Denial of Free Speech and Disarming the American Citizenry – Part Two

How Judges Ignore the Constitution on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms Moussa81, iStock-1006474816
Denial of Free Speech and the Disarming of the American Citizenry, iStock-1006474816

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- The Deadly Threat To Our Nation Is Not The Coronavirus But The Corruption In The Body Politic.

The concern of our founders was directed to preventing a strong, centralized Federal Government from usurping power that rightfully belongs to the American people. They felt that, apart from a three Branch Government, wielding distinct and limited powers, the free Speech clause within the First Amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms clause in the Second, would be the principal fail-safe mechanism through which we would be able to maintain their authority over Government, if the threat of tyranny should arise.

But the framers could not have imagined the marriage of certain factions of Government to modern internet platforms that, working together, could one day effectively undermine the sovereignty of the American people. The First and Second Amendments to the Constitution were designed to prevent this.

To the First Amendment, the framers added—what is arguably redundant—the freedom of Press clause, as they felt the Press, as a distinct and critical extension of the people, or perhaps, as a mechanism separate and apart from the people, would nonetheless constitute a staunch ally of the people to help prevent the insinuation of patterns of conduct within Government that might well lead to tyranny. In drawing that inference, the framers erred as well.

“Freedom of the Press” even as it appears in the Bill of Rights, is not a codification of a natural right at all, and, so, should not be construed as such. After all, “the Press,” as with the Government itself are artificial man-made constructs, not God-bestowed natural rights intrinsic to man himself. And, as with all gargantuan, bloated constructs, the Press, as an institution, to which we can add the cable news networks, talk radio, and the monolithic internet platforms has grown to dominate free speech.

The Press expresses consternation over and is antagonistic toward the public that would desire to exercise its own fundamental right of free speech, as freely and as independently as this “Press.”

A New Threat To Liberty Has Emerged: The Press

The framers of our Constitution never envisioned, in their wildest dreams, that the people would one day elect a man to Government—the best the people could achieve at any rate, at this moment in the Nation’s history, Donald Trump—who would better defend the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people than did his predecessors who machinated to weaken those very rights and liberties.

The people elected a man who would implement foreign and domestic policies to benefit the United States as an independent Nation-State rather than implement policies, as his recent predecessors had done, that serve to benefit not the American people but a monstrous, labyrinthine transnational neoliberal oligarchic empire Collective, into which the hollowed-out shell of the United States would one day be fastened.

The framers of the Constitution would be surprised to learn that the agency of information, the Press, that was expected to keep the Government in check would one day work, seditiously, not for but against the American people, colluding with like-minded members of Congress and like-minded unelected officials of the federal bureaucracy to destroy a President whose unforgivable crime, in their mind, was striving to serve the Nation, its Constitution, and its people rather than working against it as recent former Presidents had done, in service to destructive forces with a perverse agenda.

If the framers recognized the danger that the Press—along with modern versions of the Press, the information technology platforms, cable news and other mechanisms for conveying information—would one day pose to the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry, they would likely have forborne inclusion of free Press protection in the First Amendment and left intact the right of free speech.

But the framers, learned men and courageous men, and far-sighted visionaries as they were—even they—could not have conceived the potential for First Amendment speech abuse by private parties, wielding unheard of monolithic, monopolistic powers over information dissemination.

The framers would be both horrified with, transfixed by, and thoroughly ashamed of their failure to foresee the danger posed to the sovereignty of the American people by a seditious Press. They would be aghast to see a few private companies wielding unimaginable power over the free flow of information—more power than the federal government itself had wielded, could ever wield and that would use that power with impunity in service to forces desirous of undermining the Free Republic and a free people, rather than preserving the Free Republic and a free people.

Internet companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon control the dissemination of vast quantities of information. They determine what information can or cannot be disseminated. They control thought and discourse and attempt to affect change in accordance with a Collectivist agenda.

Since these power brokers support the Radical Left agenda, they have a vested interest in and the power to control how public policy is made; how opinions are expressed and generated.

With their powerful lobbying activities, they essentially control Congress: Democrats surely, with whose policy objectives they are sympathetic to, sharing the same political and social philosophy, but Republicans too—many of whom are on the lobbying payroll of the big tech companies.



Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Subscribe
Notify of
11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
gregs
gregs
2 months ago

big tech as a private entity can ban certain speech if they claim they are a producer of information. if they claim they are a platform they cannot ban speech. the issue is they claim both at the same time, which they cannot do and this is why they are being investigated.

Coelacanth
Coelacanth
2 months ago

The Press: Fourth Estate, or Fifth Column? Domestic Enemy Number One? Or Number Two? Mouthpiece of the democrat party, or cudgel with which to beat the Republic into submission? I’m thinking along the lines of enemy of the people. The President nailed it on the head. Assaults on federal courthouses are assaults on the fundamentals of the Constitutional Republic that we call “America”. God save us.

Dubi Loo
Dubi Loo
2 months ago
Reply to  Coelacanth

Adding my $0.02, God and Guns WILL save us.

UncleT
UncleT
2 months ago

How can you say the founders couldn’t see what the media and govt would become when in fact they fought with misinformation from their media back during the Revolutionary War with the help of the British infiltrators! The Constitution is designed to restrict the power of the government, not the people. They knew exactly what could happen, but current politicians and treachery with our own govt has changed that narrative slowly but surely in our education and indoctrination over the last 200 years. I’d argue the digging of the grave began in 1830 when our education system turned to Joseph… Read more »

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
2 months ago

Our framers were genius and ahead of their time, however they did not have the reason or ability to foresee how people in leadership could rise to such corrupted levels simply by catering to those who would help keep them there. Lifetime career politicians have been proven to be the stuff crooked governments are made of. Term limits in all elected public positions could have served this nation well.

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
2 months ago

@ Patriot Solutions

You struck the nail directly on it’s head.

California town scrubs Black Lives Matter mural after Trump supporter requests ‘MAGA 2020’ painting

ny-redwood-city-black-lives-matter-mural-trump-maga-mural-20200721-pbpvpd7l5bbftoq6q3z5qfrk5e-story.html

BLM Street Mural ERASED After Woman Requests MAGA Mural, Too

AZ Lefty
AZ Lefty
2 months ago

Have someone who understands the U.S. Constitution explain the First Amendment to you and how it applies to the Government and not private Business

Knute
Knute
2 months ago
Reply to  AZ Lefty

Or just read part one of this article, unlike Azlefty, who insists on only having small pieces of information, rather than reading things in their entirety. Little wonder that he understands so little. 🙂

AZ Lefty
AZ Lefty
2 months ago

Wow a group telling us about our “Rights” yet they have no fucking clue as to what that right -1A- actually is. What part of Russia are you in

RK-ARBALEST QUARREL
RK-ARBALEST QUARREL
2 months ago
Reply to  AZ Lefty

AZ Lefty, AQ is well aware that, and DID explain that, 1A doesn’t apply to private companies. See our previous article, where, discussing the Smith-Mundt Act, we said, “As private companies, information platforms do not come under the purview of the Smith—Mundt Act, and they never did.” You can read that article at: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/07/treacherous-americans-pose-the-greatest-threat-to-our-nation-part-one/, makes that point clear. The whole point of that article and this one is that the framers of our Constitution erred by failing to realize the power over information that private companies would one day wield. We know full well that the Bill of Rights does… Read more »

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
2 months ago
Reply to  AZ Lefty

Speech is protected under the 1 st. even that which Leftards find hateful.