Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 12/1/2007 5:03:17 PM EDT
Looks like a good day to have a party. Dec. 15th is the 216th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights by the States.

Only a few places in Washington recognize it:

Washington
* Callam County
* Town of Rainier
* City of Anacortes
* Spokane County

Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:19:52 PM EDT
The BoR works as it was intended, create the illusion of a gaurantee against government infringement but never actually deliver.

The U.S. is officially Hell's cesspool and it is being piped all over the world every day.

Now ofcourse those that have defiled the country will demand that all who do not approve of the filthy violence abandon America if we don't like the hell it has become, but they will get no such satisfaction, the fight to restore freedom is on.

Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:29:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
The BoR works as it was intended, create the illusion of a gaurantee against government infringement but never actually deliver.

The U.S. is officially Hell's cesspool and it is being piped all over the world every day.

Now ofcourse those that have defiled the country will demand that all who do not approve of the filthy violence abandon America if we don't like the hell it has become, but they will get no such satisfaction, the fight to restore freedom is on.



So does that mean you are going to do somehting besides pound your chest and rant like a loon? Oh, yeah I did forget about the tossing a rifle in a puddle after some cheesey line about it being a tool, then shaking it off for 5 minutes before shooting a few rounds off.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:35:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Unicorn:
So does that mean you are going to do somehting besides pound your chest and rant like a loon? Oh, yeah I did forget about the tossing a rifle in a puddle after some cheesey line about it being a tool, then shaking it off for 5 minutes before shooting a few rounds off.


Do you really believe a simple tool is all there is to freedom ?

Only the truth can set you free, it is an ideal it can not die and is not destroyed with mere inanimate objects.

The war is three things, spiritual, mental, physical.

Rilfes are only a tool.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:50:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2007 6:04:07 PM EDT by Unicorn]
You know that one kid, that never understood when he was being made fun of.....

Oh nevermind.

Are you saying that everything in the Bill of Rights is so blatantly obvious that it wasn't needed? If they aren't actually being protected, then isn't the rest of the Constitution just as fraudulant?
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 5:56:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
The BoR works as it was intended, create the illusion of a gaurantee against government infringement but never actually deliver.


If the Constitution and BoR are not what you stand for... Well, I'm lost as I thought you were a constitutionalist. Care to explain what you mean?
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 6:05:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/1/2007 6:05:54 PM EDT by Dinothewap]
Here we go again.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 6:37:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PCR-00:

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
The BoR works as it was intended, create the illusion of a gaurantee against government infringement but never actually deliver.


If the Constitution and BoR are not what you stand for... Well, I'm lost as I thought you were a constitutionalist. Care to explain what you mean?


You will see clearly when SCOTUS rules on the Heller case, the constitution is a contract between the fed and the states, the people never voted on the constitution except for RI which was 84% against, the overwhelming majority of the people were anti-U.S.C, since it was adopted in 1789 but never ratified until the BoR 1791 the hope was to protect against the misconstruction and abuse of powers in the U.S.C. with the BoR but there is a major problem.

The major problem is the people are not signatory to the U.S.C. or the BoR and have no standing in using the BoR as a limitation against the tyranny of the U.S.C

So what is the BoR to the people ? A useful tool for a belligerent as a cause for action of individual natural rights.


On every question of construction (of the constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed. Thomas Jefferson June 12, 1823


There-fore I am a strict constructionest as the U.S.C being negative law, a limitation of government power over the people, what the folks want to do in the ten miles square of Washington D.C. (protectorets etc) is their biz but they should stay in their own yard and play and leave the people alone.

Link Posted: 12/1/2007 6:57:45 PM EDT
So the Constitution is the vehicle of tyranny in the US?

The very same instrument that you like to bring up? The one that was written and signed by the same founding fathers whom you often quote?
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 7:17:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Unicorn:
So the Constitution is the vehicle of tyranny in the US?

The very same instrument that you like to bring up? The one that was written and signed by the same founding fathers whom you often quote?


Absolutely, it is just a piece of paper with some text on it and the men that wrote it were just men with their own interests like everyone else.

Thomas Jefferson along with the other anti-federalists knew very well it was a instrument of tyranny but there is no way the minority of anti-federlists could win over the power of the banks that pushed the U.S.C through.

So a few of the anti-federalists got elected POTUS thinking they could effect change from the inside, using the separation of powers to fix the defective U.S.C. they all failed as they knew from the debates the document was doomed from the beginning.

All we are doing now is adapting, improvising and over-coming the best we can with what we have to work with, the U.S.C. and the BoR is all we have to work with now so that is what we use, knowing that no one can stop the inevitable but one does the best one can with what is available.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 8:51:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

Originally Posted By Unicorn:
So the Constitution is the vehicle of tyranny in the US?

The very same instrument that you like to bring up? The one that was written and signed by the same founding fathers whom you often quote?


Absolutely, it is just a piece of paper with some text on it and the men that wrote it were just men with their own interests like everyone else.

Thomas Jefferson along with the other anti-federalists knew very well it was a instrument of tyranny but there is no way the minority of anti-federlists could win over the power of the banks that pushed the U.S.C through.

So a few of the anti-federalists got elected POTUS thinking they could effect change from the inside, using the separation of powers to fix the defective U.S.C. they all failed as they knew from the debates the document was doomed from the beginning.

All we are doing now is adapting, improvising and over-coming the best we can with what we have to work with, the U.S.C. and the BoR is all we have to work with now so that is what we use, knowing that no one can stop the inevitable but one does the best one can with what is available.


So, In your view the USC and BoR is flawed and failed.

If you could effect change this evening. What would it be? If you were THE guy that could institute tha appropriate corrections, what would they be? What would you change in the system that was put in place over 200 years ago? This isn't a tounge in cheek question, I'm honestly interested in your answer.
Link Posted: 12/1/2007 9:10:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PCR-00:
So, In your view the USC and BoR is flawed and failed.

If you could effect change this evening. What would it be? If you were THE guy that could institute tha appropriate corrections, what would they be? What would you change in the system that was put in place over 200 years ago? This isn't a tounge in cheek question, I'm honestly interested in your answer.


The constitutional convention was to fix the defects of the Articles of Confederation only they suspended the rules and rammed the U.S.C down everyone's throats, so stipulating the AoC was flawed it was still superior to the U.S.C and with some changes to the AoC it would best effect a more workable government.

So short and sweet answer is...... enforce the first ten Bill of Rights, return power to the states.

If you follow the SCOTUS decisions you will see not a single BoR is enforced as a indivudal right, the campaign finance reform bill was very much a first amendment issue, SCOTUS ruled people petitioning government could be put in cages called free speech zones, it doesnt really matter which amendment you chose as an example I can show a SCOTUS decision that stomps the right into the mud, none of the BoR has ever been protected as a individual natural right.



Link Posted: 12/1/2007 9:32:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

Originally Posted By PCR-00:
So, In your view the USC and BoR is flawed and failed.

If you could effect change this evening. What would it be? If you were THE guy that could institute tha appropriate corrections, what would they be? What would you change in the system that was put in place over 200 years ago? This isn't a tounge in cheek question, I'm honestly interested in your answer.


The constitutional convention was to fix the defects of the Articles of Confederation only they suspended the rules and rammed the U.S.C down everyone's throats, so stipulating the AoC was flawed it was still superior to the U.S.C and with some changes to the AoC it would best effect a more workable government.

So short and sweet answer is...... enforce the first ten Bill of Rights, return power to the states.

If you follow the SCOTUS decisions you will see not a single BoR is enforced as a indivudal right, the campaign finance reform bill was very much a first amendment issue, SCOTUS ruled people petitioning government could be put in cages called free speech zones, it doesnt really matter which amendment you chose as an example I can show a SCOTUS decision that stomps the right into the mud, none of the BoR has ever been protected as a individual natural right.




Ok, color me confused in your position.

you state that the BoR works as "Intended"


Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
The BoR works as it was intended, create the illusion of a gaurantee against government infringement but never actually deliver.


Then go on to say that the intention was to create an illusion of a guarantee.


Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
The BoR works as it was intended, create the illusion of a gaurantee against government infringement but never actually deliver.


key word "illusion"


Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
The BoR works as it was intended, create the illusion of a gaurantee against government infringement but never actually deliver.


then you call yourself a strict constructionest


Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
There-fore I am a strict constructionest as the U.S.C being negative law, a limitation of government power over the people, what the folks want to do in the ten miles square of Washington D.C. (protectorets etc) is their biz but they should stay in their own yard and play and leave the people alone.


which if one was following the "intent" of the bill of rights (as a strict constructionest would). The "intent" (according to you) is to "create an illusion".

Am I missing something? Please clarify what you are saying, because as it stands right now, you are looking like you are saying that everything the founding fathers "INTENDED" when writing the constitution was an "ILLUSION" and that you support that..wait, don't support that...I'm not sure. It doesn't seem like you would support such a thing, yet you regularly quote the very authors of said "illusion". Am I mincing words or am I hearing you correctly?

Link Posted: 12/1/2007 10:09:00 PM EDT
What is so hard to understand ? the BoR does not work for you and me but it works very well for government.

The people at the time did not want the U.S.C. so the framers appeased them with the Bill of Rights, it worked the people thought the BoR would protect the people from misconstruction and abuse of powers when in fact the BoR has never protected the people from government abuse.

Link Posted: 12/2/2007 4:44:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 6:32:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OdT:

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
the BoR does not work for you and me but it works very well for government.


Join, or die.


Unite and Conquer
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 7:20:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
What is so hard to understand ? the BoR does not work for you and me but it works very well for government.

The people at the time did not want the U.S.C. so the framers appeased them with the Bill of Rights, it worked the people thought the BoR would protect the people from misconstruction and abuse of powers when in fact the BoR has never protected the people from government abuse.



Actually the Bill of Rights has been working fairly well. Not perfectly, and they have been eroded over time, but better than without them.

One of the major arguments at the time was whether or not we needed to have specific right enumerated in the Constitution. One side said NO! that will lead to Government assuming all rights not laid out belong to them. The other side said that without anything written down that Government would do the same.

So they compromised, wrote down a bunch of important ones and included one that said anything we didn't write down belongs to the states and the people.

The Bill of Rights has not protected us from every government abuse. But it sure as hell as protected us from a bunch of it. For example, with the 2nd Amendment, we ARE seeing a resurgence of our liberty with the spread of concealed weapons permits, open carry, 'castle doctorine' and 'stand your ground' legislation. The DC case will be decided in our favor -- otherwise the Supreme Court will have revealed how little respect for the constitution it has, and they can't afford to do that yet.

I'm not terribly happy with the direction the country is currently headed, but I still think the foundation is solid. We just need to start electing real conservatives to office again.

Link Posted: 12/2/2007 12:36:35 PM EDT
The Constitution and the BoR are documents which were created by men, and can therefore be changed, subverted or abolished by men.

Thus, neither document should be considered as carved in stone.

We need better safeguards for our Liberty and our people than what is written in those two documents.

Link Posted: 12/2/2007 2:04:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnB_greenAK:

We need better safeguards for our Liberty and our people than what is written in those two documents.



Like?...

Any "Safeguard" will still be created by man, and subject to your above posting..
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 2:11:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 3:15:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnB_greenAK:
The Constitution and the BoR are documents which were created by men, and can therefore be changed, subverted or abolished by men.

Thus, neither document should be considered as carved in stone.

We need better safeguards for our Liberty and our people than what is written in those two documents.



That's the problem -- they should be carved in stone. I believe that the Constitution as originally written is as close to a perfect blueprint as we can get. Most of the changes to it are ok, or not a big deal. Except for Income Tax and direct election of Senators.

We do have safeguards. The Bill of Rights safeguard us from much of the mischief that governments normally get up to with the 2nd being the most important.



Link Posted: 12/2/2007 4:15:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By R-32:

Originally Posted By JohnB_greenAK:

We need better safeguards for our Liberty and our people than what is written in those two documents.



Like?...

Any "Safeguard" will still be created by man, and subject to your above posting..


The idea of governance is always subject to evolutionary process...the more we know (and apply that knowledge), the better the gov't can be.

First we need to recognize that government is needed--anarchy is not an option. And if a gov't is necessary, then the people should do what is necessary to protect it....given, of course, that the gov't *also* does what is necessary to protect that people which created it.

The FF envisioned a system of gov't which addressed the problems of having men above the law, of religions interfering with the State, and addressed the idea of race (specifically, who could be a citizen, and who could not)

It was a document well written at the time, but obviously did not include sufficient safeguards to protect itself from those who would subvert and destroy it...thus our dilemma today.

CoC prohibits discussing specific topics along these lines....yes, all forms of gov't by men are subject to subversion--but we can work to make it more difficult, rather than accepting an inferior system "just because."
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 4:22:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By libertynews:

Originally Posted By JohnB_greenAK:
The Constitution and the BoR are documents which were created by men, and can therefore be changed, subverted or abolished by men.

Thus, neither document should be considered as carved in stone.

We need better safeguards for our Liberty and our people than what is written in those two documents.



That's the problem -- they should be carved in stone. I believe that the Constitution as originally written is as close to a perfect blueprint as we can get. Most of the changes to it are ok, or not a big deal. Except for Income Tax and direct election of Senators.

We do have safeguards. The Bill of Rights safeguard us from much of the mischief that governments normally get up to with the 2nd being the most important.


Nope, no safeguards are on paper. Just like a red light means one is *supposed* to stop (but doesn't physically prevent a driver from running it), the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anything.

Only the DEMONSTRATION OF ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS does this. Most gun owners--the alleged anathema to tyranny--will simply comply with each new link in the chains of slavery. That's what the majority of Americans have done for many decades now.

Link Posted: 12/2/2007 4:22:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OdT:

Originally Posted By R-32:
Like?...


Access to the same small arms our military has would be a pretty good start.

(I know, preaching, choir, etc...)


Although I agree, it's not the weapons that matter--it's the will to use them.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 5:05:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
What is so hard to understand ? the BoR does not work for you and me but it works very well for government.

The people at the time did not want the U.S.C. so the framers appeased them with the Bill of Rights, it worked the people thought the BoR would protect the people from misconstruction and abuse of powers when in fact the BoR has never protected the people from government abuse.



So then why do you quuote the Constitution, and the Bor as if they are the one true holy scripture and the founding fathers as if they are the true disciples? The majority of your "arguements and rationale" are merely quotes from one of those. A slightly lessor amount are biblical quotes, and a much smaller amount your own actual words. In this thread you probably posted your own words and ideas more than in the past six months combined.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 5:35:01 PM EDT
All ten planks of the communist manifesto are enforced in the United States, None of the Bill of Rights are enforced.

The framers could not write down in law that the people as militia were to abolish the constitution, the foreign threat was just too large and real, they needed a strong central gov in order to back off the bloody redcoats even a little bit, all they could do is infer the people have the right and duty to suppress government insurrection.

The only reasonable strategy is for the people to enforce the Bill of Rights, to hold local state and federal government in check.

The best hope is educating the armed services and law enforcement to enforce the BoR as an individual natural right against government infringement.

Slim chance of success with that, I know, but it is a start and does not cost as much blood as a circular firing squad that civil war is.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 5:35:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2007 5:40:59 PM EDT by STRATIOTES]
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
— Patrick Henry, (3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 5:35:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2007 5:40:24 PM EDT by STRATIOTES]
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
— Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775).
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 5:36:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/2/2007 5:39:54 PM EDT by STRATIOTES]
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American .. the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Link Posted: 12/2/2007 6:37:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
All ten planks of the communist manifesto are enforced in the United States, None of the Bill of Rights are enforced.

The framers could not write down in law that the people as militia were to abolish the constitution, the foreign threat was just too large and real, they needed a strong central gov in order to back off the bloody redcoats even a little bit, all they could do is infer the people have the right and duty to suppress government insurrection.

The only reasonable strategy is for the people to enforce the Bill of Rights, to hold local state and federal government in check.

The best hope is educating the armed services and law enforcement to enforce the BoR as an individual natural right against government infringement.

Slim chance of success with that, I know, but it is a start and does not cost as much blood as a circular firing squad that civil war is.


Ok, this post makes a lot of sense.

Just could you maybe stop with the constant insults? It sort of makes it hard to convince people to listen to you when you call them criminals (war criminals, criminals, badged bandits, etcetera).

And for the three posts after this one,


Link Posted: 12/3/2007 2:00:19 AM EDT
An oldy but goodie:

America- Love it or Leave it.
Link Posted: 12/3/2007 6:53:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sandmanbm:
An oldy but goodie:

America- Love it or Leave it.


That is how to propagate communism not how the Bill of Rights are defended against government abuse of power.

Should the founders have followed the advice of Monarchy love it ir leave it ?


"Gaurd with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!" - Patrick Henry
Top Top