# If the Bill of Rights makes liberalism illegal how does liberalism survive?



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 28, 2020)

Our genius Founders  were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers?  But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!


----------



## Fed Starving (Apr 28, 2020)

They're having a battle of definition that loses sight of the true value of those documents.  They think fancy word games can let them circumvent our rights.  They can't win unless the wrong people are running the place.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 23, 2020)

Fed Starving said:


> They're having a battle of definition that loses sight of the true value of those documents.  They think fancy word games can let them circumvent our rights.  They can't win unless the wrong people are running the place.



When they say the Constitution is a living document they mean it is a living communist document. Does anybody doubt that is the direction in which they are heading?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 23, 2020)

Special Ed – always entertaining, and wrong.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 24, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Special Ed – always entertaining, and wrong.


at least ed will defend what he throws up....something you dont do......no doubt because you would get bitch slapped most of the time....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

Fed Starving said:


> They're having a battle of definition that loses sight of the true value of those documents.  They think fancy word games can let them circumvent our rights.  They can't win unless the wrong people are running the place.


Yes, the Constitution is all about strictly limiting govt while the Democrats are all about strictly unlimiting govt. So how do they survive in America?


----------



## Agit8r (Jun 24, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Our genius Founders  were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers?  But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!



Was alcohol a factor in the typing of this post?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Our genius Founders  were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers?  But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!
> ...



I know you are just a liberal but if you object please try to present your objection in the form of a counter argument or simply admit you lack the IQ to do so with your silence, personal attacks or attempts to change the subject.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

Harry Dresden said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Special Ed – always entertaining, and wrong.
> ...


 Clayton dropped out of HS apparently so never goes beyond a personal attack. Embarrassing but that's been his MO for years.


----------



## Markle (Jun 24, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Our genius Founders  were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers?  But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!



Apparently, few people have read the First Amendment much less the rest of our great Constitution!







Democrats SEEM to be skipping a word or two.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Our genius Founders  were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers?  But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!
> ...


 translation: as a typical liberal I lack the IQ to respond substantively.


----------



## Agit8r (Jun 24, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


So what part of the constitution says it is ok for the police to assault the press?

 Oh, right the First and Incorporation Clause of the Fourteenth specifically forbids anything of the kind at any level of government.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

Agit8r said:


> So what part of the constitution says it is ok for the police to assault the press?



no part of course. Do you have any idea why you asked??


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 24, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Our genius Founders  were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers?  But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!


I think youre confused on what liberalism really is,,,

I think you mean leftist not liberal,,,


----------



## Agit8r (Jun 24, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > So what part of the constitution says it is ok for the police to assault the press?
> ...



I'm trying to understand what the OP is saying. (and maybe I lost track of what thread this was). Look, we are past the point of limiting this government to enumerated powers, without some significant reforms. The people in the streets are asking for reforms limiting the scope of governments. But it is a big country and a lot of people have taken to the streets. You only see the most shocking things on the mainstream news, because "if it bleeds it leads."
So, you can go on demonizing liberals, or you can try to contribute to discussing practical ways of limiting government--which many in the younger generation are actually open to. Reforming police being just one example.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

Agit8r said:


> Look, we are past the point of limiting this government to enumerated powers, without some significant reforms.



We are not past it. It is what conservatives and libertarians stand for and what our genius Founders stood for. Did you think they were worried the Girl Scouts were going take your freedom of speech away???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

Agit8r said:


> The people in the streets are asking for reforms limiting the scope of governments.



wrong they are communists looking for a huge communist govt that will give them reparations and welfare , exactly what caused the problem in the first place.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 24, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > Look, we are past the point of limiting this government to enumerated powers, without some significant reforms.
> ...


when did the girl scouts take away anyones freedom of speech???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

Agit8r said:


> So, you can go on demonizing liberals, or you can try to contribute to discussing practical ways of limiting government-



First way is to cut taxes and spending and regulations, obviously. 

Second way is to cut social engineering programs that created the school to prison pipeline and destroyed love and family in the  black community.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> when did the girl scouts take away anyones freedom of speech???



Never, our genius Founders were worried about future liberal governments taking away our freedoms which is why the Bill of Rights was added to Constitution!


----------



## Agit8r (Jun 24, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > So, you can go on demonizing liberals, or you can try to contribute to discussing practical ways of limiting government-
> ...



"Defund" is a word we hear a lot these days. Obviously taxes and regulations have been cut significantly in recent years. Doen't seem to have improved lives on main street though. Just a lot more dirty air.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 24, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > when did the girl scouts take away anyones freedom of speech???
> ...


I agree,,but youre thinking about leftist not liberals,,,


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

Agit8r said:


> "Defund" is a word we hear a lot these days.


 Defunding police you mean. We don't need this; we need the police to handle the increasing criminality caused by the liberal programs attacking the black family.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 24, 2020)

Agit8r said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Agit8r said:
> ...


how can you say people keeping more of their own money to spend in their communities not an improvement???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

Agit8r said:


> Obviously taxes and regulations have been cut significantly in recent years. Doen't seem to have improved lives on main street though. Just a lot more dirty air.



????? Trump's economy did more for blacks and women than any other economy in human history!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> I agree,,but youre thinking about leftist not liberals,,,


left liberal Democrat socialist all the same.


*Left-wing politics - Wikipedia*
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Left-wing_politics

_Left_-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social ... The center-_left_ includes social democrats, social *liberals, progressives and also some democratic socialists and greens* (including some eco-socialists) ...
‎Positions · ‎Environment · ‎Nationalism and anti ... · ‎Social progressivism ...


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 24, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > I agree,,but youre thinking about leftist not liberals,,,
> ...


they are lying to you,,,done believe them,,,


liberal means individual liberty and freedom,,,


----------



## Agit8r (Jun 24, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> > The people in the streets are asking for reforms limiting the scope of governments.
> ...



I guess I should have said the POWER of government. The odds are not good for non-tax-code spending measures to become law, unless the giant corporations demand it--which is unlikely.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jun 24, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


jones is a pussy who says shit and runs away...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 24, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


dictionaries don’t lie they simply report on common usage. today liberal means big govt taxes regulations entitlements social engineering. 200 years ago it meant liberty from govt but no more!


----------



## Markle (Jun 24, 2020)

Agit8r said:


> "Defund" is a word we hear a lot these days. Obviously taxes and regulations have been cut significantly in recent years. Doen't seem to have improved lives on main street though. Just a lot more dirty air.



The cut in taxes and regulations significantly improved our economy until China unleashed the COVID-19 on the world.  That has created an economic recession around the world.  President Donald Trump is leading us out but Democrats following the Raham Emmanual's edict to never let a good crisis go to waste, is now rioting in the streets.  Democrat leaders are making the terrorists feel comfortable and like they are helping America.

Please show us where the air is dirtier.  Not just in your mind.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Jun 25, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Our genius Founders  were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers?  But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now lib communism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!


The main body of the Constitution didn't mention guns, but in adding Amendments, the Second Amendment was included. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Arms as meant in the Second Amendment in the Constitution were...firearms, knives, swords, et cetera.  
The entire meaning of the Second Amendment was drafted, knowing that armed civilian volunteers helped win the conflict against England.  So, they wanted to make it clear that the people could keep and bear arms so that should we be either invaded by or become ruled by a tyrannical domestic government, the people could rise up, form civilian volunteer militias and fight to protect their liberties.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 25, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


wikipedia isnt a dictionary and they lie constantly,,,

and like I said they are lying to you so dont believe them or they win,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 26, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Our genius Founders  were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers?  But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!



The 14th Amendment effectively repealed the Bill of Rights and reduced them to mere privileges that government can dole out at their discretion.  In other words, as "rights" go, they are no longer rights, but limited privileges.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 26, 2020)

Porter Rockwell said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Our genius Founders  were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers?  But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!
> ...


not according to the text of it,,
nowhere does it say any other amendments are repealed, which is whats needed for youre scenario,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 26, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



The Amendment does not have to include specific wording.  Through technical court decisions that you would not understand, the *United States Supreme Court interpreted* the 14th Amendment in a manner wherein it repealed the Bill of Rights.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 26, 2020)

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...


thay gave an opinion that can be corrected later,,,

the only way to repeal a right is to directly repeal it not dance around it,,,

I stand in protest,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 26, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




The United States Supreme Court *interprets *the law.  When you read what they write about ANY case, they do issue an "_Opinion_."  The majority makes a decision and the high Court starts out with a synopsis of the case and how they arrive at their *final decision*.  That final decision is called the *HOLDING*.  Many times the decision will read *"HELD*" and then they issue their interpretation which IS THE LAW.  That ruling (_holding_) applies to every city, county, state, and federal district in the United States.  It's not an "_opinion_," but the law.  Since you want to belabor the point, let me educate you.  I'll do this one for free.  Let us take the Second Amendment and follow it through legal process:

“_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}​“_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

_Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable r*ights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'*and to 'secure*,'*not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted.     _BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

According to Wikipedia:

"_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealthin 1822. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." T*he right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"_The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute. He does not derive it from the State government.* It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because* it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“_The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is *absolute*. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an *unalienable* Right.

When it came to so - called "_assault weapons_," the high Court was even more generous to the people in the Miller ruling.  The high Court ruled against Miller over a shotgun because it was not a weapon normally associated with the militia.  Of course, they were wrong as shotguns were being used in the militia and our armed forces employ shotguns today.  But, Miller died before his case could be fully litigated from his side.  But.... today we get a different story.  WHY?

Did the high Court just issue new "_opinions_" and change the law or did something significant happen?  Actually, the United States Supreme Court is generally bound by legal precedent and they are *NOT* empowered to  reinterpret the law, but they occasionally do because nobody points out they don't have the authority to do it.  In this instance, what they did was to circumvent the Second Amendment in the Heller ruling.  Let's see what they said:

“_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_.” _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 US 570 (2008)

That holding contradicted *EVERYTHING* from the framers intent about the Second Amendment to the rulings of the United States Supreme Court.  HOW did they justify the change?  In a couple of years after Heller, we got our answer from the United States Supreme Court:

_*"McDonald v. Chicago*_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the *Fourteenth Amendment*..." (emphasis mine, of course.) 

So, let's think about this for a moment.  In the Declaration of Independence, it says:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._.."

So, we began, as a nation with *unalienable* Rights that were ruled to be absolute, inherent, natural, above the law, and irrevocable.  The government said they did not grant the Rights and all of a sudden we have gun control, *not* based upon a Second Amendment Right, but on the 14th Amendment.  Now, let me see here.  The 14th Amendment states:

"_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the *privileges or immunities* of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_. "  (Emphasis mine again.)

Notice that the 14th Amendment does *NOT* limit government* NOR* does it guarantee ANY RIGHT.  It guarantees you the _equal protection of the laws_.  It is the government, NOT your Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence) granting you Rights in the 14th Amendment.   The second thing the courts did was to eliminate the word *unalienable* from the legal lexicon.  The word *unalienable* is no longer used AND it was removed from Blacks Law Dictionary, which is the most authoritative legal dictionary accepted in the legal community.  The government replaced that word with a synonym AND they redefined the synonym.  That synonym is the word _inalienable_.  Now, watch very carefully what the courts do when they legally define the word _inalienable_:

“_Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights_” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)

You cannot consent to give up an *unalienable* Right.  That was the whole purpose of this long winded lesson.  But, you CAN consent to give up *inalienable* rights.  The main difference is that your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestowed upon you *unalienable* Rights.  On the other hand, the GOVERNMENT GIVES YOU "INALIENABLE"  RIGHTS.  So, the government can give, take away, have you surrender or transfer _inalienable_ rights, but since the government did not give you *unalienable* Rights, they cannot.  It's as simple as that.  Now, let me do your work for you and then tear it down so we do this once.

Dictionaries will tell you_ inalienable_ and *unalienable *are the same thing.  Layman dictionaries are not admissible in a court of law as evidence when you have a court ruling interpreting a word or phrase.  So, it don't matter what they say.  If MacDonald had a Second Amendment Right to keep and bear Arms, there would have no need to mention the 14th Amendment.  It was supposed to give blacks the right to vote.  Correct?  No, it did not.  The 14th Amendment took away God given Rights and exchanged them for government immunities and privileges (government granted "_rights_.")  And there went your Bill of Rights - court rulings provided to prove it.  Consider that lesson a public service from someone who spent a career on it.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 26, 2020)

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...


thiier interpretations suck most of the time since they go the opposite of the written word,,

and they give opinions that can be changed later,,,

I stand in protest to their opinions,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 26, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I not only stand in protest of the unconstitutional rulings of the United States Supreme Court, but I also use passive resistance and civil disobedience when necessary... which in the grand scheme of things isn't worth a damn until you get a few hundred people to stand together and defy the government.  It is estimated that over 500,000 bump stocks exist in the United States.  They are a fun toy with no real world application, but what if *10 percent* of those people who own one defied the United States Supreme Court and went to the local court houses all on the same day and displayed them?  What happens when a thousand people in each state stand at the door of their respective state capitols and refuse to abide by an unconstitutional law?

I don't agree with the United States Supreme Court, especially when they reinterpret the law to suit their needs.  But, in my lifetime, not even Jesus himself has ever over-ruled the United States Supreme Court.  We either ignore them OR we pretend they are greater than God.  Now, I've told you why things are and there are only three things you can do about it:

1)   Amend the Constitution
2)  Refuse to obey unconstitutional laws AND don't assist them by being a useful idiot. Use all of your nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress
3)   Organize a massive protest and defy unconstitutional laws in public

Anything less and you're pissing in the wind.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 26, 2020)

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Porter Rockwell said:
> ...


 been there done that,,,

and why non violent???
if their intention is to kill me I will kill them first if I can,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 26, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Ultimately we will have a civil war OR we will surrender.  By God's law and the laws governing warfare require us to seek a peaceful resolution. And so you prepare and then let nature take it's course.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 27, 2020)

Porter Rockwell said:


> Ultimately we will have a civil war OR we will surrender.  By God's law and the laws governing warfare require us to seek a peaceful resolution. And so you prepare and then let nature take it's course.



Does this mean you agree the Bill Of Rights and Constitution in effect makes Democrats illegal in  America?


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 27, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > Ultimately we will have a civil war OR we will surrender.  By God's law and the laws governing warfare require us to seek a peaceful resolution. And so you prepare and then let nature take it's course.
> ...



No because the Constitution of the United States does not give the federal government any jurisdiction over foreigners.  Bear in mind, the United Stated never legalized slavery.  It was a STATE issue.  Foreigners working in any* state *in the United States are a *state* matter, not an issue for the federal government.  The right has been programmed, Pavlovian style, to do this song and dance routine that if you don't think the feds ought to control foreigners coming into the United States when people are willingly doing business with them, then you're a liberal, pro illegal (sic) son of a bitch.  Those people are so freaking brainwashed that they fail to see both sides of the coin.  For example:

The right has spent* TRILLIONS *of dollars  on silliness like the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the Constitution Free Zone, the so - called "_Patriot Act_," and the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify B.S.  not to mention that damn silly wall and NONE of it has mitigated the perceived problem.  And we haven't even begun to total the costs in lost Liberties.  What can't the anti-immigrant lobby wake the Hell up?  Let me give you an example:

I posted on this board when I first came here an on other boards *YEARS* before that.  The United States Supreme Court would not deport DACA children.  They didn't.  The politicians played you like a fiddle.  Now, the anti-immigrant lobby is bitching about "_sanctuary cities_" as they stumble about like blind men.  But, you should look at both sides of the coin:

There are hundreds of _Second Amendment sanctuary cities _popping up all over the United States.  The reason that foreigners are enjoying _sanctuary cities_ is due to the simple fact that their lawyers relied on a precedent where local sheriffs refused to enforce federal gun laws.  The United States Supreme Court determined that the Constitution forbids enlisting state and local police to enforce federal laws.   Read this link:









						Trump's Sloppy, Unconstitutional Order on 'Sanctuary Cities'
					

The president’s executive order threatening to deny federal funds to jurisdictions that don’t help the feds deport undocumented immigrants reads like it was drafted by Lionel Hutz.




					www.theatlantic.com
				




So, here is what we have to lose.  Trump already banned bump stocks - which was an unconstitutional act.  Now, the ATF is secretly planning to ban AR type pistols with an arm brace (that takes an estimated 750,000 firearms out of circulation.)  Now, suppose that the states with _Second Amendment sanctuary cities_ don't want to comply.  The same law protecting the foreigner is the same precedent saving your ass from gun confiscation wherein your local sheriff must take your weapon even if he thinks the law is unconstitutional *UNLESS* you live in a _Second Amendment sanctuary city_ .  Okay, so do we retain the Right to keep and bear Arms* OR *do we screw with foreigners in order to enforce anti-white immigration laws aimed at making white people the minority in America?  You tell me.

The better question is, how can you impact the influx of foreigners *without* the federal government?  The people controlling your talking points don't want to have that conversation.


----------



## Regent23 (Jun 28, 2020)

It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 28, 2020)

Regent23 said:


> It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.



Anti-federalists.  Names keep changing.  Today liberals are connected to socialism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 28, 2020)

Regent23 said:


> It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.


Yes that’s true. At the time the liberals and anti-federalist were, like conservatives and libertarians of today, wishing to constrain or limit the federal government anyway possible. They knew the federal government has been a source of evil on earth.


----------



## Regent23 (Jun 28, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Regent23 said:
> 
> 
> > It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.
> ...


The liberal philosophy of that period is the similar to the liberal philosophy to day. Your philosophy may change for a number of reasons, but the ideology does not change.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 28, 2020)

Regent23 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Regent23 said:
> ...


The liberal philosophy then was that government was evil and liberty from government was good. Today the liberal philosophy is that government is good and liberty from government is bad. Do you understand now?


----------



## Regent23 (Jun 29, 2020)

I th8





EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Regent23 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


It depended on the government.


----------



## Regent23 (Jun 29, 2020)

Porter Rockwell said:


> Regent23 said:
> 
> 
> > It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.
> ...


Yes socialism for the people and conservatives believe in socialism for the corporations.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 29, 2020)

Regent23 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > Regent23 said:
> ...



Conservatives and liberals are one hand washing the other.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 29, 2020)

Regent23 said:


> It depended on the government.


No, it did not depend on the govt. Our genius Founders looked at all of world history and concluded that govt had been the source of evil and that govt was naturally evil. Therefore they created a country based on a very very limited govt, and what do you know, it became the greatest country in human history because of the freedom from govt our genius Founders gave us. Now do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 29, 2020)

Porter Rockwell said:


> Conservatives and liberals are one hand washing the other.


Conservatives like Reagan  Trump Goldwater are for preserving our past and slow change while liberals like Hitler Stalin and Mao were for instant change to perfect the world, as the saw fit. immediately. Now do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 29, 2020)

Regent23 said:


> Yes socialism for the people and conservatives believe in socialism for the corporations.



Socialism is for the people? Then why did it just kill 120 million people??


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jun 29, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Our genius Founders  were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers?  But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!




it doesn't

so there is no problem.


I wish conservatives would STOP TRYING TO CENSOR everyone while they DEMANDING FREE SPEECH for themselves.....

that is getting old......


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 29, 2020)

Regent23 said:


> conservatives believe in socialism for the corporations.



Conservatives believe in capitalism for corporations wherein only those corporations which please with an higher standard of living through  the best quality and lowest price in the world survive and the others[about 10,000 a month] go bankrupt. Now do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 29, 2020)

anynameyouwish said:


> I wish conservatives would STOP TRYING TO CENSOR everyone



can you give a representative example of this  or is it pure BS?


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jun 29, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > I wish conservatives would STOP TRYING TO CENSOR everyone
> ...




" can you give a representative example of this  or is it pure BS? "

1.  trump said "the only good democrat is a dead democrat"

tell me....how much free speech do DEAD people have?

2.  I won't bother to go looking for  them but MANY posters on this board have talked about "DESTROYING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY"

how much free speech will they have after you have destroyed them?

3.  cons will always defend a conservative athlete "he has a right to his free speech!"
but will always say to a liberal athlete "shut up and play"

4. just recently a poster on this board said he wanted to "lynch me" AND "take me out back and put a bullet in my head"

isn't THAT an EXTREME form of CENSORSHIP?

if he lynches me....I  will be CENSORED forever!


should you require more examples i can certainly take the time to go through HUNDREDS of files to find THOUSANDS more examples.....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 29, 2020)

anynameyouwish said:


> 1.  trump said "the only good democrat is a dead democrat"
> 
> tell me....how much free speech do DEAD people have?



He was speaking figuratively. No one has killed Democrats. They just impeached him with there total power of free speech and are running ahead of him in the polls thanks to their free speech.

That's your representative example?? You just proved it was total BS!! See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## anynameyouwish (Jun 29, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  trump said "the only good democrat is a dead democrat"
> ...




" See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? "

I already KNEW why you say it.

YOU  are "ignorant"

my liberalism is rational;

legalize pot, stop destroying lives just because people smoke pot!

gays are citizens and deserve the same rights, protections and freedoms

laws should be based on reason and logic and NOT the bible.

if you really want to MAGA then we really NEED excellent, affordable education for all


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 29, 2020)

anynameyouwish said:


> my liberalism is rational;
> if you really want to MAGA then we really NEED excellent, affordable education for all


 you mean your liberalism is  childlike stupid and naive. Everyone supports excellent affordable education. Issue this time is:  ,reparations,  the treasonous green new deal, defund the police, defund ice, open the borders to all, provide free healthcare and education to all, raise taxes on business to drive more jobs off shore, empty the prisons, riot/loot, pamper blacks when they are killed by police less often than white.

Now do you understand?


----------



## Markle (Jun 29, 2020)

anynameyouwish said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > anynameyouwish said:
> ...



Everything on your list is being done or has been done.  What else do you want?


----------



## Markle (Jun 29, 2020)

anynameyouwish said:


> " can you give a representative example of this or is it pure BS? "
> 
> 1. trump said "the only good democrat is a dead democrat"
> 
> ...



Yeah, you didn't understand the question, did you?  Want to try it again?


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Jun 29, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> > Conservatives and liberals are one hand washing the other.
> ...



Reagan was pro- gun control.  Goldwater was pro-homosexual:



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm
		


Goldwater was okay, but did not have the weight to play in the big boys league.  His opposition to the Council on Foreign Relations ought to make him a hero among Americans.  Other than that, the Republicans have tried to appease the left for way too long - until they are now supporting leftist causes in exchange for the acceptance of the masses.


----------



## Regent23 (Jul 17, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> when did the girl scouts take away anyones freedom of speech???


The second president, John Adams, a conservative, had his conservative Congress pass the Subversive Act making it illegal to critisize Government, which   violated the Bill of Rights.  When Jefferson took office he corrected the situation. 
 Originally It was the liberals that demanded a Bill of Rights. 2


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 17, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> when did the girl scouts take away anyones freedom of speech???


The girl scouts never took our freedom of speech away and our founders did not worry that they would but they did worry that the government would take away our freedom of speech. The whole constitution especially the Bill of Rights is written to make sure the government doesn’t become liberal like the one we have now.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 17, 2020)

Regent23 said:


> The second president, John Adams, a conservative, had his conservative Congress pass the Subversive Act making it illegal to critisize Government, which   violated the Bill of Rights.  When Jefferson took office he corrected the situation.
> Originally It was the liberals that demanded a Bill of Rights. 2


Don’t be totally absurd and illiterate Jefferson was the champion of limiting government and Adams was a liberal for a large English style government. How can you be so illiterate?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jul 18, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Yes, the Constitution is all about strictly limiting govt while the Democrats are all about strictly unlimiting govt. So how do they survive in America?


1. First they don't believe in Constitutional laws and limits as Conservatives do
2. So forcing Constitutionalism on liberals is, in itself, unconstitutional because they don't believe in it as a political religion
3. This creates a double standard where
A. For Conservatives who believe limits on govt prevent it from being abused to impose beliefs on others, so they cannot force Constitutionalism on liberals by this very belief in religious freedom
B. but for Liberals who don't believe in such limits, as long as they believe that majority rule, judicial ruling, or executive order is all it takes to justify a mandate, they will use their party power to elect people to office to use all three branches of govt to mandate their beliefs

EdwardBaiamonte  I am in agreement with you that it should be illegal to abuse govt to establish political beliefs, religion or creed that violates beliefs, rights or creeds of other citizens. And that party/media should not be abused to conspire to violate civil rights of others by discrimination by creed, nor commit fraud, misrepresentation, or other abuse by falsely advertising to the public to solicit donations or votes by promising to enact any such policies that are "unconstitutional" and aren't valid plans. What do you think about writing up a list of grievance points against Democrats abusing party, post that publicly and send it as a petition to State Gov, AG, Party leaders, Senators and Congress. And ask for a public conference on barring parties from both (a) imposing political beliefs through govt in violation of Constitutional rights, laws, limits, and beliefs (b) misrepresenting such abuse to voters and donors as if this is legal and legitimate in order to solicit donations and votes (c) require all parties to rectify and reimburse taxpayers for costs of such abuses, and require political parties to register through the state as political religious organizations barred from campaigning on any fraudulent claims falsely promising unconstitutional legislative or executive agenda


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 18, 2020)

emilynghiem said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the Constitution is all about strictly limiting govt while the Democrats are all about strictly unlimiting govt. So how do they survive in America?
> ...


You make no sense. Forcing constitutionalism on liberals is what the Constitution requires. We all live under the constitution. To serve in office we take a constitutional oath to preserve defend and protect the Constitution.

Now do you understand?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jul 18, 2020)

Regent23 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > when did the girl scouts take away anyones freedom of speech???
> ...


those liberals are not the same as our liberals,,,ours are evil and theirs believed in freeedom


----------



## Regent23 (Jul 18, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> Regent23 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Sounds as few bothered to check on America's early history. It's all there in the history books. and is simple to find.


----------



## Regent23 (Jul 18, 2020)

progressive hunter said:


> Regent23 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Can there be some "core beliefs" to liberalism and conservatism that do not change? You might start with the Declaration of Independence, that lays out one of the ideologies. Books on political ideologies, sold in any college book store, also might help.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 20, 2020)

Regent23 said:


> Can there be some "core beliefs" to liberalism and conservatism that do not change?


Totally stupid of course. Core beliefs may or may no change and definitions may or may not change. Today cons are for freedom and against govt. In 1776 that was our Founders position! So they were conservatives using todays definitions and beliefs.

Today libs are closed minded bigots for an all powerful state orthodoxy that cancels the opposition much like George 3  HItler Stalin Mao Pol Pot AOC Warren Sanders Biden. Do you need to learn this every other week?


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Jul 20, 2020)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Our genius Founders  were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary.


Why might that be? 



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers?  But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights.


They did not foresee "liberalism" to be the organizing principle oppressing the citizenry.



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!


No. The founders in all their genius as you like to describe them, were well aware of the inadequacies of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers describe the inadequacies as corruptions, because they could not describe them as "faults" or "inadequacies" otherwise they would have been obligated to correct the inadequacies before the public would have been properly assured of the charter's quality.



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Yes that’s true. At the time the liberals and anti-federalist were, like conservatives and libertarians of today, wishing to constrain or limit the federal government anyway possible. They knew the federal government has been a source of evil on earth.



How can that be true - what federal governments were they able to study, and how did they get accurate information as to how the governments operated???



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> . . . Therefore they created a country based on a very very limited govt . . .


They violated the limited government immediately. The only security department mentioned was treasury, and state and defense were implied; but none of them were properly defined. A central bank was established with a legislature not approved by the people. And as you know there are now a hundred agencies and only about twenty oversight committees with some subcommittees.

Liberalism is not made illegal by the Bill of Rights.
The rebellion we are enduring can only be quelled by a peace treaty - a reordering of the inadequate chartering system.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Why might that be?


They thought a Bill of Rights might  not be necessary because the Constitution detailed what govt actions could be. Restricting free speech was not something govt could do under Constitution ergo a Bill of Rights to protect free speech was not necessary and might even be dangerous since it gave govt management over free speech which liberal govt might then subvert to their advantage..


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> They did not foresee "liberalism" to be the organizing principle oppressing the citizenry.



of course they did. Their entire idea was to give us freedom from liberal schemes to better our lives because such schemes had been the source of evil throughout human history. Now do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> No. The founders in all their genius as you like to describe them, were well aware of the inadequacies of the Constitution.



all agree; so what???? Do you have any idea what your subject is????? You were responding to paragraph which said we can still go back to original meaning and scope of Constitution despite how far liberals have torn us from its intended purpose to keep us free from big liberal govt schemes.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> How can that be true - what federal governments were they able to study, and how did they get accurate information as to how the governments operated???


Simple: they were geniuses who studied all of human history. Did you think they were guessing at what kind of govt to create??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> They violated the limited government immediately.


Yes they should have been much clearer about their intent. Even they had no idea how insidious creeping relentless and cancerous liberalism could be. We have seen the great 20th Century liberals Hitler Stalin Mao Pol Pot Castro and still many today are embracing liberal govt. Our Founders imagined  that freedom was natural, that a taste of it would serve to keep us on the right path, but they were dead wrong.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jul 21, 2020)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Liberalism is not made illegal by the Bill of Rights.



Sure it is. It is designed to stop liberal govt from taking away or canceling our right to free speech. Did you think they were worried about the  Girl Scouts taking away our right to free speech???.


----------

