Informed electorate is a better check against governmental tyranny than the Second Amendment

[Anti Federalist]

So says Loafers Lindsey




What a GOP Senator and Potential 2016 Contender Says Is a ‘Better Check’ Against ‘Governmental Tryanny’ Than the Second Amendment

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...ond-amendment/

An informed electorate is a better check against governmental tyranny than the Second Amendment.

That was the message Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) sent Thursday while responding to comments by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

“Well, we tried that once in South Carolina. I wouldn’t go down that road again,” Graham, who has been weighing a 2016 presidential bid, told Talking Points Memo. “I think an informed electorate is probably a better check than, you know, guns in the streets.”

Graham later added that although he supports the Second Amendment as a way for citizens to protect themselves, their property and their families, he believes the First Amendment and voter participation is a better check on government.

The comment came on the heels of an email sent out from Cruz’s presidential campaign, in which the junior Texas senator told supporters that the Second Amendment isn’t there just to protect hunters.

“It is a constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny – for the protection of liberty,” Cruz said in the email.

Graham, by contrast, said he’s not looking for an “insurrection.”

“I’m looking to defeat Hillary. We’re not going to out-gun her,” Graham said.

[Slave Mentality]

Yes, vote harder and smarter for your corporate sponsored cretin. That should do it.

[69360]

I'd feel safer with 2nd than 1st. I don't trust anyone enough to protect me.

[presence]

I'd be happy just to have the 3rd back.

Judge rules Third Amendment does not apply to cops.

[CPUd]

I will wait until Chris Brown posts before I decide what to think on this issue...

[Christopher A. Brown]

Informed electorate is a better check against governmental tyranny than the Second Amendment
So says Loafers Lindsey

He's half right at best.

Information is only half of what is needed, unity upon corrective action is what works.

With partisan politics, which is about division, information helps, but not a lot because the people really cannot get much from media and their parties help little with unity, if at all.

What works is a lawful and peaceful revolution based in constitutional principle that uses preparatory amendment for Article V to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights. The people compell their states to act for very simple, constitutional preparation.

This draft revision of the first amendment has implications that empower not only information but also unity.

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

Article V first revises the 1st amendment, then secures the vote and effects campaign finance reform by further amendment proposed by the states.

About the time the truth relating to some very controversial issues is presented to the public, motivation to unify and vote are going to escalate.

Article V will have delegates elected democratically and the infiltration of the federal government will be arrested by amendment that is crafted to get at key usurpations.
Slowly then, with great care and vetting of information by the public, allowing time for the new information to have its effect, other amendments will make the federal government constitutional.

That will deter tyranny and end it's threat until the people become ignorant, divided and lazy again, who knows, maybe on their own next time.

[pacodever]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C): “I think an informed electorate is probably a better check than..."

You can stop right there, because that ship sailed a long time ago.

[Christopher A. Brown]

You can stop right there, because that ship sailed a long time ago.

When were we fully informed on some very controversial issues that motivate electorates to unify and stop the ascent of tyranny?

When did our option to assure that information and opportunity for methods of unifying get exercised or disappear?

[Sola_Fide]

“I’m looking to defeat Hillary. We’re not going to out-gun her,” Graham said.

No you're not Lindsey. She makes you feel safe.

[mad cow]

An informed electorate is indeed a good check against government tyranny.

A well armed informed electorate is a much,much better check against government tyranny.

Hence,the Second Amendment.

[Christopher A. Brown]

An informed electorate is indeed a good check against government tyranny.

A well armed informed electorate is a much,much better check against government tyranny.

Hence,the Second Amendment.

Have you said a well armed disorganized group of citizens who are dependent on supermarkets and gasoline can keep check on tyranny?

I would submit that well armed is a good thing, but to make it work against the kind of tyranny threatening us, unity is ABSOLUTELY required, gun or no gun.

With unity we can kept the supply line open and flowing while working with law, until it's proven law won't work.

Currently, we are not functional to make the law work, inadequate unity upon the principles behind the law. Constitutional intent.

If we agree on that enmasse, the tyrants agreement upon the laws they selectively try to enforce upon us will soon be vanquished to be replaced by agreements we permit them to make.

[TheGrinch]

With a government that has a monopoly on violence, yes an informed passionate electorate is far more scary to them.

They know that our consent is what is keeping the gravy train running. Any question of that and they go scattering like the rats they are to convince us they're on our side.

[mad cow]

Have you said a well armed disorganized group of citizens who are dependent on supermarkets and gasoline can keep check on tyranny?

I would submit that well armed is a good thing, but to make it work against the kind of tyranny threatening us, unity is ABSOLUTELY required, gun or no gun.

With unity we can kept the supply line open and flowing while working with law, until it's proven law won't work.

Currently, we are not functional to make the law work, inadequate unity upon the principles behind the law. Constitutional intent.

If we agree on that enmasse, the tyrants agreement upon the laws they selectively try to enforce upon us will soon be vanquished to be replaced by agreements we permit them to make.

Well,all else being equal,a well armed disorganized group is a better check on government tyranny than an unarmed disorganized group.

[TheGrinch]

Well,all else being equal,a well armed disorganized group is a better check on government tyranny than an unarmed disorganized group.

Unorganized, armed doesn't mean $#@!. In fact, its just makes it easier for them to deal with the isolated "threats".

[mad cow]

Unorganized, armed doesn't mean $#@!. In fact, its just makes it easier for them to deal with the isolated "threats".

So you think that unorganized armed is no better than unorganized unarmed?

One man can make a difference,one man can light a spark,one man can change the world.

[TheGrinch]

So you think that unorganized armed is no better than unorganized unarmed?

One man can make a difference,one man can light a spark,one man can change the world.

You're missing the point. Yes, one man's efforts can help to organize a whole lot. But one armed man isn't going to do anything on his own (unless it happens to bring about an organized effort, which doesn't negate anything I said. The point is that together we have much more power than they want us to think, armed or unarmed).

[Christopher A. Brown]

With a government that has a monopoly on violence, yes an informed passionate electorate is far more scary to them.

They know that our consent is what is keeping the gravy train running. Any question of that and they go scattering like the rats they are to convince us they're on our side.

Thank you, you are right on with that!

When the publics ability to reason with law, vetting information accurately occurs, they get scared.

It is only our fear, ignorance, confusion, with its resulting failure to unify that emboldens them to do the things they recently do.

I have a feeling some of them are on our side, but our failure to unify, which defines our side better, becoming more desire able, more secure; has them turning their back on us and the constitution, the rule of law.

Accordingly, if we can fearlessly agree upon prime constitutional intent, and that works right here in this web forum, as well as in public, the true infiltrators will start packing.

I've chosen an expanded function for free speech from what we've known, because free speech is so widely and deeply appreciated; and I call it the "ultimate purpose of free speech"; to serve as the American publics first agreement upon prime constitutional intent.

Free speech has the ultimate purpose of enabling unity between people adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights

If that is not true, what else would the framers intend for us to use to serve the purpose of uniting us to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights?

After uniting around these prime principles, we can conduct our lawful and peaceful revolution. Then we will inherent their ill created and gotten networks, which are more extensive than we know, greatly strengthening the American future.

[Southron]

The last time South Carolina had an informed electorate it voted for secession, Lindsey.

[AuH20]

A tireless minority willing to lay down their lives will trump the electorate. The electorate has done nothing but grow the state to astonishing proportions.

[JK/SEA]

i think the Historical Ron Paul Revolution had a lot to do with the current paradigm shift we're experiencing, so i feel that with my participation in that crazy time, has been my 'electorate' contribution to trying to wake this country up....how we doin' so far?

[Christopher A. Brown]

A tireless minority willing to lay down their lives will trump the electorate. The electorate has done nothing but grow the state to astonishing proportions.

Only because they are not informed. Definition of the problem says that it is first a lack of factual information to the electorate, then an inability to use the information politically.

There is a lack of a method serving the purpose of creating unity adequate to do anything except go along with the infiltrated governments agenda. Party politics pit Americans against Americans within mediocre, non functional political decisions instead of maintaining a constitutional government.

Your focus on the problem instead of the solution is myopia.

Americans need to unify around prime constitutional intent because that is something was can all agree upon. I assert such agreement can be found based in the ultimate purpose of free speech, or that such purpose is abridged. Agreeing upon that, because such intent is so prime, is also an agreement that there is a vital demand for the action of "alter or abolish" and such abridgment is the only barrier to being able to "alter or abolish" with Article V and assure that all amendments have constitutional intent.

To assure that, America obviously needs to prepare. Hence, there is a vital need for preparatory amendment making the nation constitutional enough to define constitutional intent.

Simple really. Its a matter of investing in a plan that is out of the controlled box of partisan politics and just doing it.

[ClydeCoulter]

Lindsey, when the first fails to protect the 3rd through, and including, the tenth, the second is the only option left.

And you, sir, are an enemy to all ten.

The first is plan 'A', the second is plan 'B'.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Lindsey, when the first fails to protect the 3rd through, and including, the tenth, the second is the only option left.

And you, sir, are an enemy to all ten.

The first is plan 'A', the second is plan 'B'.

How could the first fail if we do not know its purpose?

[GunnyFreedom]

I like it when lindsey and cruz are fighting. it divides the warhawks.

[ClydeCoulter]

How could the first fail if we do not know its purpose?

How could I starve to death, if I don't know what to eat?

[fisharmor]

Who is going to inform this electorate of the fact that the act of being an electorate is, in fact, tyranny?

[Christopher A. Brown]

How could I starve to death, if I don't know what to eat?

Correct, the food you do not know does not fail, you fail.

The tool we do not know for its capacity to create unity within us, does not fail, we fail for not knowing how to use it.

Accordingly, I ask all Americans who claim to be sincere; "Do you agree and accept that the purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter and abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?"

Agreement and acceptance creates among us the; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, and trust needed to unify then use that unity to preserve the republic by acting together, with its principles retaining our unalienable rights.

Do you agree and accept that definition of the ultimate purpose of free speech?

[Christopher A. Brown]

Who is going to inform this electorate of the fact that the act of being an electorate is, in fact, tyranny?

Yes, an electorate informed of the natural law elements which enable its unity can use them to create then exercise the tyranny of the masses, for the true benefit of the masses. And they must do it preserving freedom, because freedom enables adaptation the masses MUST achieve.

[jmdrake]

Could Lindsey Lohan Graham be so damaged by the stupidity that will ineveitably come from his presidetial run that he lose his senate seat? One can only hope.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Who is going to inform this electorate of the fact that the act of being an electorate is, in fact, tyranny?

This is a very reasonable question. A functional question.

Here is the only real answer that defeats tyranny.

In the wake of massive failure of the electorate to know and support the ultimate purpose of free speech, the electorate will have to inform itself of the constitutional intent which enables unity adequate to alter or abolish, defeating tyrannical ambitions of elite infiltrations into government and the electorate.

My last post is designed to expose an infiltration into the electorate. Are you educatable? Will you do critical thinking?

Doing so will educate the electorate into the tactics and methods of those who work to DISINFORM the electorate.