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



Blue Dot Safes Second Amendment Fire-Resistant Gun Safe
http://bit.ly/1tasOnU – Blue Dot Safes Second Amendment Fire-Resistant Gun Safe Review The Blue Dot Safes Second Amendment Fire-Resistant Gun Safe is Now on …

By: Jake Lee

See the original post:
Blue Dot Safes Second Amendment Fire-Resistant Gun Safe – Video



First Amendment Foundation Wants First Veto

By: flanewscapitol

See the article here:
First Amendment Foundation Wants First Veto – Video



CCDL 2014 CHAPTER4 New Jersey Second Amendment Society
Work in progress … chapters will become “Liberty Rally in Hartford – CCDL 2014″ – New Jersey Second Amendment Society … NJ2A.org.

By: bluesmovers

See the rest here:
CCDL 2014 CHAPTER4 New Jersey Second Amendment Society – Video

Apr 172014



First Amendment Selfie News
How well do you know the First Amendment and what it really means?

By: Kaitlin Chappell

See the original post here:
First Amendment Selfie News – Video



Second Amendment Explained

By: English 201 Projects

Excerpt from:
Second Amendment Explained – 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?



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



First Amendment Discussion-The Alicia Marie Phidd Show
Discuss a scenario of a high school student getting suspended for flying a confederate flag.

By: Alicia M Phidd

Go here to see the original:
First Amendment Discussion-The Alicia Marie Phidd Show – Video

Apr 132014



First Amendment freedoms
First Amendment: Speech, Press, and Petition Review.

By: Kris Larson

Originally posted here:
First Amendment freedoms – Video



BLM, Fed's Assault More Protesters As 'First Amendment Area' Taken Down

By: ken campbell

Visit link:
BLM, Fed’s Assault More Protesters As ‘First Amendment Area’ Taken Down – Video

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



Dallas Police Publicly Attack First Amendment
Dallas Police Publicly Attack First Amendment videos.. Please click here to subscribe to my channel.. Economic collapse and financial crisis is rising any mo…

By: James Stuart

Read more here:
Dallas Police Publicly Attack First Amendment – 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



First Amendment Trampled with Free Speech Zones
Video touches upon the Nevada land grab by the BLM and the use of “free speech zones” to marginalize dissenters and critics of the “Governance” thereby going…

By: darkgrape

Read the original post:
First Amendment Trampled with Free Speech Zones – Video

Apr 102014



First Amendment Rap Video
In Da Club by 50 cent Parody.

By: Graciela Brady

Go here to read the rest:
First Amendment Rap Video – Video



Nevada Governor Blasts Feds' 'First Amendment Area' in Bundy Dispute
Nevada Governor Blasts Feds' 'First Amendment Area' in Bundy Dispute.

By: Parmar Mehul

Link:
Nevada Governor Blasts Feds’ ‘First Amendment Area’ in Bundy Dispute – Video



Riots or Revolution? Bundy Ranch Resists TYRANNY, Nevada Assaulted by Federal Officers
The Breakdown Episode 6: A Call for Common Sense A 'First Amendment Zone' has been set up by BLM agents who have crudely taped off a piece of land inside whi…

By: Spock Skywalker

See the original post here:
Riots or Revolution? Bundy Ranch Resists TYRANNY, Nevada Assaulted by Federal Officers – Video



Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as stated in the Bill of Rights, protects American citizens' right to keep and bear arms to maintain a well regulated militia. Mike Swingley,…

By: PEAK Bill of Rights

See more here:
Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights – Video



First Amendment to the Bill of Rights
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution as stated in the Bill of Rights, protects American citizens' rights to freedom of speech, exercise of religion, peaceful assembly, and…

By: PEAK Bill of Rights

Continued here:
First Amendment to the Bill of Rights – Video



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