Would you amend the Constitution to save our Constitutional rights?

The Islam Tribunal is a totally legal, totally voluntary arbitration and it does not mean Shariah Law taking over the court system. There are Jewish and Christian tribunals too, yet I don't hear any complaints about how their laws are taking over our courts.

As for Sweden, that just shows you what fear and the lack of the First Amendment results in. As for England, I think you are misusing the word cloister. Cloister means to seclude or shut in and I don't think they are doing that nor are we.

You act like Muslims come to America just so they can implement Shariah law, but that is just not true. American Muslims are very much integrated into American society. Just look at these figures:

56% of U.S. Muslims believe that many religions can lead to eternal life vs. 18% of Muslims in the rest of the world believe this.
Only 46% of U.S. Muslims say that most or all their friends are Muslim vs 95% of Muslims in the rest of the world.
81% of U.S. Muslims believe that suicide bombings are NEVER justified vs 72% of Muslims in the rest of the world
(Pew Research Center)

So give up the irrational fear, stop tilting as windmills and open your eyes. The threat from Muslims, especially Muslims from the US, has been greatly exaggerated by the media so they can sell ads.

 

I never used the term "what if". Just like I never said that two people at the same time causes a loss of the right to free speech. You seem prone to distortions.

Perhaps this is why you think using guns is inevitable and functional to control government.

Personally, I think they saw us, you coming, and are trying to defeat our lawful peaceful revolution that is our right, and instead sucker us into thinking we can prevail with violence.

Glad to hear there is one independent American that believes they have enough ammo, supplies and time to stop the government then control them.

 

you may take your condescending tone and park it in the handicapped zone.
You are no fan of your Rights, by your tone. You may leave mine alone.

 

Of course the muslim population is tiny compared to the over 17% who are hispanic. I think it much more likely to see the Hispanics become the majority (which of course along with the Irish and Italians would make this a majority Roman Catholic nation) in this nation long before Muslims, that's when they amend the constitution to make the U.S. officially Roman Catholic.

 

Which is why I'm a huge supporter of the First Amendment.

 

But do your agree and accept that free speech has the ultimate purpose of enabling the unity needed to alter or abolish government destructive to vital rights? BTW, did you know we share our constitutional rights?

 

I've contemplated for many years how free speech could be used to defend vital rights.

It was not until I began to realize that all laws have a purpose that I got a lead upon what the purpose of free speech is. That quest finally lead to an obvious, ultimate purpose of free speech as being to create the unity needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights. This definition of purpose strictly fits into the framing documents.

Basically, the framers obviously intended for Americans to be unified in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights. However, they never articulated HOW that was to be done. Basically taking for granted that Americans would always work for unity in some way.

Accordingly, the lack of statement of a purpose of free speech has left America open to massive, debilitating division.

Right stjames1_53?

 

I've come to the conclusion that the notion of Sharia law taking overuse mis information created by covert infiltration into web forums, basically parroting the nonsense of talk show hosts who work to create sensation and outrage which might increase their audience.

Basically there is a good case showing there are elements working to incite America to attack Islam for their interests.

When the framing documents were being created there was intense competition for inclusion and exclusion of concept. There was a philosophical doctrine surrounding free speech that was suppressed and kept from inclusion. It lays out the very human aspects comprising the basis of unity.

The Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy had communicated this doctrine to the framers, but it was probably deemed too long and philosophical for inclusion in the DOI or the first amendment.

It would have set a standard for the value and effect of speech upon people which carries constitutional intent. Such a standard would have forever made a verified method of questioning intent of authority for its relation to the principals of the republic.

The doctrine is called the "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech".

Through the practice of free speech an understanding can be created. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Obviously the DOI contains 30% of that, and it's obvious that the other 70% belongs with the 30%. Therefore we've been ripped off.

 

BRAVO It basically is meaning less to them.

 

the 2ndA is the backbone of the Bill of Rights. Did you know that?

 

Why is it 2nd?

I asked about the first, are you ignoring that right?

 

because tyrants like to ignore the other Rights if one does not have the means to protect them.

 

Read the Handmaid's Tale.
If you don't see historical justification of violence in Christian teaching you aren't looking.

 

My point is that one person alone cannot protect rights, armed with words or weapons.

At least with words, others may understand without fear (or maybe not) to perhaps unify and government is barred from imposing silence.

My point is that by inference from the framing documents, government not only must allow free speech, government must empower it and the unity possible around constitutional intent and that unity IS the purpose of free speech.

 

Many, justified or not, using violence might protect rights, but unity, however gained, is still needed.

 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

With the power grab from our government, we need to protect ALL of our Rights and Liberties. Just standing around shooting off your mouth will get you tossed into the pokey, today. We would have been in trouble a long time ago if it wasn't for our guns.
Nope, it is the key to all of our Liberties. It backs up the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments.
A mouth will only go so far in an ass-kissing contest..........
lets see how well your lame theory holds up...can we say China? Russia? They all had their mouths and they did in fact protest....didn't work out well for them, now did it?

 

Wrong, people are not arrested for standing around shooting their mouth off.

Please explain how today's Americans will use their guns to protect any rights without unity effectively if the economy is crashed and no flow of commodities exists. Even with an economy and commodities.

You have evaded this question once and evaded the issue of needed unity over and over and that free speech has the purpose of creating it.

You seem to be promoting violence and political failure. How about some accountability.

You seem to be opposing some one who is against 2nd amendment rights. I am not against them. I'm very much for them. Concealed carry, full auto weapons, even high explosive munitions for every household.

Weapons do not kill people, people kill people. I am also a promoter of the very best mental health care as well. Currently it is dismal making quite a few dangerous people.

 

so, it is your determination that all of us who own guns should just give them up until some snippy little bastard clears us to own?
Call someone a queer in public and see what happens. Tell a cop to leave you rproperty and see what happens. You must allow the gays access to your business without uttering a word.
Yeah, so much for free speech..............
...and since you support total confiscation and then converting a Right into privilege only affects a minority, you're fine with that.
We know that Queerlyfornia hates guns and totally supports communism (Pelosi), your rants are duly noted

 

No we need to take out the liberals who take away our rights not amend it.

 

In Patrick Henrys day that was true. Different time now. We have the constitution and it empowers a lawful and peaceful revolution. Those that have infiltrated the federal government and work to usurp it do not want us to use the law of the land to protect the law of the land.

They want us to try violence, the wrong tool, after Patrick Henry and the violence gained the 1787 constitution with its intents derived from all the founding documents used together.

No way, each American should be able to walk in to a business selling weapons and buy WITHOUT any background check ANY weapon they want at any time, including full auto assault weapons. Including high explosive munitions. Land mines, mortars, anything they can carry out. Hey, protect the borders ya know.

That same American should have access to the very best mental health care to deal with extreme potentials for behavior BEFORE they actually take any extreme violent action.

This includes ANYONE who is charged with a crime. In order to see a reduction of their sentence, they are offered mental health care to correct their anti social behavior.

If you knew about the treatment and had love in your heart, you could get help for your anger.

Maybe you are just an exceptionally rude and pissed off American that just wants to shoot anyone that does not see the world the way you do. In that case, about all I've said is way over your head. Consider, after a lawful and peaceful revolution, there will be no cop on your property unless they are actually needed, and you want them there.

I care not for homosexuals but, I like people, so I tolerate them. Some are quite exceptional, and I immediately forget what I don't like. I get no satisfaction from trying to humiliate them in public. I never would consider it. Do you?

This might be over your head angry man, but try.

The Indigenous American people were supreme philosophers. They came up with a beautiful doctrine called "The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech". Use your heart AND your mind and maybe it will add up for you.

Through the practice of free speech between people, an understanding can be gained. From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Franklin, Washington and Jefferson knew the above. From it they gained great respect for the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy from which it came. Specifically the Seneca I believe.

The constitution was largely modeled off of concepts learned from the Native people. We, IF WE CAN COMPREHEND these things, are going to be far better of for it. That doctrine was removed from the correspondence between those framers because there is an element that want to control all of us. To enslave us and dominate our futures.

I learned of it from the oral histories of the Indigenous people. THEY REMEMBER. From it I derived what is a LAWFUL interpretation of the purpose of freedom of speech.

Free speech has the ultimate purpose in America to create the unity NEEDED to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights.

Now, would you like to alter or abolish angry man? Or would you rather start shooting to relieve your anger? If you wish to alter or abolish government destructive to our rights you will need to be unified with other Americans.

Note once have you addressed the need for unity in a peaceful OR a violent revolution. This is called UNREASONABLE evasion. Give it up angry man.