to create and define. The constitution was ratified under a binding contract between the Federalists and the Antifederalists, to the effect that the ratification was conditional upon the passage of a Bill of Rights. Therefor, if any part of the Bill of Rights is violated by any means, and that includes its repeal by a new "amendment", then the whole contract is null and void. If the contract is void, the ratification is void.
Since the bill of rights has been violated by direct act of the congress, the presidents and the courts -- the ratification contract, the constitution and the republic are null and void, in any legal sense. No new "amendment" violating the bill of rights or the ratification contract is now needed to produce this result. The argument form is modus ponens. The conclusion is inescapable, to my mind. So, in legal contemplation, the part of North America between Canada and Mexico, the Alaska Territory, the former Kingdom of Hawaii and the Crown Colonies are, de jure, in a state of anarchy and political freedom, while being illegally occupied by Imperial Usa, a foreign military power. For such a state of affairs to transit from de jure to de facto, it only requires that the american militia remove t he invading pretender-government now throwing its weight around. I recommend 5GW strategy. Good Hunting,
About NSA monitoring Dear Editor: I would like to point out a few things about NSA monitoring: 1. The author James Halperin made a good case in his book that the only real viable alternative to privacy, if you are going to maintain a free society, is what he called 'openess'. That is to say, if you are going to access my data, then first of all, I have the right to know who it is who is accessing my data, and I in turn have the right to access all of THEIR data. I don't suppose that this would be particularly popular among our self-appointed elites, their idea is that they should have a monopoly on data, much like they would like to have a monopoly on guns (which they deliberately and inaccurately insist on refering to as a 'gun BAN' rather than by the more accurate terminology of 'gun MONOPOLY'. 2. I might point out that all of the monitoring to catch terrorists is ultimately going to be completely useless. There are codes, such as book codes, which are completely unbreakable; no matter how many supercomputers and billions of dollars you throw at it. Unless you know which book is being used, which the NSA has no way of knowing under most circumstances, you are completely screwed when it comes to decoding it. Even if you know what book is being used, all that two terrorists would have to do is to switch to another, previously (and privately) agreed on book, and again, you would be screwed. Ann Morgan
To the editor: Suppose I were to write the following: "The only reason serial killers kill people is that their victims seem to them in dire need of killing." Is my purpose to "explain" or to viciously offend? David M. Brown
TLE AFFILIATE
|
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
