The Solution

[Flopsweat]

In the context of the Charter, defend would mean that you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions. You would employ passive resistance (refusal to register or surrender your firearm (s) and civil disobedience (like buying and selling without going through "legal" hoops to exercise the Right), and acting as a defense force in order to protect your Rights if necessary.

Biden is going to make sure that the door to Liberty by way of the ballot box is closed as he gives citizenship to millions of undocumented foreigners. So, yeah, do your civic duty and vote, but bear in mind that as going to be about as effective as a eunuch in a brothel. File lawsuits, start working toward Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities, FULLY EDUCATE YOURSELF, organize neighborhood watch groups that can be easily retooled into functioning militia units, and develop a network so that when the government breaches the Rights of anyone, every one of us responds. Take a look at the left. Even an infringement no more than a misdemeanor is cause for a major effort to hold the government accountable.

That's an admirable sentiment but it is not a plan. We already voted in record numbers. They cheated. We exposed it. In Georgia, we voted again. They cheated again. This voting thing is not looking like an effective strategy. Neither, it seems, is rioting. What is your action plan? As in Step 1, Step 2, etc.

 

[The Resister]

That's an admirable sentiment but it is not a plan. We already voted in record numbers. They cheated. We exposed it. In Georgia, we voted again. They cheated again. This voting thing is not looking like an effective strategy. Neither, it seems, is rioting. What is your action plan? As in Step 1, Step 2, etc.

The preliminary steps are laid out. The fact that you infer that I've made an argument about voting shows you don't really have a clue as to what this thread is about. If you're not going to read the thread and keep up, there isn't much of a "discussion," is there? Also check out all the drafts of the Charter and the accompanying comments. THEN we can have a conversation:

The Blueprint Begins NOW | LibertyLobbyForum

So, I have been posting about the need for the equivalent of a Declaration of Independence since many do not believe in that document any longer AND they've allowed the Constitution to be torn to

libertarians.freeforums.net

The Blueprint begins NOW (Second Draft) | LibertyLobbyForum

I started a thread and would like to reproduce the first post of a draft I did on that thread so that you will understand what this is about: "So, I have been posting about the need for the

libertarians.freeforums.net

The Blueprint Begins NOW (THIRD DRAFT) | LibertyLobbyForum

I am working on the equivalent of a Magna Charta / Declaration of Independence for our current times. The Second Draft got destroyed and we must start over. So, why do we NEED this

libertarians.freeforums.net

Hint: We are past the time for voting. There IS an alternative. It's been presented. Is it a complete "plan?' Of course not, but then again the founders of this country didn't automatically write up the Constitution before they had established their Rights. Job # 1 is to establish your Rights. Disbelieve if you like, but that is the most effective way and has been repeatedly proven by history. Read this thread. Study the links. I'm not reinventing the wheel.

 

[baker3gun]

Kudos to The Resister for performing work in service of freedom and human rights, which is work in opposition of tyranny.

That said, I will quote some of your dialogue as a way of suggesting that your strategy has some problems.

... it became apparent to me that the Constitution has been breached to the point that it cannot be upheld...

This is simply not true. Maybe it is apparent to you, but such is not apparent to nearly everyone else.
The intelligence and compromise underlying our Constitution, and that document's survival through a global transition of societal governance, set a high bar.
You seek supporters for what may be a reasonable cause, but your strategy in attracting support is a bad strategy. Everything about your appeal seems to ask people to abandon the Constitution and take up your document in it's place.
If you seek to replace the Constitution, you better be really smart and you better have done a tremendous amount of work, because the thing you seek to replace is a crowning achievement of humanity.
Perhaps it is smarter to pursue a dual objective: uphold and defend the Constitution while proposing an expanded Bill of Rights that removes the questions currently associated with the present Bill of Rights. Then you might attract greater support.

...The Charter of the Rights of Man are the best hope of retaining some semblance of our Liberty.

Again, this is likely untrue. It is an opinion, nothing more.

...I almost envy the left. They are not afraid of the work it takes to create the society they are committed to...

I think you touch on an important point here.
People who prefer to run an advanced nation on the basis of emotion and personal opinion, are people easy to unite and organize with feel-good rhetoric.
Self-reliant people who prefer small government operated on the basis of sound reason, are not people easy to unite. They are independent and stubborn, and as long as government does not impact them directly, they are difficult to motivate into involvement in civic affairs.
IMO, this has been our bane and is what has led us to where we are. Ordinary Americans have had too little role in governance for too long.

Then she asked, "What does this group propose instead?" It became so silent you could hear my heartbeat from 10 feet away.

This is a side issue, but I'll bite. The correct answer was to leave the provision of healthcare to the private sector and charities. Keep government out of it. To do that, you'll have to reel in everything that's happened since FDR.

...IF you sign it, you have committed yourself to defend exactly what is in that Charter...

Back to the primary issue, your saying things like this does not invite broad support. It is not an appealing concept coming from a stranger.

...In addition, the government is being issued a notice...

All governments retain a right to defend against insurrection.
The American government is presumably a government by which the people consent to be governed.
Threats are not the appropriate tack to take unless you wish to invite an insurrection-defense reaction, which is what the leftists want, and what you will die under if you go down that road.

...So, what are your alternatives? Most Americans have never read the Declaration of Independence; most Americans reject the principles therein;...

Not true. A large silent majority exists in America. You just have to find a way to tap into it if you want to succeed in righting the ship.
Remember: ordinary Americans have been apathetic and silent for a long time.
You have to find a way to wake them up with your message, or wait for a catastrophe that causes a shift in political winds.

Admittedly, we are close to the latter, so your timing is good.

IMO, you should change your strategy and your rhetoric.

 

[baker3gun]

We have a uni-party now. ...

A 2-party system with active guidance from the voter base can work very well, and worked reasonably well for quite a few decades.

The current system of closed primary elections hands all the power to the parties, and they go adrift. With closed primaries, the people have zero voice in candidate selection. It's how you end up with RINO's.

We need blanket open primaries. Then the only way parties can win a race is to run candidates who the people will prefer when given a complete choice.

2 cents.

 

[baker3gun]

You had me right up until paragraph 4. Your choice not to vaccinate IS endangering other people, and that infringes on MY right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Me and my team ambush your family at gunpoint and force each of your children to eat one pound of dogbubblegum while you watch.
This is a crime and an abuse of power. We abused our power to force your children to eat bubblegum.

Do you want a government that has the power to force citizens to eat things?

If so, you are a nanny state man.
You prefer Momma govt to tell you what to do, and you prefer it over the right of individual self-reliant citizens to make independent choices.

There are only two ways for you to end up in your position:
1 - you are stupid.
2 - you have no idea how vaccination can protect, and also fail to protect, and also potentially harm.

On the bright side, you have room for improvement.

Why not have your government spend its resources on public information campaigns that provide independent research and facts and evidence regarding every aspect of vaccination, then allow citizens to choose for themselves?

When you support govt that can make me eat something, I classify you as a leftist and a govt-reliant slave.

 

[baker3gun]

...I challenge you to codify that, make a law, (me shutting him up) in a way that preserves free speech...

We have come to a point where we try to substitute law for custom and culture....

This is a good post. I get exactly what you are saying.

The scotus has never granted absolute protection to any enumerated rights. There have always been limits.
So the right to free speech has never extended to verbal assault.

The only thing that really changed lately is that leftists overran government and begin to ignore Disturbance of the Peace and other such crimes when the perpetrators are leftists or other protected classes.

We are beginning to abandon the rule of law.

Our population has exploded. Petty crimes increase in frequency. Our law enforcement and criminal justice systems are overrun and too small to keep up. Our prosecutors favor protected or favored classes over good citizens.

These problems can all be fixed, but only if good Americans put aside minor differences to unite in support of shared goals.

Which is kind of what The Resister is after in this thread. A new front.

2 cents.

 

[The Resister]

This is a good post. I get exactly what you are saying.

The scotus has never granted absolute protection to any enumerated rights. There have always been limits.
So the right to free speech has never extended to verbal assault.

The only thing that really changed lately is that leftists overran government and begin to ignore Disturbance of the Peace and other such crimes when the perpetrators are leftists or other protected classes.

We are beginning to abandon the rule of law.

Our population has exploded. Petty crimes increase in frequency. Our law enforcement and criminal justice systems are overrun and too small to keep up. Our prosecutors favor protected or favored classes over good citizens.

These problems can all be fixed, but only if good Americans put aside minor differences to unite in support of shared goals.

Which is kind of what The Resister is after in this thread. A new front.

2 cents.

Thomas Jefferson said:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild,1 and government to gain ground."

Then we have this:
"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." John Adams, second President of the United States

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

The United States of America was founded on the philosophical belief that man was endowed by his Creator (his God, whomever he deems that to be) with unalienable Rights and that those Rights were predicated upon self evident truths.

From a legal perspective, the courts upheld the concept of unalienable (absolute) Rights:

"By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect." People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

"The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

History speaks for itself. When we observed this concept and protected the Rights of individuals this country became second to none. Without Liberty there is chaos, divisiveness, tyranny, oppression, and stagnation. If you need a government God to think for you and act on your behalf, you will argue in favor for the chains of oppression. If you love Liberty and want to be able to think in terms like the sky is the limit, you will favor absolute - unalienable Rights. It's that simple. Is Freedom and Liberty for everyone? That would be a hard NO. The masses need a dictator to tell them how to think, act, and to control all facets of their lives.

The foreigners wanting to aid and assist Chuck Schumer, Jon Ossoff, Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Raphael Warnock, Bernie Sanders, etc. are a danger to themselves and us. If you have views like theirs, you may want to think about relocating to another country.

What you say has been debunked many times in the links I left before (see Reply # 42)

What I've shown is that absolute, unalienable Rights are a journey not a destination. It's good for everyone here to know who is opposed to unalienable Rights. And you are wrong. Had you accessed and read the links in Reply #42 here, you could see that you are wrong - and maybe, just maybe, some of your fellow posters took the time to research this and see that you got it wrong. Now, all they have to ask themselves is why??? (Hint: the answer is in the links - or at least one of them).

 

[Flopsweat]

If you're not going to read the thread and keep up, there isn't much of a "discussion," is there?

If you're going to take that attitude do you really think I'm going to listen?

 

[Ironbar]

Me and my team ambush your family at gunpoint and force each of your children to eat one pound of dogbubblegum while you watch.
This is a crime and an abuse of power. We abused our power to force your children to eat bubblegum.

Do you want a government that has the power to force citizens to eat things?

If so, you are a nanny state man.
You prefer Momma govt to tell you what to do, and you prefer it over the right of individual self-reliant citizens to make independent choices.

There are only two ways for you to end up in your position:
1 - you are stupid.
2 - you have no idea how vaccination can protect, and also fail to protect, and also potentially harm.

On the bright side, you have room for improvement.

Why not have your government spend its resources on public information campaigns that provide independent research and facts and evidence regarding every aspect of vaccination, then allow citizens to choose for themselves?

When you support govt that can make me eat something, I classify you as a leftist and a govt-reliant slave.

This post represents exactly what I'm talking about folks. On the far left we have the Socialists, Antifa, BLM and anarchists, and on the far right we have....this.

And now you know why I despise everything political nowadays.

 

[baker3gun]

This post represents exactly what I'm talking about folks. On the far left we have the Socialists, Antifa, BLM and anarchists, and on the far right we have....this.

And now you know why I despise everything political nowadays.

Your reply is a cheap cop out.

Do you want a govt that can force you to eat something, or not?
Why should a govt have the power to force a free citizen to eat any thing?

"Boo hoo. Interesting dilemmas are challenging and require intelligent solutions. This is really hard. I don't want hard. I want cush. Boo hoo."

 

[baker3gun]

To Resister: thanks, kind of, for your reply.

I'm not sure you read my reply to your posts.

I never directed an ad hominem attack or red herring or any other fallacy at you.
You ignored my points and cited my reply written to another member about another subject,
That's a bit confusing. Where are you going?

I still like Soli's post. He describes a current problem in America and justifiable frustration over how this or any other society should deal with such problems.
My response suggests that the solution to such problems is surprisingly simple: revert to the impartial rule of law. Enforce the law impartially and universally. Problem solved.

What I've shown is that absolute, unalienable Rights are a journey not a destination.

1 - You haven't shown anything at all.
2 - You are completely wrong. Inalienable rights are not a journey. They are a birthright of every human. The essence of egalitarian government is that every person is born with inalienable rights, and no system of government is just if it fails to protect those rights.

These ideas were first comprehensively written about during the age of enlightenment.
They first manifested in a written Constitution for national governance 230 years ago. Here.

"First" is a big word. A huge word.
Freedom is new, and rare, and fragile. And worth protecting.

yada yada.

If you want to have a discussion, I think maybe you better go back and read my first reply above, and start over.

I don't read your links because all of your posts say my Constitution is dead.

Think about that for a while.

How are you going to achieve meaningful political support in America with a platform that tells Americans their Constitution is dead?

 

[Jonnyuma]

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.

I feel similarly about gun laws. Pretty much ALL Prohibitum Malum laws, as a matter of fact. (Since Google can eat my butt and I'd like to deny them clicks, Prohibitum Malum means something that is illegal just because the government says it is. Crimes that actually infringe on others' rights via violence or other pain [financial, property loss, etc] are not included. ALL gun restrictions are prohibitum malum... )

Laws are strictly a prosecutorial tool, something gun grabbers and enemies of liberty never like to confirm out loud. Yes, they can modify behavior. But that is entirely due to fear of consequences, not necessarily out of respect for the lawmakers or their ink-n-paper proclamations and pontifications.

I don't appreciate GB's characterization of our Constitution, but in a vulgar way he's right.