Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Ashotep

Get rid of the Constitution

276 posts in this topic

No. I believe in sheeple. So you are correct. I just believe that number is dropping by the hour.

Which number is dropping? The number of ppl you consider sheeple, or the number of people who believe rights are being taken away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of people that are blind to the erosion of there constitutional rights be it Gun Control or the myriad of other tramplings going on is dropping.

Fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admitting you are a coward,

I'm a coward because I don't want to take up arms against my legal government? seriously? is that what you want to claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he just wants to know if you would if you had to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To you and all the others who are defending constitutions violations? What would you want to tell your children?

sorry pal, my adult children agree with me. The 2nd amendment is an anachronism and should be repealed. That does not mean prohibition or taking your guns - that's pretty silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what does repeal mean to you? It's not prohibition yet it likely becomes prohibited? Alright, no second amendment means what for the future of gun laws in your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he just wants to know if you would if you had to.

I'm not that paranoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what does repeal mean to you? It's not prohibition yet it likely becomes prohibited? Alright, no second amendment means what for the future of gun laws in your opinion.

If the second amendment was repealed, guns could still be legal and subject to laws passed by Congress. Just as they are now. It would remove this ridiculous constitutional belief that many people somehow have a god given right to a gun.

And no. the 2nd amendment says nothing about insurrection or revolution or anything like that. And they had the opportunity to do so.

Edited by ninjadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the second amendment was repealed, guns could still be legal and subject to laws passed by Congress. Just as they are now. It would remove this ridiculous constitutional belief that many people somehow have a god given right to a gun.

And no. the 2nd amendment says nothing about insurrection or revolution or anything like that. And they had the opportunity to do so.

Forget god. It's the law of the land. You aren't going to trick anybody into believing in benevolence towards guns for US by those in power without it being a constitutional right. Besides if it all remains the same as you say, according to what you just said your real gripe is people believing in the constitution. So, if its all the same then what's the difference if it's a constitutional right or just a common law that'll be here anyways? Could it be that people can't cling to the constitution and common laws are just so much easier to eradicate?

You are an enemy of the constitution.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 2nd amendment is an anachronism and should be repealed

Thats all you had to stay to lose all credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget god. It's the law of the land. You aren't going to trick anybody into believing in benevolence towards guns for US by those in power without it being a constitutional right.

dang tootin. We'd have better gun control.

Besides if it all remains the same as you say, according to what you just said your real gripe is people believing in the constitution. So, if its all the same then what's the difference if it's a constitutional right or just a common law that'll be here anyways?

people like you and others here couldn't whine about how it's a constitutional right in order to obstruct gun control. That's the difference.

And again, I'm not suggesting, like you are, that you need guns to overthrow the legal constitutional government. So who is exactly anti constitution?!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats all you had to stay to lose all credibility.

why? It is NOT for overthrowing the government in the US in the 21st century. That's laughable. GOD did NOT come down from on high and grant you the inalienable right to have a gun. The FF had the opportunity to put that kind of crap in the 2nd amendment and did not. What else you got?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facts or a link Ninjadude ?

dang tootin. We'd have better gun control.
Yep I love to poke conservatives and Republicans. I didn't know I had a "reputation", or label a liar - where was that? Your last statement applies to you more than me. I usually always include facts and sources.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a coward because I don't want to take up arms against my legal government? seriously? is that what you want to claim?

No, you are a coward because you have admited that no matter what unconstitutional violations your government commits you wont express any level of resistance. No one asked you to shoot anyone.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think ninjadude is capable of providing an example of government doing anything that's unconstitutional. If the gubmint does it, it must be legal! End of story. When your entire mindset is inherently unconstitutional, you pretty much have to put your head in the sand and pretend the Constitution isn't there. "That tired old thing? It's just a g'd'ed piece of paper!"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is Chilean, and yes, it is part of the larger US-American history (one of those parts we rather not mention). Besides, if you have a wast majority you don't need any revolutions. You just need to vote the other idiots out.

I doubt that. They hold a monopoly on reality. All it takes is for the media to say this guy won the election, combined with a little voter fraud to back it up, and BAM everyone follows suit. Ron Paul out right won Maine in one of the first primaries. Was it reported that way? Hell no. If the headline had read that Paul had out right won the state, it could have gone along way in effecting the outcome of other states. Instead we were originaly told he came in 3rd, and that he had no chance what so ever anyway so we all might as well forget him. Elections are just as corupted as our entire political system.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will this country look like in 4 more years...Or even 2 more years when the midterms roll around.... Do we have that long ? I dont know. Im asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know how long we have, but it isnt lookin good I can tell you that. Many of the economists who actualy saw all this coming before 08 are saying a year at the most. Some say this spring the world economy is going down the drain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that. They hold a monopoly on reality. All it takes is for the media to say this guy won the election, combined with a little voter fraud to back it up, and BAM everyone follows suit. Ron Paul out right won Maine in one of the first primaries. Was it reported that way? Hell no. If the headline had read that Paul had out right won the state, it could have gone along way in effecting the outcome of other states. Instead we were originaly told he came in 3rd, and that he had no chance what so ever anyway so we all might as well forget him. Elections are just as corupted as our entire political system.

No, you delude yourself into thinking that, because what is the reality does not befit your believes. Where I urgently would make a reality check. Because you might find it surprising that the rest of the country has little bearing on the mind set of some cabin inhabitant in Montana or North Dakota.

If somebody in a democracy is responsible for the corruption of the system it is not politicians nor lobbyist, it is the electorate at large, and that is really demonstrated with simply looking at the approval ratings of Congress, less than 10% approve of it, and over 60% of their Congressperson. And that because they bring the pork home. And while people may loathe a system for being corrupt they will sure raise hell once you try to take away their benefit of the corruption.

If you want to change that you have to instate a dictatorship with some Pope, Adolf or Stalin at the helm. And I surely doubt that even a large minority will follow you there.

The world is not perfect and there will be no perfection as long as it is run by humans. And if the existing situation is not good, but all other alternatives will be worse (because egotism is something you will never eradicate in humanity) then it behooves us to protect the existing instead of heading off to some disastrous utopia a la Pol Pot.

You have your leeway to fashion your life according your liking (within the restricted possibilities of a society) and unless you cause harm nobody is going to stand in your way. And that is the best you will ever get as long as you have to share the space you live in (be it town, county, state or country) with others.

And don't confuse the American's love to complain with a general dissatisfaction with the life they live or the government to the extend that they would rise up. I am pretty old now and I can't remember anytime when people have not complained about the government. And if you go check the general barometer (the cafeteria at Wall Mart when mom and pop are doing their shopping) they have not complained so little in the last 12 years. Even if they are not satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you delude yourself into thinking that

There called sheeple and there ignorance is part of our suffering. Can we just have a secession and seperation of ways then because this situation is getting to be a very large seperation of beliefs. I dont care how hard it will be to start over with the Constitution leading the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There called sheeple and there ignorance is part of our suffering. Can we just have a secession and seperation of ways then because this situation is getting to be a very large seperation of beliefs. I dont care how hard it will be to start over with the Constitution leading the way.

Who ever said winning a revolution would be easy? No... it will be paved with the blood patriots and tyrants. I am one of those people that would gladly give his life up for my future generations, regardless whatever others think, because I rather be known as a patriot than as a coward that kneel before a corrupt government. But until then, I spend countless nights and days defending the constitution from people who think it is a good idea to tear it down or consider it to be obsolete.

Edited by Uncle Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There called sheeple and there ignorance is part of our suffering. Can we just have a secession and seperation of ways then because this situation is getting to be a very large seperation of beliefs. I dont care how hard it will be to start over with the Constitution leading the way.

Well, how do you want to manage that? Separate and then make a "Right thought test" to displace those not fitting into your system? We know about displacement due to religion or nationality, but that would be a new one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, how do you want to manage that? Separate and then make a "Right thought test" to displace those not fitting into your system? We know about displacement due to religion or nationality, but that would be a new one.

Wouldn't have too. Once revolution is over and government is replaced, there be elections held to find new representatives. Pretty much after revolution, it is a blank state with the constitution leading the way. Then would come the tedious task of shifting through laws, annulling or keeping laws we see fit. The new government would actually represent the people, the people will have a voice in the laws that effect their states, the government wouldn't have monopoly on everything. Like our founding fathers said, for our Nation to stay a pure republic, we must have a revolution every decade or so. We are pretty much overdue a revolution. Even if other officials find their way back into their seats, they will have a clear message sent to them, we the people have the power to take away what they gained if they cross the line.

Foreign affairs would be dealt with delicately, but I don't think all treaties will stay. Only the ones that matter will stay and the ones that are pretty much useless would be done away with. It wouldn't be based on needs, it would have to do with our interests and moral. Some are for interest, some are for moral, while most are there to keep things civil between our government and others.

Edited by Uncle Sam
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't have too. Once revolution is over and government is replaced, there be elections held to find new representatives. Pretty much after revolution, it is a blank state with the constitution leading the way. Then would come the tedious task of shifting through laws, annulling or keeping laws we see fit. The new government would actually represent the people, the people will have a voice in the laws that effect their states, the government wouldn't have monopoly on everything. Like our founding fathers said, for our Nation to stay a pure republic, we must have a revolution every decade or so. We are pretty much overdue a revolution. Even if other officials find their way back into their seats, they will have a clear message sent to them, we the people have the power to take away what they gained if they cross the line.

Foreign affairs would be dealt with delicately, but I don't think all treaties will stay. Only the ones that matter will stay and the ones that are pretty much useless would be done away with. It wouldn't be based on needs, it would have to do with our interests and moral. Some are for interest, some are for moral, while most are there to keep things civil between our government and others.

And a few years later you have the same as before because all you did is divest Saint Patrick to dress up Saint George on Saint George's day... or the poor church recipe. That is not worth a single spent cartridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, how do you want to manage that? Separate and then make a "Right thought test" to displace those not fitting into your system? We know about displacement due to religion or nationality, but that would be a new one.

If thats a compromise that can be found then Im open to discussing it. But basically it would start by posting the Constitution at the border of each stateline crossing.That way theres no secrets kept. Its called transparency. Noone says a new beginning would be easy or without challenges. But it would be nice to stay allied with our fellow countrymen then to have blood spilled. I have been called a person that is trying to incite a revolution in these forums and that is not what my goal is. My goal is to keep my Constitutional Rights and for those that dont care about them anymore then we have a problem. I believe the divide to be great enough at this point that allowing a seccession to be the alternative that is of a middle ground.

I mean unless Big Government is SSOOOO dependent on my tax dollars to keep their industrial military complex afloat that they cant let go. And lets not talk about reform of the current governmental body because we are beyond that in many folks eyes.

I only talk this way because we have had a few talks on this subject and I believe you capable of digesting my words. I know ahead of time you dont agree. But itleast you have the context of what Im saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.