The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 1 of an Open Debate—USC 2nd Amendment vs. NAC Article II, Section 2.1-2.3

USC Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

NAC Article II, Section 2.1-2.3

(1) as a well-armed populace, skilled in the use of all weapons, is essential for the security of the United States—in order to wage warfare against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that should threaten any of their rights—the right of the people to make, keep, bear and carry all manner of weapons of every kind, openly or concealed, shall not be infringed nor regulated;

(2) all men shall be justified in defending themselves, their wives, their children, their friends, their neighbors, their property, their homes, their lands, their country, their government, their rights, their privileges, their liberties, their religion and their all, and the all of their neighbors, even unto bloodshed, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded;

(3) because of the extreme danger posed to liberty, there shall be no standing army in times of peace, and military conscription shall be abolished forever;

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.1 vs. USC’s 2nd Amendment

Sec.2.1 creates a super-armed society with no regulation by any branch of government.  No permits or licenses can be required of the people.  They are unrestricted in all ways.  They can even make their own weapons.  Sec.2.1 covers every kind of weapon, including firearms and swords and everything else.  The purpose of this right is given as warfare, both to enemies foreign and domestic, to protect all the other rights of the people.

The 2nd Amendment creates a partially armed society, regulated by the Federal and State governments.  You need permits and licenses.  You are denied access to certain types of weapons and certain types of ammunition.  You cannot make your own weapons without permission and regulation.  The 2nd Amendment only covers firearms, not swords, so that no one can go around bearing a sharpened sword, etc.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is debated, some believing it is only to allow people to hunt, and others believing it is just for self-defense, and others believing it is for warfare.

Under the 2nd Amendment, the police state thrives.  Jack-booted thugs can and do regularly enter into homes in unannounced raids.  An agenda of gun control and regulation is promoted, with the end goal of disarming the people, all except for the police and other governmental authorities.  People actually do have their weapons (private property) routinely confiscated.  (Remember Katrina?)  People are also taught to rely upon the police for protection.  And criminals, who go after the weak and unarmed, are able to perform all manner of crimes.  All of this makes the 2nd Amendment extremely weak in its protections.

On the other hand, the super-armed society created by Sec.2.1 (and Sec.2.2) entirely does away with the police state.  Literally everyone is armed, or assumed to be armed, to the teeth.  The government is completely in the dark as to what weapons the people have, how many weapons they have, how much ammo they have, etc.  The people are free to conceal their weapons on their person, therefore, the only way to know is when they are bearing weapons openly, but that is not an accurate measurement, as a person may also have additional concealed weapons.  This unknown variable creates an environment unfavorable to a police state, and also to other types of criminals.  Simply put, the government authorities must at all times assume they are outmanned and outgunned by the citizens that surround them.  Everyone, essentially, becomes a potential threat with no clear advantage to the police state, because citizens live everywhere and thus, surround all the cops.  The authority of the police state is one of intimidation, the firearms of the police being a perceived threat.  “Do what I say or this firearm you see at my side is going to come out and point at you.”  But a super-armed society is not intimidated, neither by police nor by criminals.  On the contrary, a super-armed society intimidates all police and also all criminals.

Thus, crime increases under the 2nd Amendment, with a corresponding increase in the police state, to deal with all the crime, whereas crime will decrease and almost entirely be eliminated under Sec.2.1, with a corresponding decrease in the police state, until the police state disappears altogether.

In conclusion, the 2nd Amendment can be considered as an abridgment of the real weapons right.  It is better than nothing, but still falls short of the actual right.  Whereas Sec.2.1 is a full restoration of the weapons right held by the ancient people of this land, and also by those who lived at the beginning of time.  The restoration of this right fully secures the land from tyranny, both from non-governmental and governmental criminals.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.2 vs. USC’s nothing

That’s right, the USC has nothing in it for defense.  There is no right to defense in the United States Constitution, whatsoever.  Nevertheless, apart from the USC, there are federal and State laws that put forth a right of women to defend themselves from other women, and from men, and that put forth a right of men to defend themselves from other men, but not from women.

In fact, if any woman attacks a man, hitting him, slapping him, pulling his hair, spitting on him, kicking him, pushing him, throwing his property, verbally insulting him, destroying his property, and so on, even publicly, first of all, no one would help the man out (not even off-duty cops), secondly, the men in the area would think the man was a wimp, allowing himself to get beaten up by a girl, and third, some of the women in the area would cheer, and all of the women would think that the man had the beating coming to him and that he must be at fault (even though they have no idea of the circumstances.)

But if that man were to attempt to defend himself against her, even if it was only to restrain her from hitting him again, all the men in the area who are what are known as white knights would immediately jump to the woman’s defense and start pounding on the man, because of the rule they were taught by their single, or separated or divorced mothers, (and even some of their fathers), namely, that it is always wrong to hit a woman.  He defending himself against her attack would cause all to view him as a monster and as “not a man.”  Should the cops be called, they would arrest him, and not her, even though she attacked him and he only defended himself, and he would be the one going to jail.  Thus, not only society says that a man does not have a right to defend himself against a woman, but also the law says so.  Think I’m wrong?  Watch this:

Notice that in the video the off-duty cop didn’t help him.  Also notice that the psychology professor says, “Men create more damage, but women hit more than men do.”

Now, in olden times and more particularly in ancient times (and I am writing here according to my understanding), a man had a right to defend himself against all persons, even women.  Not only did he have a right to defend his person, but also his honor, against attacks, be they verbal or physical.  Thus, when a man was verbally insulted or abused, and I don’t mean an argument or difference of opinion or a debate, but when words were used to insult and abuse the man, the man felt pain, for his honor was under a humiliating attack and thus the insults were considered fighting words.  In other words, although only words were used, it was nevertheless considered a fight.  Such a man had three options.  If he were a Christian saint, then he might simply suffer the persecution (what we today would call harassment) and just turn the other cheek, and no matter how many words he was afflicted with, he would not retaliate in kind.  Nevertheless, he had the right to defend his honor, and his second option was to retaliate in kind, afflicting verbal insults upon the attacker, so that his enemy would become humiliated, too, and thus, he might “win the fight” by getting the public observers to side with him as the winner.  But there was also a third option, and that was to take it to the next level, and to physically stop the attacker from continuing to insult and abuse him verbally.  This was perfectly acceptable in the ancient world, and also in olden times, because if a man was so brash as to insult another man, then he had to be able to deal with the consequences of his actions, which might lead to a physical altercation, according to the right of the man attacked to defend himself and his honor.  In other words, the right of a man to defend his honor from verbal abuse, even physically, was universally recognized.  This was the prerogative of a man.

Anciently (and also in olden times), it was unmanly for a man to allow another man to verbally abuse him, without defending oneself, either verbally or physically.  Thus, when insults were thrown about by men, it might lead to a duel of pistols or a clash of swords, to the wounding or death of one of them, for a man’s honor was everything to him and it was to be defended, at all cost.  But over time, pistol duels were outlawed, as well as gunfights and sword fights.  Now, all that is left, legally, is fisticuffs, and even that comes with a penalty from the law.

Anciently, if any woman were to verbally assault a man’s honor, insulting and abusing him with words, she “crossed the line” into man’s territory, for women were to act as women and men were to act as men.  Men could insult a man, and then they would have to face the consequences, but women were not expected or allowed to act as men and insult men, but if they did, they were always treated with the very same treatment that other men received, except with one difference.  This similar treatment of women, by men, when the women acted as men, put a permanent stop to all women abusing men, either verbally or physically.

It is a universal fact that men are mightier in every way than women.  An average man put into a fair fight with an average woman, and neither of them pulling their punches, would result in either the critical wounding or death of the female.  All females crumple under male power.  The Hollywood myth of the dominant, strong female that can kick a man’s butt is merely a clever fiction meant to deceive the masses.  You could put 50 females in a line, each one facing that man in a fair fist fight, and that man would destroy each and every female, from the first to the last.  The male body and his testosterone fueled muscles gives almost god-like strength to him, or at least, that is what it seems like to any female who has ever been hit hard by a male.  All females, once hit hard by a male, cease their bickering.

Now, the ancients knew this, and they knew that male strength is much too powerful to be used in its full capacity, upon females, as it was used upon male antagonists, but they also knew that unless a woman is checked by male power, she would continue to verbally and physically assault and abuse men, for this is the nature of unchecked women.  So, the ancient solution was to use the closed hand (the fist) against males and the open hand (the palm slap) against women.  The muscles on the palm of the hand softened the blow, so that even though the slap was delivered in a hard manner, so as to make a point, it was not enough to destroy the woman.  To the woman on the receiving end, it still felt like a brick wall had fallen on top of her, and the realization that this was only a slap, caused every woman to respect, submit to, and not fight, male power and authority.  In other words, the ancient women, so checked, fully respected the men around them, once they felt just what kind of god-like power and strength God had endowed to the males of the species.

Now, this was the way of the ancients, according to their right of defense, and this practice created peace between the sexes, for the women, once checked, submitted to the men and did not fight them, and the men, for their part, did not initiate much violence towards women, because their women were mostly submissive.  Violence towards men by women was virtually non-existent, and the little insulting words thrown about by women were quickly stopped by this hard slapping check by the men.  This was, for the most part, the extent of the domestic violence.

Domestic violence, however, in modern times, is widespread.  Women hide behind, and promote, the false teaching of “men should never hit women” in order to get away with hitting and otherwise abusing men.  And then the same statistics show up, namely, that women initiate the lion’s share of the violence and arguments and verbal abuse, except that they are never checked, because the law will throw a man into jail if he makes the attempt to put his woman in her place.  This causes pent up anger in the emasculated males, as the abuse continues, until in some males, instead of a checking slap that would have put an abrupt end to the female-initiated violence, we get an explosive reaction that destroys the female.  In other words, the males that do such violence actually end up looking upon these women as fully male and so exert full male power at them, destroying them.

Now, I will not expound the heart of the matter in this post, for that is not the topic.  Suffice it to say that devilish forces have removed the ancient rights of men to defend themselves and their honor from all persons, including from women, and thus, in this emasculated state, the prophecy of Isaiah is brought to pass:

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.  (Isaiah 3:12)

Thus, the devil has turned the ancient order upside down.  But the NAC turns it right-side up again, through restoration, by restoring the ancient rights of man to defend himself from all persons.

From all persons

Remember those jack-booted thugs dressed in the garb of the State’s authority?  Well, Sec.2.2 allows citizens to defend themselves and their property, too, against all those unannounced raids.  Instead of a man opening fire on DEA agents raiding his house and then going to prison, the man would be set free, for he was merely exercising his right.  This curtails all unlawful encroachments, no matter where they originate.  Men are re-empowered to defend their all, against all, and the police state suddenly cowers before all the masculine power the State stole from the men.  Raids will stop.  Girlfriends and wives destroying a man’s property because they are upset with him, without any consequences, will stop.  Even conflict in general will largely cease, because a super-armed society in conjunction with the right to defend creates a powder-keg of masculine power that is unfavorable to conflict.  In other words, civility becomes the societal law, because any conflict can potentially escalate into great bodily harm or even death.  Contentious persons, of both sexes, will cease their contention quite rapidly, or be eliminated.  It just isn’t wise to be contentious in such a society.

Bad cops also will leave the police force, or never enter it to begin with.  Cops need to be extra kind and polite and considerate and careful not to trample on people’s rights when dealing with super-armed citizens who have a right to defend their all against all persons from encroachments.  Any infringement by a cop upon a citizen may not make it to the judge.  This will cause only the manliest and pleasantest of men to take the position of police officer, because of the unfavorable environment to nervous and contentious men.  A cop’s main job in such an environment would be to show up and protect the nabbed criminal from the citizens who have caught him in the act of the crime and have him pinned down at gun or sword point.  The citizens themselves would be a sort of unofficial police force, for they are empowered to protect the all of their neighbors, too.


A man can protect his all under Sec.2.2.  This may be interpreted to include his unborn fetuses.  NAC Article X., Section 5 reads:

As the decisions of the supreme court of the former national government were made according to that law which was the United States Constitution and its treaties, which law is no longer binding upon the States, nor upon the people thereof, neither shall such decisions be binding upon any of the States, nor upon their people.

This negates Roe vs. Wade and makes the legality of abortion a States issue.  Nevertheless, Section 10 of the same Article says,

These articles of Confederation, and all the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the united States in Congress assembled, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Laws or Constitution of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So, the States will be bound to the NAC.  Sec. 2.2 in conjunction with Article III. Section 2 may make a case for permission from the father being necessary before an abortion can be legally performed:

Neither the united States in Congress assembled, nor any State, shall have power to raise up a king over men, nor to exert kingly authority over them or their house, for it is not right to esteem one flesh above another, or that one man shall think himself above another, but every man alone shall bear rule in his own house; and as that which is governed by law is also preserved by law, whereas that which breaks a law, and abides not by law, but seeks to become a law unto itself, cannot be preserved by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment, every man shall have power to set his house in order, having his children and house in subjection to him alone with all gravity, even as unto a king, according to the bounds and conditions of his law, that this shall be a land of liberty, and that every man shall enjoy his rights and privileges alike, and that every man shall set in order his family, and that every man shall bear his part.

Certainly that fetus could be considered part of the “all” of a man, and also part of his family.  These things will be worked out in the courts, but the NAC provides a legal basis for the reproductive right of the father to extend its manly protection over his unborn offspring. And if the courts rule in this very way, that the father’s right to defend his all extends to his fetuses, then all men in this country can be empowered to save all these children, regardless of the legality of abortion in any State.  Additionally, even if a woman tries to circumvent the law’s requirement of a father’s permission for abortion, by going to an illegal clinic, the father is still empowered to defend that unborn life, his all, even unto bloodshed, if you get my drift.  This will create a very unfavorable environment for illegal abortion practitioners, as they may be faced with an irate and fully armed father seeking to protect his unborn young.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.3 vs. USC’s nothing

Once again, the Constitution comes up flat.  The USC allows for a standing army.  And for military conscription.  But the NAC disallows both.

Now, it may not be readily apparent just how important these three items are (Section 2.1-2.3) but together, they put a shackle on the State and any would-be tyrants in it.  Despots and dictators and would-be tyrants need some things in order to tyrannize a populace.  They need a standing army during peacetime.  The USC gives it to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need military conscription, so as to rapidly expand their army by forcing men to fight for them.  The USC gives it to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need the populace either fully disarmed or mostly disarmed, or at least regulated to the point where they could fully disarm them at some point through such regulations.  The USC gives this to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need the men, representing the masculine power of the population, to be emasculated to the point that they can no longer defend themselves, legally, against anyone, but must rely upon the police and other armed State officials, for their defense and protection.  The USC gives this to them.  The NAC doesn’t.  They need to have a police state in place, to intimidate and threaten the populace into submission.  The USC gives it to them.  The NAC doesn’t.

So, the USC supports tyranny, or allows it to flourish, while the NAC destroys it.  Just this little bit of the NAC proves that the NAC is superior in every way to the USC, but I will go over other NAC sections in future posts.  Feel free to disagree or debate on any point mentioned in this post.  This is, after all, an open debate.  And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist