Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I just cant see that as possible. As the time passes it just seems that the Constitution cant answer all of the problems that we have to deal with. It isn't the founders fault. They couldn't envision semiautomatic rifles or the internet. We cant assume that what they wrote is applicable to modern issues like those.
I just cant see that as possible. As the time passes it just seems that the Constitution cant answer all of the problems that we have to deal with. It isn't the founders fault. They couldn't envision semiautomatic rifles or the internet. We cant assume that what they wrote is applicable to modern issues like those.
Also there's a serious problem with this statement:
The Constitution is not an instrument to restrict and shackle the people.
The Constitution is intended to restrict and shackle the government.
Read the Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendments.
I just cant see that as possible. As the time passes it just seems that the Constitution cant answer all of the problems that we have to deal with. It isn't the founders fault. They couldn't envision semiautomatic rifles or the internet. We cant assume that what they wrote is applicable to modern issues like those.
Also there's a serious problem with this statement:
The Constitution is not an instrument to restrict and shackle the people.
The Constitution is intended to restrict and shackle the government.
Read the Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendments.
I was pre law in College, I am very familiar with the constitution so you can just talk to me about it. I know it pretty well from those classes.
OK...I only read the first two pages....but how come our Conservative, freedom loving brethren had/have no problem with Google having all this personal information to begin with?
Oh...yeah....that's right...because they're a corporation....they're allowed to do anything. Tyranny, invasion of privacy and oppression is not exclusive to "gubmint".
Pulls the Partisanship card immediately.
Both parties are corporate engines of destruction, demolishing your civil and economic liberties everyday.
OK...I only read the first two pages....but how come our Conservative, freedom loving brethren had/have no problem with Google having all this personal information to begin with?
Oh...yeah....that's right...because they're a corporation....they're allowed to do anything. Tyranny, invasion of privacy and oppression is not exclusive to "gubmint".
Pulls the Partisanship card immediately.
Both parties are corporate engines of destruction, demolishing your civil and economic liberties everyday.
Why is that, slick? C'mon.....take it to the next level.... Could it be (gasp) money in politics...where at the Federal Level....Millions need to be spent to run an effective campaign? Then we doubled down on the insanity with the absolutely ridiculous notion that Money=Speech.
Guess...what? Now those with the most money get the most speech...those who get the most speech get the most representation.
Pulls the Partisanship card immediately.
Both parties are corporate engines of destruction, demolishing your civil and economic liberties everyday.
Why is that, slick? C'mon.....take it to the next level.... Could it be (gasp) money in politics...where at the Federal Level....Millions need to be spent to run an effective campaign? Then we doubled down on the insanity with the absolutely ridiculous notion that Money=Speech.
Guess...what? Now those with the most money get the most speech...those who get the most speech get the most representation.
You and I agree on this issue, so why are you attacking me? You're so blinded by partisanship, you can't even see when someone agrees with you.
Also there's a serious problem with this statement:
The Constitution is not an instrument to restrict and shackle the people.
The Constitution is intended to restrict and shackle the government.
Read the Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendments.
I was pre law in College, I am very familiar with the constitution so you can just talk to me about it. I know it pretty well from those classes.
The point is that evil, vile and dangerous (isolated) individuals or small groups pose far less of a threat to the general public than an evil, vile and maliciously centralized government.
Article 4, Section 4: The Guarantee Clause (United States Constitution).
The idea was that a limited federal government could be a positive force to ensure that the States (individually) would not become tyrannical, but that role cannot be fulfilled if the federal government itself is tyrannical. The federal government of Andrew Jackson would never tolerate the Gun Grabbing of the New York or California governments or Massachusetts governments. Congress would have activated the Militia to enforce the Laws of the Union, which would include the Constitution since "Law" is capitalized.
Why is that, slick? C'mon.....take it to the next level.... Could it be (gasp) money in politics...where at the Federal Level....Millions need to be spent to run an effective campaign? Then we doubled down on the insanity with the absolutely ridiculous notion that Money=Speech.
Guess...what? Now those with the most money get the most speech...those who get the most speech get the most representation.
You and I agree on this issue, so why are you attacking me? You're so blinded by partisanship, you can't even see when someone agrees with you.
Because it permeates everything....even the NRA....I dropped my membership over two decades ago when they stopped being about gun safety and responsible ownership and turned into a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and purveyors of paranoia amongst it's membership. But hey....fear sells guns.
Before you start, I have three guns and that's all I need. Two for hunting and one for home protection. I don't need military grade weapons nor do I give a shit if you want one...go get it....but I want to know you're not a fucking nut case or a violent Criminal when you go to purchase it....even in a private sale.
[
But my point is that our govt is not evil or vile and they aren't the problem. I have a healthy distrust in gov't, but I also combat some of that cynicism with a little positive outlook on the good that they can do.
[
But my point is that our govt is not evil or vile and they aren't the problem. I have a healthy distrust in gov't, but I also combat some of that cynicism with a little positive outlook on the good that they can do.
Our government is neither good nor evil, it is neither benign nor malign.
Our government can't be any of those things, because it doesn't exist anymore, it's a mere charade. At most it carries out administrative duties.
The International Banks are the true government, and the people of the United States are all that stand in their way.
You and I agree on this issue, so why are you attacking me? You're so blinded by partisanship, you can't even see when someone agrees with you.
Because it permeates everything....even the NRA....I dropped my membership over two decades ago when they stopped being about gun safety and responsible ownership and turned into a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and purveyors of paranoia amongst it's membership. But hey....fear sells guns.
Before you start, I have three guns and that's all I need. Two for hunting and one for home protection. I don't need military grade weapons nor do I give a shit if you want one...go get it....but I want to know you're not a fucking nut case or a violent Criminal when you go to purchase it....even in a private sale.
Ok, so your problem is that you and I have stark differences on the 2nd Amendment. Ok. That is not what this thread is about.
Because it permeates everything....even the NRA....I dropped my membership over two decades ago when they stopped being about gun safety and responsible ownership and turned into a lobbying group for gun manufacturers and purveyors of paranoia amongst it's membership. But hey....fear sells guns.
Before you start, I have three guns and that's all I need. Two for hunting and one for home protection. I don't need military grade weapons nor do I give a shit if you want one...go get it....but I want to know you're not a fucking nut case or a violent Criminal when you go to purchase it....even in a private sale.
Ok, so your problem is that you and I have stark differences on the 2nd Amendment. Ok. That is not what this thread is about.
I was using it as an example of Corporate lobbying and buying politicians...one that I knew you would take exception to because of your username. You apparently feel that Money= Speech is OK in that instance....I don't.
I am a Union member, but I don't feel my union should be buying politicians. So I don't participate in our union's PAC...Which in my state, is exclusively voluntary. It's called objectivity.
Ok, so your problem is that you and I have stark differences on the 2nd Amendment. Ok. That is not what this thread is about.
I was using it as an example of Corporate lobbying and buying politicians...one that I knew you would take exception to because of your username. You apparently feel that Money= Speech is OK in that instance....I don't.
I am a Union member, but I don't feel my union should be buying politicians. So I don't participate in our union's PAC...Which in my state, is exclusively voluntary. It's called objectivity.
If I had my way, every lobbyist, including NRA toolbags that are there for the money, would be marched to the French Guillotine.
If the NRA saw more money in gun control, they would advocate for it.
I was pre law in College, I am very familiar with the constitution so you can just talk to me about it. I know it pretty well from those classes.
The point is that evil, vile and dangerous (isolated) individuals or small groups pose far less of a threat to the general public than an evil, vile and maliciously centralized government.
Article 4, Section 4: The Guarantee Clause (United States Constitution).
The idea was that a limited federal government could be a positive force to ensure that the States (individually) would not become tyrannical, but that role cannot be fulfilled if the federal government itself is tyrannical. The federal government of Andrew Jackson would never tolerate the Gun Grabbing of the New York or California governments or Massachusetts governments. Congress would have activated the Militia to enforce the Laws of the Union, which would include the Constitution since "Law" is capitalized.
But my point is that our govt is not evil or vile and they aren't the problem. I have a healthy distrust in gov't, but I also combat some of that cynicism with a little positive outlook on the good that they can do.
