Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman



Second amendment right to bear arms
via YouTube Capture.

By: Judy Geiken

Read more:
Second amendment right to bear arms – Video



Second Amendment Explained

By: English 201 Projects

Excerpt from:
Second Amendment Explained – Video



Piers Morgan Alex Jones was right Bundy Ranch Second Amendment
Did you notice something very strange about the Bundy ranch confrontation this weekend? Piers Morgan who always gives his opinion on important matters was no…

By: DailyWorldwideNews

See the rest here:
Piers Morgan Alex Jones was right Bundy Ranch Second Amendment – Video

Lyle Denniston looks at recent statements from retired Justice John Paul Stevens about limiting gun rights, and a political reality that runs counter to that idea.

As a result of [Supreme Court] rulings, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were well regulated, has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of the draftsmen. As so amended, it would read: ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear armswhen serving in the militiashall not be infringed.

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in an opinion column posted online April 11 byThe Washington Post. It is excerpted from his new book,Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.The article was republishedinThe Poston April 13.

There is an old saying about the Constitution that, like a lot of old sayings, is at least partly an exaggeration: The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. However, that is very close to the truth about the Second Amendment.

From its inclusion in the Constitution in 1791 until 2008, it was not understood to give Americans a personal right to have a gun. And then it changed, in a profound way.

Prior to 2008, there was a public conversation often, in academic writings funded by the National Rifle Association about whether the Amendment should go beyond protecting the arming of state militias, to allow Americans to arm themselves for personal use.

The Supreme Court finally accepted that expanded view, in the 2008 decision inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller. That ruling applied only to federal laws, or to laws enacted in the federal enclave that is the nations capital city. Two years later, though, in the case ofMcDonald v. City of Chicago, the court extended the broad new right nationwide, applying it to state and local laws, too. Both decisions divided the Justices 5 to 4, and Justice Stevens, then on the Court, dissented each time.

It is to be expected, perhaps, that a member of the court might well want, after retirement, to see the Constitution changed so that it reflected the views that the Justice had while on the court. Of course, retired judges, too, have free speech rights, and they can add importantly to public discourse if they continue to speak out.

Originally posted here:
Does the Second Amendment need to be amended?

Why the Second Amendment protects the rights of gun stores and gun manufacturers.

View post:
Volokh Conspiracy: The Second Amendment right to firearms commerce



Nation Flips Its Wig Over Georgia Attempt to Legalize Second Amendment
Appalachia is the cultural region in the Eastern United States that stretches from the Southern Tier of New York State to Northern Alabama, Mississippi, and …

By: Appalachian Area News Network

View original post here:
Nation Flips Its Wig Over Georgia Attempt to Legalize Second Amendment – Video



Quick Snippet of the Second Amendment
The camera man was working on a good angle to get Kory Watkins from, as he read the second amendment.

By: OpenCarry TarrantCo

Follow this link:
Quick Snippet of the Second Amendment – Video



Going Caption Crazy!
Keith responds to a viewer who says the Second Amendment is about hunting and that handguns should be illegal along with so-called assault rifles. http://h. …

By: HunTings

Original post:
Going Caption Crazy! – Video



INFOWARS Nightly News: with David Knight Friday March 14 2014: John McAfee
Friday: The Infowars Nightly News. U.S. Rushing Headlong Into War with Russia. Plus, United Nations Attacks Second Amendment. — . War On Women — Date: 03/1…

By: Collapsed Economy

Read more from the original source:
INFOWARS Nightly News: with David Knight Friday March 14 2014: John McAfee – Video



Second Amendment – Warframe
Just another video just to try and get me into a groove, i will work on some stuff and things for the future.

By: ComfortZoneGaming

Excerpt from:
Second Amendment – Warframe – Video

Published: Sunday, April 13, 2014, 4:45p.m. Updated 18 hours ago

WASHINGTON The push and pull over the Second Amendment right to bear arms is heating up again, thanks in part to a former Supreme Court justice’s new book.

On Friday, the high court will consider whether to hear a challenge to a New Jersey law restricting the right to carry guns in public. If the court grants the petition, it would be the most important gun control case since the justices upheld the right to keep handguns at home for self-defense in 2008.

While the justices ponder what the Constitution’s framers meant with the words A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, former Justice John Paul Stevens suggests it be rewritten.

In his new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Stevens, 93, advocates adding the words when serving in the militia to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths about 88 per day that occur in the nation.

Stevens was on the losing side of the court’s 5-4 ruling in 2008 that established the right to keep handguns at home for self-defense. Two years later, he was again in the minority when the court ruled that Chicago could not prohibit private citizens from owning handguns.

Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands, Stevens writes. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.

The gun lobby seeks to move in the opposite direction. Despite losses at federal district and appeals courts, groups including the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners Foundation back the effort by New Jersey gun owners to legalize gun possession outside the home.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defense not just for self-defense within the home, but for self-defense, period, the NRA argues in its brief to the high court.

New Jersey law enforcement groups defend the state’s requirement that citizens prove a justifiable need to carry handguns outside the home, whether openly or concealed from view. In their brief, they claim the law qualifies as a presumptively lawful, longstanding regulation that does not burden conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.

Read more here:
Gun rights to return to Supreme Courts agenda

Excellent piece in the Washington Post yesterdayfrom retiredAssociate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Paul Stevens on the Second Amendment, how its original intent has been twisted by the gun lobby, and the five word additionthat could clear up a blurry bit of the language that has allowed the NRA to get a philosophical toehold. The column is an excerpt from Stevens’ new book,”Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”I won’t steal Stevens’ thunder by telling youwhat the five words are, but it’s a solid fix and his thoughts in support of that fix are well worth reading, even if you’ll never see it implemented in your lifetime.

Lest you think the reliably liberal Stevens’ argument is just an example of his gun-grabbin’ politics, Stevens hearkens back to the days before the NRA sold the American public on the idea that Thomas Jefferson supporteda God-Given Right to Bear Flamethrowers,recalling his owntime on the bench and a comment by former Chief Justice Warren Burger a long-time Republican and strict Constitutional constructionist, nominated to the court by noted liberal pinko Richard M. Nixon to make his point about how drastically America’s interpretation of the Second Amendment has been changed by pro-gun propaganda in the past thirty years or so:

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

View original post here:
Former SCOTUS Justice Stevens: five little words can fix the Second Amendment



Obama CAUGHT OPEN MIC
Dudes a terrorist.. Help support our second amendment by simply joining your local gun clubs and shooting ranges also Gun Owners of America and The National …

By: Lisa Ann

Go here to read the rest:
Obama CAUGHT OPEN MIC – Video



Ted NUGENT obama scandals
Uncle Ted NUGENT!! Obama Americans biggest failure. Support the second amendment today by simply joining your local gun clubs and shooting ranges also Gun Ow…

By: Lisa Ann

View post:
Ted NUGENT obama scandals – Video



OBAMA SCANDALS “some” of them
Obama by far America's biggest failure. Help support our second amendment by simply joining your local gun clubs and shooting ranges also Gun Owners of Ameri…

By: Lisa Ann

Follow this link:
OBAMA SCANDALS "some" of them – Video



MOLON LABE — How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom
MOLON LABE — a James Jaeger Film — featuring RON PAUL, PAT BUCHANAN, STEWART RHODES, CHUCK BALDWIN, ALEX JONES and G. EDWARD GRIFFIN. Also featuring LARRY …

By: OriginalIntentDoc

See more here:
MOLON LABE — How the Second Amendment Guarantees America’s Freedom – Video

John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.

Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.

The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated Militia.

When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

In recent years two profoundly important changes in the law have occurred. In 2008, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilians right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense. And in 2010, by another vote of 5 to 4, the court decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens. I dissented in both of those cases and remain convinced that both decisions misinterpreted the law and were profoundly unwise. Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters elected representatives, not by federal judges.

In my dissent in the McDonald case, I pointed out that the courts decision was unique in the extent to which the court had exacted a heavy toll in terms of state sovereignty. . . . Even apart from the States long history of firearms regulation and its location at the core of their police powers, this is a quintessential area in which federalism ought to be allowed to flourish without this Courts meddling. Whether or not we can assert a plausible constitutional basis for intervening, there are powerful reasons why we should not do so.

Across the Nation, States and localities vary significantly in the patterns and problems of gun violence they face, as well as in the traditions and cultures of lawful gun use. . . . The city of Chicago, for example, faces a pressing challenge in combating criminal street gangs. Most rural areas do not.

Originally posted here:
Justice Stevens: Justice Stevens: The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

April 11, 2014 Second Amend. open carry rally set for April 19

By Matt Smith/msmith@trcle.com The Cleburne Times-Review Fri Apr 11, 2014, 09:48 AM CDT

The Open Carry Texas Johnson County chapter will hold an open carry event at 2 p.m. April 19 in downtown Cleburne.

The group is doing so to exercise and show support for Second Amendment rights, group member Jesse Pistokache said.

While it is illegal to openly have a pistol even with a concealed handgun license, there is no law that states you cant have a rifle on your person unless of course you are a felon or have a class A misdemeanor conviction, Pistokache said. The reason we are having these walks is not to start trouble, but to educate on the Second Amendment rights and also exercise our First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.

This is not a Republican, Democratic or Libertarian thing, but it is a Texas thing. And as Texans we should not only stand up for our rights, but also be willing to fight for them and not just sit on the sidelines waiting for a good candidate/politician to stand up and fight for us.

Pistokache said he discussed the event with Cleburne Police Chief Rob Severance. Severance said details are being worked out, but that CPD will assign a liaison officer to the event.

We just want to ensure everyone is safe and have an officer presence in case anyone has any questions, Severance said.

Anyone who has questions or is interested in joining the event is urged to contact Pistokache at jessepistokache@hotmail.com.

Pistokache, who is also chairman of the Johnson County Libertarian Party, said he also welcomes anyone with questions about or interest in the Libertarian Party to contact him.

Go here to read the rest:
Second Amend. open carry rally set for April 19

The Oregon State University College Republicans will host their fifth annual Second Amendment Week on April 14-18, with activities each day from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. in the quad at OSU as well as some evening events and a drawing for firearms.

OSU students, staff and faculty can attend a free presentation on concealed carry permits at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Memorial Union ballroom. The cost to the general public is $50.

Local and national radio commentator Lars Larson again is scheduled to broadcast his show live from the quad between noon and 6 p.m. Wednesday.

A complete schedule of events is available at http://osugop.com.

This year the OSU College Republicans have a drawing for three firearms: a Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm, a Mossberg 715 Tactical 22LR, and a SAR B6- Semi Automatic Pistol 9mm. Tickets for the drawing are $5 each or five tickets for $20. The drawing is 5 p.m. Wednesday, April 18. Tickets will be available all week in the MU Quad. More information and links to buy tickets for the drawing are available at http://osugop.com/ or contact Donald Handeland, OSU College Republicans president, at

president@osugop.com or 907-304-1853.

Read more:
OSU student GOP hosts Second Amendment Week

Guns and gun rights are a big deal in Texas and Open Carry Texas demonstrators feel their First Amendment Rights are being violated.

See the rest here:
Second Amendment March creates First Amendment Flap



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com