Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Get rid of the Constitution


  • Please log in to reply
246 replies to this topic

#136    Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,166 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:40 AM

View Postacidhead, on 30 January 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

Banning assault rifles Law essentially says:  If the individual chooses to shoot an assault rifle then the individual must join the GOV military.

Exactly. We wouldn't be able to be on par with the military, secret service, homeland security when we decide to revolt and throw out our corrupt government.  I been seeing a lot of traitors and cowards appearing in these threads, siding with those that want to remove our constitution. Thank god our forefathers saw this, told us to remain vigilant and keep trying to get through to them. Because if we didn't have those wise words behind what we say, I don't know if there would be any people inspired to stand up and try to help other Americans out of the fog of deception.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein

#137    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,905 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:42 AM

View Postacidhead, on 30 January 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

besides.... the american GOV is bankrupt... not officially, but they're are by definition bankrupt.

acid you know better, this is simply not possible. The US can print its own money.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#138    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,905 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:45 AM

View PostUncle Sam, on 30 January 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

We wouldn't be able to be on par with the military, secret service, homeland security when we decide to revolt

The day you decide that, you best make sure there's a good supply of body bags for you and your anti-American comrades. Our government doesn't take kindly to overthrow.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#139    Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,166 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:45 AM

View Postninjadude, on 30 January 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

acid you know better, this is simply not possible. The US can print its own money.

Instead of keeping gold and money pegged together, never creating more money unless we have more gold, the government decided printing more money to inflate the value of the dollar bill. So instead of exchanging one dollar bill for gold, we have to exchange thousands of dollar bills for that piece of gold. You know how bad that is?

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein

#140    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Is not a number!

  • Member
  • 9,312 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:46 AM

View PostAsteroidX, on 30 January 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

Its as easy as opening a phone book...

http://constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm

But the 2nd Amendment says no such thing as...
It actually says
Hats lets itleast quote it correctly.

I know that's what it SAYS, but what it means is what's under debate and what the main clause is - whether it's the militia bit or the shall not be infringed bit.


#141    acidhead

acidhead

    Were Not Your Slaves!

  • Member
  • 10,261 posts
  • Joined:13 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Victoria, BC CANADA

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:47 AM

View Postninjadude, on 30 January 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

acid you know better, this is simply not possible. The US can print its own money.

Yes they can... though the US$ worth is valued through confidence to uphold its strength as the worlds reserve currency.  This is the reason the GOV cons its citizens into killing abroad daily.  If the killing stops, the US$ crashes overnight.  Take your pick.  Keep killing abroad or face reality back home.

Edited by acidhead, 30 January 2013 - 04:48 AM.

"there is no wrong or right - just popular opinion"

#142    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 10,905 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:48 AM

View PostUncle Sam, on 30 January 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

We the people have the right to form a militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for it is necessary for a free state.

it's amazing that someone who claims to defend the constitution can't even get the text he's whining about correct. :whistle:

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

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#143    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Is not a number!

  • Member
  • 9,312 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:49 AM

But isn't that right already infringed?
Background checks are an infringement, not allowing criminals and the mentally unsound to have them is an infringement.


#144    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:51 AM

@Hats

Quote

the shall not be infringed bit

I dont know why this part would be under debate.

We went over State Constitutions last night which individually have seperated what their particular militia consists of. For instance in Oregon BOR:

Quote

  Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Thats clear enough for me.

Edited by AsteroidX, 30 January 2013 - 04:52 AM.


#145    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:53 AM

Quote

acid you know better, this is simply not possible. The US can print its own money.

Just because you can print money doesnt make it legal.


#146    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Is not a number!

  • Member
  • 9,312 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 30 January 2013 - 04:53 AM

It should be under debate because, first of all, it's already been infringed by background checks, and secondly if the "militia" bit is the important part, then the members of that militia would constiutionally have uninfringed access but not those outside the militia.


#147    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:01 AM

Quote

But isn't that right already infringed?
Background checks are an infringement, not allowing criminals and the mentally unsound to have them is an infringement.

Yes. This is an infringement. Each case of an individual to have the right to bear arms removed is suppose to be done on a case by case basis in a judicial manner. So we are definitely violating this part of it. Although I think we can all agree (I hope) that within those groups mentioned there are those that should have there right to bear arms removed individually in a judicial manner. This process has been available since the 2nd Amendment and possibly before. I dont have the document in front me.

But blanket exclusions without oversight is a huge infringement of the second amendment.

As for background checks. If theres to be exclusions then one must ensure those excluded are not allowed to bear arms. In the old days it was the LEO's or the "posse" that enforced it. And the punishments were quite severe if you do your homework. Including disfigurement.


#148    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:05 AM

Quote

It should be under debate because, first of all, it's already been infringed by background checks, and secondly if the "militia" bit is the important part, then the members of that militia would constiutionally have uninfringed access but not those outside the militia.

In my State every able bodied person is a member of the State militia by the Bill of Rights definition. I cannot speak for your states BOR in regards to this issue. So yes the Federal government is and has been violating our 2nd Amendment Rights and now wishes to further infringe upon it.

I am going to refrain to bring up other parts of the Federal Constitution that are being violated for now as we are talking about the 2nd amendment but when I talk of infringment to me it means moire then only the 2nd Amerndment issue.


#149    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Is not a number!

  • Member
  • 9,312 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:07 AM

View PostAsteroidX, on 30 January 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

In my State every able bodied person is a member of the State militia by the Bill of Rights definition.
Well there you go.
Learn something new everyday.


#150    Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,166 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

Posted 30 January 2013 - 05:08 AM

View Postninjadude, on 30 January 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

it's amazing that someone who claims to defend the constitution can't even get the text he's whining about correct. :whistle:

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

You sure do love your cherry picking. Apparently you didn't even read or understand my paragraph correctly. Did you ever take reading comprehension?

View PostUncle Sam, on 30 January 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

The coma after the militia isn't too caught your breath, it is to separate two subject in one amendment. Let me try to state it better than our founding fathers did. We the people have the right to form a militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for it is necessary for a free state.. I don't understand where in the damn sentence that they wrote, the liberals and democrats ****ed up. The constitution was designed to limit the government, a gift to the people from our founding fathers. It is not designed to limit us, control us, the people. Get it through your thick head.

If you are not willing to understand what I said, you are here for only one thing, to troll me and others.

Edited by Uncle Sam, 30 January 2013 - 05:14 AM.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users