The Solution

[The Resister]

Currently there are 40,000+ federal, state, county, and city statutes, rules, regulations, Executive Orders, edicts, statutes, court holdings, etc. regarding the Right to keep and bear Arms. Personally, I believe that the Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right. At the same time I have to acknowledge that the legal community (therefore the courts) do not recognize unalienable Rights. Those were preempted by the 14th Amendment and the word unalienable was removed from Blacks Law Dictionary (the most authoritative law dictionary accepted in American courts).

For a host of reasons my personal opinion is that we cannot rely on the Constitution either. It has been attacked mercilessly. We have ex post facto laws; we changed our form of government by allowing for the direct election of U.S. Senators; the courts have reduced the Right to keep and bear Arms down to a mere privilege. I'd have a long laundry list if I told you why the Constitution is no longer practical. But, I do more than complain. For example, here is a link to a proposed Charter of the Rights of Man:

The Blueprint Begins NOW | Libertarian's Forum (freeforums.net)

Unless and until we define our Rights and assert them we are doomed to be in a revolving door of legislation and fights to protect the Right to keep and bear Arms. Every so often in history it is necessary to reduce your Rights to writing and a number of dedicated people have to be willing to support the idea in both spirit and deeds.

Read More

 

[The Resister]

Thank you for the few that took the time to read the proposed charter and hit the like button. Pray for America and don't be afraid to stand up in these trying times.

 

[Flopsweat]

"Unalienable Rights are those Rights that are above the reach of man."

This is what I like most about Libertarians, and this, to me is the most important issue of our time. We need to establish, once and for all (I know, but we must do our very best) clearly defined limits. Limits that are not subject to "yes, but". No buts, no ifs ands or maybes. You do not cross this line. No one does.

 

[cigars]

Trump went with the Republican party because he saw that he could not only get elected with them but they would also enable him to accomplish his vision as President. The Independent and Libertarian parties were not mainstream enough at that point and couldn't garner any national momentum. Since the Republican party has lost it's focus, another party for patriots needs to be established. It should be based on the Constitution and incorporate conservative values. If Trump goes in that direction, it would likely take one or two election cycles to ramp up. Trump has already been talking about forming an alternative to big media, to include Fox News. if he can manage to correct the election and remain in office, I can see his news network getting launched and run by one of his kids and the start of a new political party would take shape from there.

 

[Flopsweat]

Trump went with the Republican party because he saw that he could not only get elected with them but they would also enable him to accomplish his vision as President. The Independent and Libertarian parties were not mainstream enough at that point and couldn't garner any national momentum. Since the Republican party has lost it's focus, another party for patriots needs to be established. It should be based on the Constitution and incorporate conservative values. If Trump goes in that direction, it would likely take one or two election cycles to ramp up. Trump has already been talking about forming an alternative to big media, to include Fox News. if he can manage to correct the election and remain in office, I can see his news network getting launched and run by one of his kids and the start of a new political party would take shape from there.

I'm not apposed to taking over the Republican party since we're mostly there already. We can rename it the Lion Party. The deep state critters can leave and form their own party. They can call it the Lemon Party.

(Yes, I know what I said.)

 

[Ferryman]

I served for over ten years on the executive board of the Libertarian Party of Washington State. I'm a Libertarian through and through, and a true believer in Libertariasm.

That said, the libertarian party itself is a freakin clown show. Just look to the 2016 national convention, with Weld running as VP and the strip tease act on the stage in front of the entire country. Didn't even pay attention to the last one. I can't even begin to describe the idiocy one has to deal with inside the party ranks. I'm not saying this as sour grapes, it's just that as a third party, the LP gets all the myopic rejects from the two "main stream" parties, and it is a truly frustrating situation for anyone who is serious about trying to correct the course this country is currently on.

I've lost count of how many times I ran into serious people who told me "I love Libertarians, I'd join up but you guys just don't have a chance!" Time and time again, I would point out that the LP doesn't have a chance because reasonable people like you won't make the jump, and therefore leave the party in the hands of whack jobs. It took a while, but I finally got the message and left the party.

We desperately need a third party in this country to steer us out of the mess we've become, but trust me folks, the Libertarians aren't competent enough to be that. Which, really, breaks my heart.

 

[Flopsweat]

I served for over ten years on the executive board of the Libertarian Party of Washington State. I'm a Libertarian through and through, and a true believer in Libertariasm.

That said, the libertarian party itself is a freakin clown show. Just look to the 2016 national convention, with Weld running as VP and the strip tease act on the stage in front of the entire country. Didn't even pay attention to the last one. I can't even begin to describe the idiocy one has to deal with inside the party ranks. I'm not saying this as sour grapes, it's just that as a third party, the LP gets all the myopic rejects from the two "main stream" parties, and it is a truly frustrating situation for anyone who is serious about trying to correct the course this country is currently on.

I've lost count of how many times I ran into serious people who told me "I love Libertarians, I'd join up but you guys just don't have a chance!" Time and time again, I would point out that the LP doesn't have a chance because reasonable people like you won't make the jump, and therefore leave the party in the hands of whack jobs. It took a while, but I finally got the message and left the party.

We desperately need a third party in this country to steer us out of the mess we've become, but trust me folks, the Libertarians aren't competent enough to be that. Which, really, breaks my heart.

I used to say "I'd make a lousy Democrat. I like helping the poor, but I also believe in accountability for one's actions. I'd make a lousy Republican. I believe in the Constitution, but I don't believe you have to follow my religion. I'd make a lousy Libertarian. I believe in personal liberty, but I don't believe in UFOs."

I guess it still holds up.

 

[GOG]

I'm good with the Constitution, it just needs to be honored.

See below:

 

[GOG]

We have a uni-party now. The R party needs to go the way of the Whigs and the D's need to be outlawed.

 

[NW Backpacker]

Quotes from the OP proposed "Charter of the Rights of Man", with leftist interpretation:

"At various intervals in the course of history people have been obliged to articulate the bounds and limits by which legitimate governments can exercise control in a society."
Leftist interpretation: There are no bounds. The government is regulating every aspect of our lives including, at this point in time, how many people you can have in your home. They do this because we vote for them to do this. We want government to solve every problem for us.

" In the founding of our country our forefathers claimed their independence on the presupposition that a Creator of mankind bestowed upon each individual with unalienable Rights."
Leftist interpretation: What Creator? That sounds like religion. The government cannot dictate religion.

"The foundation of the principles upon which we stand united and ready to defend are put forth for the world to see."
Leftist interpretation: Governments have infringed on your rights since the beginning. Guns have been banned, restricted, taxed, licensed, confiscated, red-flagged, etc. No one has defended 2A rights from government infringement in the past - why should anyone think it will happen in the future?

"The primary function of government is to protect the weak from the strong and insure that our Rights are never violated."
Leftist interpretation: To ensure that my "right to not be shot" is never violated, the government has a right to take away your guns.

"In order to insure the Right to Life and to prevent tyranny in government, the People declare a unfettered Right to keep and bear Arms as an extension of the Right to Life. No legitimate man made law can deprive and / or disparage the individual's Right to keep and bear Arms."
Leftist interpretation: Gun control laws are legitimate. We will allow you to keep knives and bats, for now.


A third party will not work in a winner-take-all voting system like we have; it only guarantees a win for one of the 2 main parties. Ross Perot was a strong 3rd party candidate; he ensured the victory of Clinton - the guy with the most opposite views of both Libertarians and Republicans.

We are at the point now where a majority of voters want more government. They want government to do everything for them. If you want to change that, you'll have to start with the local school system which has indoctrinated 2 or 3 generations to be believers in big government, 2A is bad, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Flopsweat]

Quotes from the OP proposed "Charter of the Rights of Man", with leftist interpretation:

"At various intervals in the course of history people have been obliged to articulate the bounds and limits by which legitimate governments can exercise control in a society."
Leftist interpretation: There are no bounds. The government is regulating every aspect of our lives including, at this point in time, how many people you can have in your home. They do this because we vote for them to do this. We want government to solve every problem for us.

" In the founding of our country our forefathers claimed their independence on the presupposition that a Creator of mankind bestowed upon each individual with unalienable Rights."
Leftist interpretation: What Creator? That sounds like religion. The government cannot dictate religion.

"The foundation of the principles upon which we stand united and ready to defend are put forth for the world to see."
Leftist interpretation: Governments have infringed on your rights since the beginning. Guns have been banned, restricted, taxed, licensed, confiscated, red-flagged, etc. No one has defended 2A rights from government infringement in the past - why should anyone think it will happen in the future?

"The primary function of government is to protect the weak from the strong and insure that our Rights are never violated."
Leftist interpretation: To ensure that my "right to not be shot" is never violated, the government has a right to take away your guns.

"In order to insure the Right to Life and to prevent tyranny in government, the People declare a unfettered Right to keep and bear Arms as an extension of the Right to Life. No legitimate man made law can deprive and / or disparage the individual's Right to keep and bear Arms."
Leftist interpretation: Gun control laws are legitimate. We will allow you to keep knives and bats, for now.


A third party will not work in a winner-take-all voting system like we have; it only guarantees a win for one of the 2 main parties. Ross Perot was a strong 3rd party candidate; he ensured the victory of Clinton - the guy with the most opposite views of both Libertarians and Republicans.

We are at the point now where most voters want more government. They want government to do everything for them. If you want to change that, you'll have to start with the local school system which has indoctrinated 2 or 3 generations to be believers in big government, 2A is bad, etc, etc, etc.

There's a place on the sight where you can submit proposed changes...

 

[NW Backpacker]

There's a place on the sight where you can submit proposed changes...

Thanks. I'm not proposing changes to the OP Charter, and don't want to join that site to comment. I was just commenting on how leftists, including leftist SC Justices, would interpret his document. His document is written with good intentions, but because in our system the courts interpret such documents, (the Constitution for example) they will just interpret it to mean what they want it to mean based on personal views - as they do all the time to the Constitution.

On 3rd parties, I think the best bet for Libertarians is to join the R party, get nominated by winning a primary election, win in the general election, and become a member of the "Freedom Caucus". I don't see a benefit to diluting your political power among several parties in a winner-take-all system. In any event, there will never be a perfect candidate from any party; lot of folks can't seem to grasp that idea.

I'm good with the Constitution, it just needs to be honored.

^^^^^^ This 100%.

 

[gmerkt]

Traditionally, the US has been a two party system. With a few exceptions of third parties which were never successful. Splitting either of the two existing major parties will cause the remaining unsplit party to win. The system is set up for winner-take-all. The two splits of a major party will never win.

In most parliamentary systems, deals can be brokered where lesser political parties are able to share power. To some extent. That doesn't work in our two party system. Here, tradition has become institutionalized.

In some places in the US, we have a nominal two party system. That is, one of the parties becomes so dominant that its opposition has become token.

When Donald Trump pulled off a hostile takeover of the GOP, some people thought the future of the party was doomed. That idea may have been premature, based on the recent elections. Everyone was set up to expect massive losses in the House and figured on losing the Senate. In the House, the GOP actually narrowed the gap; we have yet to see the results of the GA elections, so control of the Senate is still up in the air. But there was no massive loss by the GOP in the Senate in any case. As I see it, the power struggle between the two parties these days is a matter of demographics.

 

[The Resister]

"Unalienable Rights are those Rights that are above the reach of man."

This is what I like most about Libertarians, and this, to me is the most important issue of our time. We need to establish, once and for all (I know, but we must do our very best) clearly defined limits. Limits that are not subject to "yes, but". No buts, no ifs ands or maybes. You do not cross this line. No one does.

Actually, if you check the source of the Charter of the Rights of Man, the Libertarians are not fully aboard - not all of them at least. A lot of people want to debate (sic) unalienable Rights. I don't know what kind of political party may emerge if that charter succeeds.

 

[The Resister]

I'm good with the Constitution, it just needs to be honored.

See below:

View attachment 801879

While I used to be a constitutionalist, it became apparent to me that the Constitution has been breached to the point that it cannot be upheld. As a side note, Scalia did not practice what he preached on that point. The Heller decision is an example.

 

[The Resister]

Thanks. I'm not proposing changes to the OP Charter, and don't want to join that site to comment. I was just commenting on how leftists, including leftist SC Justices, would interpret his document. His document is written with good intentions, but because in our system the courts interpret such documents, (the Constitution for example) they will just interpret it to mean what they want it to mean based on personal views - as they do all the time to the Constitution.

On 3rd parties, I think the best bet for Libertarians is to join the R party, get nominated by winning a primary election, win in the general election, and become a member of the "Freedom Caucus". I don't see a benefit to diluting your political power among several parties in a winner-take-all system. In any event, there will never be a perfect candidate from any party; lot of folks can't seem to grasp that idea.



^^^^^^ This 100%.

The courts don't have the authority to interpret a Charter of Rights. The Charter separates us from the illegal government that operates out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption.

Tomorrow, if David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are defeated in Georgia, there will be no more Republican Party. As one poster here has stated... it's a matter of demographics and once undocumented foreigners are voting, the Republicans are history. The Charter of the Rights of Man are the best hope of retaining some semblance of our Liberty.

 

[The Resister]

There's a place on the sight where you can submit proposed changes...

You propose the changes in the thread. It's about to undergo a second draft which will be added on the thread.

 

[The Resister]

Quotes from the OP proposed "Charter of the Rights of Man", with leftist interpretation:

"At various intervals in the course of history people have been obliged to articulate the bounds and limits by which legitimate governments can exercise control in a society."
Leftist interpretation: There are no bounds. The government is regulating every aspect of our lives including, at this point in time, how many people you can have in your home. They do this because we vote for them to do this. We want government to solve every problem for us.

" In the founding of our country our forefathers claimed their independence on the presupposition that a Creator of mankind bestowed upon each individual with unalienable Rights."
Leftist interpretation: What Creator? That sounds like religion. The government cannot dictate religion.

"The foundation of the principles upon which we stand united and ready to defend are put forth for the world to see."
Leftist interpretation: Governments have infringed on your rights since the beginning. Guns have been banned, restricted, taxed, licensed, confiscated, red-flagged, etc. No one has defended 2A rights from government infringement in the past - why should anyone think it will happen in the future?

"The primary function of government is to protect the weak from the strong and insure that our Rights are never violated."
Leftist interpretation: To ensure that my "right to not be shot" is never violated, the government has a right to take away your guns.

"In order to insure the Right to Life and to prevent tyranny in government, the People declare a unfettered Right to keep and bear Arms as an extension of the Right to Life. No legitimate man made law can deprive and / or disparage the individual's Right to keep and bear Arms."
Leftist interpretation: Gun control laws are legitimate. We will allow you to keep knives and bats, for now.


A third party will not work in a winner-take-all voting system like we have; it only guarantees a win for one of the 2 main parties. Ross Perot was a strong 3rd party candidate; he ensured the victory of Clinton - the guy with the most opposite views of both Libertarians and Republicans.

We are at the point now where a majority of voters want more government. They want government to do everything for them. If you want to change that, you'll have to start with the local school system which has indoctrinated 2 or 3 generations to be believers in big government, 2A is bad, etc, etc, etc.

# 1 - NO leftist or court gets to interpret the Charter. That would be the same as King George and his people interpreting the Declaration of Independence

#2 - The Charter was written because the Constitution cannot be upheld as guaranteed

# 3 - Nobody is advocating a third party. That's putting the cart before the horse.

 

[The Resister]

Thank everyone for their replies. I'm sorry some misinterpret what the Charter is. It is not a negotiable document for the left to interpret; it cannot be judged by the courts. The Constitution was described by George Bush as president as just a "G.D. piece of paper." As much as I mourn the loss of that document, Bush's words were harsh reality. On the Second Amendment, the first time the United States Supreme Court ruled on this point, they held:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The Right to keep and bear Arms exists. It was NOT granted by the Constitution; the federal government only guaranteed us they would not infringe on the pre-existing Right. The Right exists with or without the Constitution. The Charter retains those presuppositions. Even if a left wing regime were to burn the Constitution, you would still have Rights - you may have to defend them, but they are still there.

 

[Xaevian]

I'm not apposed to taking over the Republican party since we're mostly there already. We can rename it the Lion Party. The deep state critters can leave and form their own party. They can call it the Lemon Party.

(Yes, I know what I said.)

The "Lemming" party?