by Ruby Henley
Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, also known as Diamond and Silk, noticed six months ago that their popular Facebook page was dropping in engagement. Wish I could tell them the same thing happened to me, too!
Along with Facebook judging who is right for their community and who is not, we have news that the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats has instructed the intel community to be more transparent with the public to establish trust, according to a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
And we have comments being made that the Constitution does not give you right to bear arms with a AR-15! You are now going to see the Powers That Be start to tell us what arms the Constitution allows us to bear.
Let us start with the Constitution. In 2008, in Heller vs. District of Columbia, the US Supreme Court, for the first time, interpreted the Second Amendment of the Constitution to protect “the right of law-abiding citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”is!
However, those , academics, who say they study constitutional law say the Constitution does not include the right to keep an AR-15 or similar weapon. I have not studied the Constitution, but I would say the Second Amendment simply does not specify what type gun you may keep and bear.
I do not believe that Congress, state legislatures, or city councils have the right to set limits on keeping and bearing weapons.
The 2008, the Heller decision, as well as three subsequent Supreme Court opinions, and opinions of several U.S. Courts of Appeals, have confined the right and listed some of its many exceptions. The constitutional right is limited to use of guns, specifically handguns, for self-defense in the home. about the 2008 Heller case, so I will look into it now.
On March 27, 2018, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said the Second Amendment should be repealed. Stevens said that Heller went against the settled understanding of the Second Amendment as being militia-based and that overruling that decision by repealing the Second Amendment would be “simple.”
President Trump responded the next day to Stevens’s call for repeal by saying that it would never happen. Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, says that Stevens’s comments were “staggeringly misplaced” and could set back demands for gun control. She also said an attempt at repeal would be “a daunting task” likely to fail.
The following has been quoted from: supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
“OCTOBER TERM, 2007
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
1)The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2)Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.”
We have this news which has recently been released: www.wnd.com/2018/04/judge-rules-constitution-allows-ban-on-ar-15-rifles/
In a decision that is bound to be challenged, a judge has ruled that the popular AR-15 rifle is not protected by the Second Amendment and can be banned if states choose.
The ruling came in a case brought by several groups and individuals, including the Gun Owners Action League, who objected to a gun-ban in Massachusetts that cracks down on a number of “assault weapons.”
Judge William Young said the weapons at issue are “not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear arms’ under the Second Amendment.”
Young said the state can ban the guns because the ban was passed by the legislature. He pointed out that other states are free to regulate firearms as they see fit.
“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens,” Young wrote. “These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.”
At the time the Constitution was written, personal ownership of weapons was common, and the Founders wrote of the need for the citizenry to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.”
Right now Americans are living in fear of a tyrannical government – this is no time to be confiscating our guns and moving against our Second Amendment Right! We do have a leader, who says the Second Amendment will not be repealed! However, I believe things have gotten out of control, and we are seeing some of our guns being confiscated – with no one doing anything about it. But the NRA is fighting against it. Now we will wait and see.
In a positive turn of events, Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, has instructed the Intel community to establish trust with the public. This is good news, and maybe things will turn around for the American people to some extent.
The new instruction, “Civil Liberties, Privacy, and Transparency,” instructs that “the DNI is committed to protecting civil liberties and privacy and promoting greater public transparency, consistent with United States values and founding principles as a democratic society.”
It sounds good to me – what could possibly go wrong? LOL!
“We have firmly established transparency as a foundational element of securing public trust in our endeavors, alongside the protection of civil liberties and privacy,” Coats said in a statement about the move.
If you would like to read more go to: g2bulletin.wnd.com/
Now, lets talk about Diamond and Silk and Facebook. I cannot believe what Facebook has become. They tell Diamond and Silk they are unsafe for Facebook, they stop posts from being posted to their page, and they basically set them aside from the rest of the community.
Actually the same thing has happened to me on Facebook. It started when I would share some of my articles on my wall. That led to complaints, as I am a Trump supporter. The friends I have from this area are all Democrats.
In fact, before I was hired to work in the County schools, I had to change from Republican to Democrat. Did I do it? Yes, I did, as I needed a job. I was raising two young children, and I wanted to teach in the same school they attended. My children were more important to me than my voter registration.
However, later after I was hired, I did change back to Republican. The Democrats in this Country are brutal, as I have been in many debates with them on Facebook. After the going back and forth with the Democrats on Facebook, I started to see my popularity waning. It is a good thing I am not in high school anymore, as I would be crying myself to sleep every night – boo hoo – NOT!
What is the factor Diamond and Silk – and I – are being judged for? Of course, we are Trump supporters! What else?
This is an excerpt from clashdaily.com/2018/04/diamond-silk-videos-banned-facebook-heres/
“Diamond And Silk have been corresponding since September 7, 2017, with Facebook (owned by Mark Zuckerberg), about their bias censorship and discrimination against D&S brand page. Finally after several emails, chats, phone calls, appeals, beating around the bush, lies, and giving us the run around, Facebook gave us another bogus reason why Millions of people who have liked and/or followed our page no longer receives notification and why our page, post and video reach was reduced by a very large percentage.
Here is the reply from Facebook. Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:40 PM: “The Policy team has came to the conclusion that your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community.” Yep, this was FB conclusion after 6 Months, 29 days, 5 hrs, 40 minutes and 43 seconds. Oh and guess what else Facebook said: “This decision is final and it is not appeal-able in any way.” (Note: This is the exact wording that FB emailed to us.)
So our questions to Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg) are:
- What is unsafe about two Blk-women supporting the President Donald J. Trump?
- Our FB page has been created since December 2014, when exactly did the content and the brand become unsafe to the community?
- When you say “community” are you referring to the Millions who liked and followed our page?
- What content on our page was in violation?
- If our content and brand was so unsafe to the community, why is the option for us to boost our content and spend money with FB to enhance our brand page still available? Maybe FB should give us a refund since FB censored our reach.
- Lastly, didn’t FB violate their own policy when FB stopped sending notifications to the Millions of people who liked and followed our brand page?
This is deliberate bias censorship and discrimination. These tactics are unacceptable and we want answers!”
It will be interesting to see what is going to occur in the future with Facebook, the Second Amendment, and the way American Conservatives are being treated. Frankly, I am not optimistic.
Note – I just discovered YouTube is censoring Diamond and Silk.