Westside Steve Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 http://quizlet.com/4566256/bill-of-rights-summary-flash-cards/ Just for the, er, heck of it, how many of these do you think are still being enforced in the way they were originally intended? By the way this is by no means a rallying cry for anarchy, just a little reality. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 The third seems s little pointless. I'm willing to bet there was forced quartering of soldiers on the civil war. The fifth and sixth seem like they could be combined into one rambling amendment from two. The eighth has been shit on but few people seem to care. Probably because its usually, but not always, happening to scumbags. Again, the civil war undoubtably took the teeth out of the tenth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 The third seems s little pointless. I'm willing to bet there was forced quartering of soldiers on the civil war. The fifth and sixth seem like they could be combined into one rambling amendment from two. The eighth has been shit on but few people seem to care. Probably because its usually, but not always, happening to scumbags. Again, the civil war undoubtably took the teeth out of the tenth. true enough. I'd also bet eminent domain has taken the teeth out of number 3. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 thanks for the "flash cards" ! to me the Patriot Act seems to blur the lines in determining who the bad guy really is. but just serves to remind me to do some checking first before blindly believing what is said in the media. for example - remember http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/obama-criminalize-free-speech/ where we thought that protesting against Obama or whoever in public can get you arrested! not true I think what is good - is the sudden interest it seems, is in the liberties we have. the defense of which is very good when it becomes a public discussion, wherever it is.. here, facebook... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 The 4th and 6th go by the wayside with a terrorist. The tenth has been walked on, ignored, and spit on by some dumbsheets regardless of party.... but since Obamao....most all of his corrupt, marxist pig regime. All the Bill of Rights can be abused or attempted to be abused by those who think they have the power to do so. Our Bill of Rights is our guide to freedom - must be enforced eventually. But with the libs redefining terms to their own advantage (see Heck, historically), they just tweak the words, reinvent their own applications, and then they try to ban guns, label whatever gets them minority votes "hate speech"... our Founders KNEW it would always be a battle. They just fought the major battle themselves. Over the longer run, they knew the battle would still have to be fought. That's why they wrote what they wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 1 - Yes. Look no further than Westboro Baptist Church. 2 - Yes. This amendment is basically a right of the people to revolt against the government. 3 - Yes. This amendment is more or less the response to the Quartering Acts which made it required by law to house and feed standing British troops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartering_Acts 4 - No. Patriot Act, NDAA, now CISPA 5 - Yes. 6 - No. Patriot Act 7 - Yes. Plenty of cases get appealed to the SCOTUS 8 - I'm leaning toward no. How can it be the law of the land if it doesn't apply to anyone deemed a terrorist? 9 - Yes. Murder is not in the Constitution, that doesn't make it exempt. 10 - Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 9 - Yes. Murder is not in the Constitution, that doesn't make it exempt. Vapor ************************************* Wait....murder isn't a "right" It's "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiiness". Murder defies the right to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 9 - Yes. Murder is not in the Constitution, that doesn't make it exempt. Vapor ************************************* Wait....murder isn't a "right" It's "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiiness". Murder defies the right to life. "Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" is not in the Constitution. And when I brought up murder I meant the right to not be murdered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 Didn't say it was. And I didn't know you meant the "right to NOT be murdered". Got it. The principle is rights, not the ability to take rights away from someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 lol, cal, i'm certainly not going to argue that murder is a Constitutional right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html I thought this was an interesting article. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2013 well let's look at the First Amendment. Back in the Revolutionary days when what we now call Patriots were writing articles and pamphlets and flyers and whatever about how we need to overthrow the king they were getting locked up.so, since Revolution was a big thing to them, one of the basic rightsthey wanted to write into law was the right to call for armed revolution. Does anyone think they could get away with that today? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 23, 2013 Report Share Posted April 23, 2013 You could probably write about it and not get into trouble, but you can bet you would be on a 'watch list'. Of course that probably wouldn't matter. Look at the Older of the Boston Bomber's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 23, 2013 Report Share Posted April 23, 2013 I just noticed none of you other guys have "warning points" under your names. That means I successfully drove Mr. T to e-suicide. I'm going to pat myself on the back for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 23, 2013 Report Share Posted April 23, 2013 I'm an ex-Browns Board con. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 23, 2013 Report Share Posted April 23, 2013 well let's look at the First Amendment. Back in the Revolutionary days when what we now call Patriots were writing articles and pamphlets and flyers and whatever about how we need to overthrow the king they were getting locked up.so, since Revolution was a big thing to them, one of the basic rightsthey wanted to write into law was the right to call for armed revolution. Does anyone think they could get away with that today? WSS lol, well, if you take a look at dredge report during Obama or huffpo during W, then I think it's safe to say most whatever the hell you want about taking back the country. Ted Nugent's tirade when asked about being a draft dodger I'm pretty sure resulted in some sort of investigation by the secret service. What he said was very controversial, but he's not in jail for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 23, 2013 Report Share Posted April 23, 2013 I just noticed none of you other guys have "warning points" under your names. That means I successfully drove Mr. T to e-suicide. I'm going to pat myself on the back for that. I have em too. I think they only show up for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted April 23, 2013 Report Share Posted April 23, 2013 I have em too. I think they only show up for yourself. Ah I see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2013 lol, well, if you take a look at dredge report during Obama or huffpo during W, then I think it's safe to say most whatever the hell you want about taking back the country. Ted Nugent's tirade when asked about being a draft dodger I'm pretty sure resulted in some sort of investigation by the secret service. What he said was very controversial, but he's not in jail for it. I'm not talking about a little bit controversial. I'm talking about actually rallying the citizens to take up arms against the United States government and the president.that, I believe, will get you thrown in the can. let's say one of us writes apost about going to whatever enemy country we pick and destroying their capital. No problem, who cares? Now let's say we do the same thing speaking of the White House. the founders weren't writing seditious articles about freedoms that were being taken away by the lawful government, they were talking about armed Revolution. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted April 23, 2013 Report Share Posted April 23, 2013 I'm not talking about a little bit controversial. I'm talking about actually rallying the citizens to take up arms against the United States government and the president.that, I believe, will get you thrown in the can. let's say one of us writes apost about going to whatever enemy country we pick and destroying their capital. No problem, who cares? Now let's say we do the same thing speaking of the White House. the founders weren't writing seditious articles about freedoms that were being taken away by the lawful government, they were talking about armed Revolution. WSS Right, the government will do what it can to quash potential revolutionaries before they become real threats. For those things to become real threats, they will need the support of the general population. For the general population to support that extreme of a cause will require a governmental fuckup of colossal magnitude. As screwy as our political system is, we're not anywhere near that tipping point. There isn't a real threat of revolution until the government is incapable or appears to be incapable of giving people basic necessities. Food, water, a roof. The housing bubble might have been ugly, but it was nowhere near serious enough to cause the general public to revolt. It's going to be sparked by a much more severe national or international crisis such as running out of fossil fuels or a nuclear attack on major cities, both of which could disrupt the infrastructure enough that the people will have to start relying on smaller entities to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 24, 2013 Report Share Posted April 24, 2013 I imagine for throwing off the yoke of tyranny, there has to be dramtic tyranny. The pres would have to disband Congress and the SCOTUS, and declare himself dictator, and start genocide against the American people. That is so ridiculous,.... but if it ever did happen? The American people had better have their guns intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.