A Comparison Between the AOC, NAC & USC


AOC stands for the Articles of Confederation.  NAC stands for the New Articles of Confederation.  USC stands for the  United States Constitution.  As we no longer are under the AOC, nor are yet under the NAC, some of these are necessarily projected assessments. USC assessments are for the current environment.

AOC’s Loose Confederation NAC’s Tight Confederation USC’s Tight Consolidation
Government Powers: Few Government Powers: Few Government Powers: Lots
Centralized or Decentralized: Decentralized Centralized or Decentralized: Decentralized Centralized or Decentralized: Centralized
Militarily: Weak Militarily: Strong Militarily: Strong
Military Conscription: No Provisions Military Conscription: Prohibited Military Conscription: Yes
Foreign Relations: Friendly Foreign Relations: Friendly Foreign Relations: Friendly to Antagonistic
Capitalism or Socialism: Capitalism Capitalism or Socialism: Capitalism Capitalism or Socialism: Mix Between Capitalism and Socialism with Socialism Gaining Ground
Economically: Strong Economically: Super Strong Economically: Medium to Weak
Taxation: No Power of Taxation Taxation: No Power of Taxation Taxation: Unlimited Power of Taxation
Currency: Whatever the States make; Private money can be anything. Currency: Only Gold, Silver and Copper; Private money can be anything. Currency: Fiat only; Private money can be anything.
Debt: Allowable Debt: Prohibited Debt: Allowable, Practiced and Huge
Classes: Large Middle Class; Small Upper & Lower Class Classes: Large Upper Class; Small Middle Class; Even Smaller Lower Class Classes: Large Middle Class; Small Lower Class; Even Smaller Upper Class
Diversity: High Diversity: Super High Diversity: Homogenized and Monopolized
Immigration: High Immigration: Super High Immigration: Normal
Citizenship: Of a State only Citizenship: Of a State only Citizenship: Of the National Government
Population Health: Normal to High Population Health: Normal to Super High Population Health: Normal to Poor
Rights & Privileges: Strong Rights & Privileges: Super Strong Rights & Privileges: Medium to Weak
Spying on Americans: No Provisions Spying on Americans: Prohibited Spying on Americans: Allowed and Practiced
Police State: Small Police Force Police State: Exceedingly Small Police Force Police State: Full On Police State; Militarily Weaponized
General Warrants: No Provisions General Warrants: Prohibited General Warrants: Yes
State Sovereignty: Sovereign State Sovereignty: Sovereign State Sovereignty: Not Sovereign; Subservient to National Government
Secession: Yes Secession: Yes Secession: No
Voluntary or Forced Union: Voluntary Voluntary or Forced Union: Voluntary Voluntary or Forced Union: Forced
Family: No Provisions Against Attack Family: Fully Protected From All Attacks Family: No Provisions Against Attack; Currently Under Attack and Often Destroyed
Same Sex Marriage: A State’s Issue; Can be Yes or No. Same Sex Marriage: A State’s Issue; Can be Yes or No. Same Sex Marriage: Yes; Forced on All States.
Abortion: A State’s Issue; Can be Yes or No. Abortion: A State’s Issue; Can be Yes or No. Abortion: Yes; Forced on All States.
Marriage & Divorce: Normal Levels of Both Marriage & Divorce: High Levels of Marriage; Low Levels of Divorce Marriage & Divorce: Low Levels of Marriage; High Levels of Divorce
Marriage by Right: No Provisions Marriage by Right: Yes, with State Recognition Marriage by Right: Not recognized
Manus Marriage: No Provisions Manus Marriage: Provided for by Marriage by Right Manus Marriage: Prohibited; Only “Womanus” & “Equal Partner” (SSM) Recognized
Plural Marriage: No Provisions Plural Marriage: Provided for by Marriage by Right Plural Marriage: Prohibited
Education: Decentralized & Uncontrolled Education: Decentralized & Uncontrolled Education: Centralized & Controlled

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Advertisements

The USC Sucks, etcetera: Part 13 of an Open Debate—The NAC’s Article XIII (The Rules of the League)


Altering the pact

Article XIII. Section 1.  Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to by the voice of the citizens of the several States, for as it was the voice of the citizens of the several States that ordained these articles as the league pact for the States of this Confederacy, neither the several State legislatures and governors, nor the united States in Congress assembled, shall have power to alter these articles in any way, for such power and authority is reserved solely to the citizens of the several States, who shall wield it by their voice at whatsoever time they see fit.

Once the New Articles of Confederation (NAC) have been installed as the Supreme Law of the land, those who have been deposed of their positions of power in the former national government, and those who were seeking such positions, will unite in an effort to amend or alter the NAC to either bring the Confederacy back to a national government or otherwise to consolidate power into a singular head which can act as a king or as a president exercising kingly authority over men.  These men will prefer to alter or amend the NAC by a Congressional vote or by a vote of the State legislatures, because both Congress and the State legislatures are smaller groups of people than the general populace, and it is easier to bribe with money or promises of power, benefit and gain the 540 or so members of Congress, or the State legislatures, than the entire population.  The NAC anticipates an immediate push for amendment or alteration by these people, but puts this right squarely in the hands of the people of the States, making it impossible for it to be corrupted through closed-door deals.  Thus, conspiring men will have to convince more than half of the American people that altering the NAC is in their best interest.  The chances of that happening are slim to none.

It is possible to transfer an already captured bird from a smaller bird cage to a larger one or from a larger bird cage to a smaller one, for the captured bird is already accustomed to being in a cage and, being confined, can be fairly easily corralled into the new more confining, or less confining, cage.  In like manner, it is possible to cause a people living under an oppressive government to accept the alteration of the government into a more oppressive, or less oppressive, form, for the people are already accustomed to living under an oppressive government, and more oppression or less oppression are just degrees of what they are already used to.  In other words, the situation hasn’t drastically changed, thus the behavior of the people won’t drastically change, either.  But when you free the bird entirely from the cage, allowing it to fly off into the wild blue yonder, you’ve drastically altered conditions and no amount of coaxing will get the bird back in a cage.  Once out, it’s gone.  Similarly, if a people go from an oppressive government to a free government, it is next to impossible to get them to choose of their own free will to go back into oppression.  Once they’ve been acclimated to freedom, the only way to get them back under your thumb is through force of arms.

The NAC establishes a free government, not merely a less oppressive one than the former national government.  For this reason the push to alter the NAC must come almost immediately after its passage, before the population has time to acclimate to the new free environment.  I suppose the threat of war, through an exterior invasion, will be used as a fearmongering tool to try to cause the people to alter the NAC so that a president and standing army can be allowed, perhaps under the false guise of a “temporary measure.”  Whatever the strategy, these efforts to alter must come soon after the installment of the NAC.  If they wait too long, the people will never be able to be tricked into giving up their freedom and liberties again.

This section, then, is a safeguard against the re-establishment of tyranny and oppression in America.

The rules of the club

Article XIII.

Section 2.  All of the fifty States of the previous union, which was formed under the United States Constitution, are invited to enter this league by sending authorized delegates to the gathering at Liberty Bell at the day and time which has been appointed to sign them, and such signing will enter them; but if any of these fifty States neglect to send delegates at that time, yet desire to be admitted into the league afterward, they shall be admitted by the voice of the citizens of their States, first, by the voice of Congress, second, and upon them sending authorized delegates to sign the pact, third, all within a year’s time.

Section 3.  Apart from the fifty States which were united under the United States Constitution, no foreign State or nation shall be admitted into this league, except by the voice of the citizens of the several States, and the voice of Congress, and the voice of the citizens of said foreign State or nation, all within a year’s time; and if the voice of all these is for admittance, the foreign State or nation shall send authorized delegates to sign the pact before the year’s time has expired, and thus shall be admitted; but no foreign State or nation shall be admitted that has a king over men, or that exerts kingly authority over them, or that in any way violates these articles.

Section 4.  No State shall be removed from this Confederacy, except by the voice of Congress and the voice of the citizens of the several States, all within a year’s time. Any State which has been removed from this league shall be considered a foreign State and treated as such; and if the removed State requests re-admittance, the third section of this article shall apply.

The Confederacy established by the NAC is a free league, of free States.  Any State can voluntarily enter the league, and voluntarily exit it, whenever they want.  Peaceful provisions are provided to that end, making a repeat of the Civil War, or War Between the States, highly unlikely.  However, owing that the league is to be of free States, oppressive ones that exercise kingly authority over their people, and also monarchies, are banned from it.  This Confederacy is not to be patterned after the United Nations, allowing all sorts of oppressive regimes in, but an exclusive club of free governments.  If any nation does not make the grade, they are barred from entering.  If any member State turns oppressive, they can be kicked out.  The NAC does not play favorites and no State is indispensable.

Installing the NAC

Once America has decided to install the NAC, the only text that needs to be altered are the dates listed in the Preamble and Conclusion,

Preamble

Whereas the Delegates of Fifty of the United States of America in Congress assembled at Liberty Bell, Independence National Historical Park, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand Fifteen, and in the Two Hundred Thirty-Ninth Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain new articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the sovereign, free and independent States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia, in the words following, viz:

New articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia.

Conclusion

In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord two thousand Sixteen, and in the two hundred Fortieth Year of the independence of America.

and also the listing of the States, according to which States choose to enter the pact.  Everything else can and should remain untouched, just as it is written now.  This allows for very easy installation, as whatever date chosen only needs to be one that occurs after the election and on a day and time that the Liberty Bell park is open to the public.

Peaceful government transitions codified

Article XIII. Section 5.  Recognizing that the Confederacy derives its powers from its constituent States, and that each State derives its Powers from its people, should the citizens of any of the member States of this Confederacy decide, by their voice, with or without the approval of their State government officials, to abolish the government of their State, or to remove their State from the Confederacy, or to revert their State to the previous form of government as a British Colony, or to alter their republican form of State government into some other form, this Confederacy shall acknowledge their decision as legitimate, valid, effective, final and binding, and shall consider them and their lands as no longer residing within the jurisdictional bounds of, and no longer part of, the Confederacy; and should they choose removal from the Confederacy, they shall be viewed as a free and independent State; and should they choose anarchism, they shall be viewed as a free and independent people and Territory; and should they choose to revert to British rule, they shall be viewed as part of Great Britain; and should they choose some other form of government, they shall be viewed as a foreign entity and nation.

The NAC includes the right to peacefully abolish, revert and replace, which is essentially the same text of the proposed amendment attached to the NAC, which amendment will allow the NAC to be installed.  As good a law as the NAC is, being far superior to the United States Constitution, or any other man-made law found throughout the world, this does not preclude the future existence of something even better, of ever greater wisdom, therefore the NAC provides for this contingency, too.

Final Conclusion of the 13 Parts

These thirteen essays adequately show the superiority of the New Articles of Confederation to the United States Constitution, demonstrating to America that the Constitution is not the be-all and end-all of laws.  It certainly served its purposes for more than 200 years, and as far as man-made laws go, it was one of the most innovative, and far ahead of its time.  But it is an old man and it is time to put it to rest.  Nevertheless, the principles in the Constitution, which were not man-made, namely, the Bill of Rights, are carried over into the new plan (the NAC), for these were inspired of God, and must not be set aside.  And they have been expanded in the NAC, as if in an unabridged form.  Also, a few of the Constitutional innovations have been retained in the NAC.  But, other than that, the NAC is a new tool for a new millennium, to combat and eradicate a new group of tyrants and tyrannies, the march of which the Constitution has been unable to stop or even slow down.  But that is okay, because now there is the NAC, and it is fully armed and ready to deal with the current and future environments of tyranny.  So, let’s let go of the Constitution and replace it with the NAC.  Let’s let the NAC do its tyranny-destroying thing.  As it is unwise to enter a gunfight armed with only a knife, why should we fight the tyranny and oppression of today with a 200+ year law that the enemy has already figured out how to by-pass and corrupt?  That route only leads to defeat, slavery and totalitarianism.  The NAC offers an alternative future, one of victory, freedom and the destruction of tyranny.  It does so by offering a proper tool, one meet for the task at hand, even a modern tool for a modern problem, which, strangely enough, is really a set of exceedingly ancient principles, far older than the Constitution.  So the NAC is new only in the sense that we have never seen its like before, but in reality it is an older, extremely strong, street-wise man, who has been around the block more times than we can count, and the Constitution is the relatively new kid who is getting beat up by the neighborhood bullies.  The NAC man has returned from his lengthy walkabout and now sees and targets the bullies.  He’s ready and poised to kick some major bully butt.  Do we put forth our hand to hold the NAC back and say, “No.  Let the bullies continue to destroy the little kid.”  Of course not.  We pull up a chair, grab a bag of popcorn, and watch the action fly, cheering as the bullies get their comeuppance.

Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post. Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have 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 2, Part 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

The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 2 of an Open Debate—USC 3rd & 1st Amendments vs. NAC Article II, Section 2.4-2.8


USC Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

NAC Article II, Section 2.4

(4) no person or thing shall be quartered or installed in any house without the consent of the owner, nor shall any device or technology be used to spy, eavesdrop or intrude the senses remotely upon the people;

USC Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

NAC Article II, Section 2.5-2.8

(5) there shall be no law against a man’s belief, nor any law which shall bring men on to unequal grounds, but a man shall be judged and punished only for the crimes which he has done, even for his infringement upon the rights and liberties of others;

(6) no law respecting an establishment of religion shall be made, nor any prohibiting or regulating the free practice thereof;

(7) that censorship by government and its officials upon the private sector be abolished forever, no law abridging or regulating the freedom of speech, or of the press, shall be made;

(8) the rights of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and for redemption, shall not be abridged or regulated, and all such importunities shall be heard and investigated for merit speedily, and if found to have merit, shall be addressed according to the amount of damages which have been sustained, both of character and personal injuries, as well as real property;

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.4 vs. USC’s 3rd Amendment

The 3rd Amendment was to stop the government from putting eyes and ears via soldiers in the people’s houses, to learn who was pro-government and who was anti-government.  It performed its function when it was first written, but technology has outpaced its words.  The government no longer needs to put soldiers in a person’s house to find out what people are saying and doing in their homes.  They’ve got remote devices that can do this.  So, the 3d Amendment is, essentially, useless as it is currently written.  Nevertheless, the principle or reason for its existence is still very important.

Section 2.4 of the NAC Article II re-words the principle given in the 3rd Amendment, so that it actually has power to stop the government from snooping in people’s houses.  The government must, at all times, be completely in the dark as to what the heck people are saying and doing in their own homes, or how they feel or think about the government.  Remember the Zoramites?

And it came to pass that after the more popular part of the Zoramites had consulted together concerning the words which had been preached unto them, they were angry because of the word, for it did destroy their craft; therefore they would not hearken unto the words.

And they sent and gathered together throughout all the land all the people, and consulted with them concerning the words which had been spoken.

Now their rulers and their priests and their teachers did not let the people know concerning their desires; therefore they found out privily the minds of all the people.

And it came to pass that after they had found out the minds of all the people, those who were in favor of the words which had been spoken by Alma and his brethren were cast out of the land; and they were many; and they came over also into the land of Jershon.  (Alma 35:3-6)

Technology has emasculated the power of the 3rd Amendment, but Section 2.4 is fully empowered to deal with technology.  The government is shackled by it.  The Constitution fully fails on this one and the NAC comes out the clear winner.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.5 vs. USC’s nothing

Under the Constitution we get hate crimes: people punished not only for their crimes, but also because they held certain beliefs while they did their crimes.  Under the NAC, we just get crimes.  The criminal can believe what he wants.  The NAC only cares about the crime.  (As should all the other laws.)  Under the NAC, there could be no such thing as a hate crime, only crime.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.6 vs. USC’s 1st Amendment

There is not much difference between Section 2.6 and the 1st Amendment.  Except that the word “exercise” is replaced with the word “practice” and the word “regulated” is inserted.  And also except that those minor word changes fully stop the government from prohibiting a person from practicing their religion, or regulating that practice in any way.  You know, like the current regulation that the government does today, such as stopping Mormons from practicing their religion in taking plural wives?  So, Section 2.6 would actually allow Mormons to fully practice D&C 132, and any and all other revelatory practices that may come, such as animal sacrifice.  (Remember, that practice is supposed to be coming back as a part of the Restoration.)  Just a few minor word changes that do nothing much, except to allow God’s people to obey His commandments.

So, the Constitution fails on this one, too.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.7 vs. USC’s 1st Amendment

Again, there is not much difference between Section 2.7 and the 1st Amendment, except for the addition of the words, “that censorship by government and its officials upon the private sector be abolished forever.”  Why would those additional words be so important?  Because they explain who is being prohibited.  The prohibition is not to stop the private sector from speaking their minds, nor from censoring their own privately published publications; no, it is solely to stop GOVERNMENT from censoring the private sector.  That changes everything, doesn’t it?

But, under the Constitution, and under the 1st Amendment, since the entity being prohibited is not stated there, we get all sorts of governmental powers being employed to stop people and private organizations from speaking their minds and writing what they want, or from censoring or not censoring their own publications.  So, the NAC wins again.  Under the NAC, government can’t censor the private sector in any way.  No regulation, whatsoever.  That is the NAC standard.  It shackles the government and frees the people.  People then, are free to censor their own publications, and also to speak their minds, even if it is against the government.  Now, that is true freedom.  The Constitution fails and the NAC wins.  Again.

NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.8 vs. USC’s 1st Amendment

Section 2.8 adds a whole bunch of words that basically expand the right to petition into a right to get the government to actually do something, if the petition has merit.  Under the 1st Amendment, sure, you can petition all you want, but the government doesn’t have to do a darn thing.  Not even do an investigation.  Which would you prefer?  A right to merely petition, or a right to petition and get an investigation started, and if there is merit, get something done?  The Constitution fails, yet again.

In conclusion

The list of rights given in Section 2.4-2.8 covers government snooping, government attaching additional penalties to crimes because of a criminal’s belief, government stopping people from practicing their religion, government censorship, and government not correcting grievances.  This NAC section takes these issues and fully deals with them.  The Constitution does not.

Both this post and the previous one prove that the U.S. Constitution is insufficient to deal with the tyrants currently ruling over America today.  And what does the Lord say about when the wicked rule?

I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.  (D&C 98:8-9)

The NAC, on the other hand, both empowers the people with their full rights, and also shackles the government, much more fully than the Bill of Rights does.  The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as an after thought.  The nationalists that wrote the Constitution were against the Bill of Rights.  They didn’t think one was needed.  But the federalists won the day and got these governmental restrictions added.  Thank the Lord that they did.  But the Bill of Rights, as good as they are, are still not good enough.  They are mere abridgments of the full rights of man.  The NAC  corrects this deficiency and lists the full rights.  This allows the government to be fully shackled, so that tyranny cannot even get a toe in.  The NAC is one of those laws that the Lord referred to, which makes the people free.  It is superior to the Constitution because, under the NAC, there can be no rulers, only servants.  Thus, there can be no wicked ruling under the NAC.

I will go over other NAC sections in future posts.  Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post.  Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have 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 2, Part 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

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.

Abortion

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