1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

Give us your Tired, Your Hungry, your Firearms ?? ( mature content)

Discussion in 'Bill of Rights' started by Salted Weapon, Jun 21, 2016.

  1. Salted Weapon

    Salted Weapon West Coast Monkey

    I was going to write this a few weeks ago, but just got some time to do it. Been on my mind awhile.

    The United States of America.
    In the mid 1700's it was an idea of men living equal in a society. Many had come from other countries where there were lords of the lands you lived on and that meant what you owned so did they and a good part of it or all of it. Slowly a group of men realize in America they were finding that the land here they thought was land they could work and grow on was owned by the King and goods and property was his alone, ( now I will stop there because we all know the people felt repressed and abused and fought back eventually so not going to re-post what everyone knows.

    The federalist papers ( are a good read ) surely show that men of this country then were not happy and after our Independence was secure we wanted it to stay that way. The old governing party was
    aristocracy and the crown in which rights were granted by the grace of the lords or the crown. There were no rights even ones right to exist was questionable at best.

    The new laws here in America needed to protect the people, but how would they organize? Over the next several decades several changes after our independence would be formed like Congress, what most do not realize is the sovereign states created the federal government to help organize and secure rights, property, commerce and help create a basic set of laws we now call the bill of rights.
    This new entity was created the bill of rights to work with the Constitution.
    People say these amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights are negotiable or have the ability to be edited and removed. The reality is this is 100% bullshit, no other way to say it. The original Amendments were created to preserve right and set government control, not make the Constitution adjustable. Yet Liberals say because other rights were added later on this sets that standard. No it does not. The Constitution, was design to not allow states to be bullied, maligned and sued by the federal government for refusing to walk lock-step with harmful federal policy. Policies that are usually back-doored through government agencies rather than processed through the Constitutional remedy of legislation. Which if removed put us in line with allowing the Kingship to control our rights is the outcome.

    The 100% purpose of Constitution, and the Bill of Rights was to ensure and preserve rights " period " it was designed so it could not be argued, or legislated away, yet here we are in lock step with the governing body ruling how the sovereign states act without our say. Our Forefathers were not ignorant of the future or out of touch with the future. They knew from past experiences of our history for 5000 years a government left in control and unchecked would would eventually remove the people from power.
    The Federal Government of the United States, is not the governing body the people are. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights state it pretty clear you and I are in control of our own fate.
    Now Obama stands on TV and says hes had enough, excuse me but he can go fuck him self. Does he think he is the King of America ? Our Ruler. ? If you listen to Hilary she wants to shut down the NRA? a Federal employee wants to have the power to take away a business at will and the current employee wants to take away our guns ? These are employees to help manage our country " NOT " manage us. It is for US to manage them and we have allowed that coin to flip.
    The Constitution, the Bill of Rights were written so we the people could disarm a government that would want to become King. It is now the self poclaimed King whom wishes to disarm the people.
    This is HIGH TREASON, this is not a joke or funny our federal government has broken the laws in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. They should be replaced by those that will ensure the integrity of Constitution, the Bill of Rights are retained, by voting this November Trump must get in office no matter what. Hilary has already stated she will be a criminal and will disobey the laws of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Furthermore she will remove our rights granted by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Would you hire a man to work on your house that would say he would steal from you if hired ?

    I wonder if this gets thru to people the actual reality of the process thats been done, not is going to be done, but already happened to help the government setup the complete removal of the power of the people?
    The roles of the people have been reversed and the only thing or glue keeping it in place by a thread is the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and they are looking to now remove those rights ASAP.

    Thanks for reading

  2. GOG

    GOG Monkey++

    Well said.

    I think that generally the serious folk have held back out of an abundance of grace, faith in this country and patience. But everyone has their limits.
    Aeason, Dont, Salted Weapon and 3 others like this.
  3. duane

    duane Monkey++

    The Bill of Rights exists for one reason and only one reason, the states under the old Confederation said that if it was not added, they would not approve, nor would they join, the new country that the federalists were trying to create. It was not negotiable, no Bill of Rights, no Constitution, no United States, and they tried to make a pretty high barrier to any changes to that document after they signed on. Of course the powers that be in their infinite wisdom have been trying to overturn the limitations that the states placed on the central government ever since, through "interpitiation, laws, executive orders, rules and regulations, etc" and totally ignore the fact that the confederation of states only shared their powers with the central government with the guarentee of the rights of the individual and the state.
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2016
    enloopious and Aeason like this.
  4. chimo

    chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd Site Supporter+

    This is incorrect. While it is true that many of the ratifying states did demand a bill of rights and in some cases added that demand to their ratification documents, the fact is that they DID ratify the Constitution without it...and were already participating members of the new government under the new Constitution when those amendments were introduced and sent to the States for ratification. Indeed, there were 12 proposed amendments...of the 12, only 10 were ratified by the States to become our first ten amendments...the first two were not ratified at the time, but the once concerning congressional pay raises was finally ratified in 1992 and became the 27th Amendment. Obviously nobody seceded from the Union at the time because all of the "bill of rights" were not ratified.

    One of the more prophetic arguments against including a Bill of Rights was that it would be misconstrued by future governments and citizens as granting rights, rather than merely enumerating and guaranteeing them.
    Ganado, Aeason, 3M-TA3 and 4 others like this.
  5. Salted Weapon

    Salted Weapon West Coast Monkey

    Which it seems today is non-existent. States have sold off rights of land to the government which should not have ownership of land to begin with yet here we are 2016 were some whopping 32% as of 2015 of the continental United States is owned by the federal government. And entity that owns as much as 30 of the land in some states as well. It seems the Bill Of Rights was a slight of hand maneuver as he we are 200+ years later and much of what was agreed has not changed but been ignored.
    Motomom34 and Aeason like this.
  6. duane

    duane Monkey++

    The states, and not the population of the states chose the senate and had veto powers over the federal government up until the direct election of the senators and that was no accident. Almost all of the checks and balances on federal power are gone now, the political parties, and the beuarcrats, with the help of the lobbyists, effectively control the government
  7. Bandit99

    Bandit99 Monkey++

    What is needed is a thread encompassing input and knowledge from the people on this site that writes in clear, short points the reality of many misunderstood and/or misinterpreted facts concerning our government and the constitution. Sentences should be concise, limited in length and completely factual. For example:

    The Bill of Rights is not negotiable
    SCOTUS has no Constitutional right whatsoever to interpret, limit or change the Constitution
    The People are the only and ultimate arbiters of the Constitution
    2nd Amendment purpose is to defend the U.S. Constitution

    A few I need to cross check and certainly revise:
    The Federal government has no right to nor can own land under the Constitution
    The Federal government has no right to dictate education under the Constitution

    Busy today and cannot work on this...
    Mountainman and GOG like this.
  8. chimo

    chimo the few, the proud, the jarhead monkey crowd Site Supporter+

    Not that you don't have an excellent idea, but I have to caution you that some things cannot be condensed down into easy-to-understand 30 second sound bites. I think part of the reason that we have devolved into Idiocracy is because people expect those neat little sound bites and are so used to them that anything that even looks complex is ignored.

    I apologize if my own communication skills are lacking, I will try to do better.
    kellory likes this.
  9. Legion489

    Legion489 Shining the Light of Truth

    Yes, the Bill of Rights merely stated that we have GOD GIVEN RIGHTS that the gov't can not take from us because the gov't never had them to to give to begin with, they were GOD GIVEN and NOT gov't given. No wonder the communist-left hates our Rights, they hate God and worship Big Bother.
  10. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Have a check on that statement. The BoR simply enumerates the specific rights that the Constitution alludes to.
    "Contrary to Madison's original proposal that the articles be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution, they were proposed as supplemental additions (codicils) to it."

    See also the Declaration of Independence where you find this -
    "--that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these ----"
    Call the "Creator" what you will, be it the moon, some stone statue, or God, those inalienable rights pre-existed the documents.
    Tully Mars, Bandit99 and oldawg like this.
  11. Salted Weapon

    Salted Weapon West Coast Monkey

    think its important as well to stand steady on some facts that the Federal Government had only one people ever allowed to be managed and that was the American Indian at the time, but at the time free men were not under the federal government management unless in the very rare occasion of violation of law he so did so. Fast forward they not only manage our lives but our healthcare, our right to choose as well as our rights to be armed except in how they allow it ( aka BGC ). We are not here to be managed. Yet as the federal government claims more and more land we are left with being left under the thumb of disputed ownership not by us but by them and then there is the line cross of them telling us what our rights are, not what is spelled out in the Bill of Rights but what POTUS decides is your rights.
    I think it equally important to read the federalist papers so one can get a solid grip of the intentions of the Bill Of Rights !
    Mountainman likes this.
  12. enloopious

    enloopious Rocket Surgeon

    This is a common misconception. You can see that you quoted 'unalienable' and then typed 'inalienable' because most of us don't understand the meaning and difference. Inalienable means it can't be separated or taken away, a nice thought but not what they were going for. Unalienable means it can not have a lien put upon it, meaning you can not be taxed on god given rights. The right to breath, eat, collect water, own property, hunt, live, carry a gun, etc. are rights that can NOT be taxed and consequently taken away by failure to pay those taxes.

    This is a very common example of why they want all of the people to be uneducated and why they HAD to take over the school systems for their scheme to work. Yes the current regime in power is a scheme. A plot to enslave us all voluntarily. I'd like to say its the first time they have used these tactics but its not.
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2016
    GOG, Mountainman and Salted Weapon like this.
  13. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    In this case "unalienable" was a cut and paste, "inalienable" is my own typing. Taken either way is OK with me, and considering how the language has been butchered and misused since before Shakepeare's time, I for one won't be tripping over that level of detail. Case extant, both can be applied. Gotta say, I have to wonder how the strict constructionist theory would take that phrase ---
    Salted Weapon likes this.
  14. enloopious

    enloopious Rocket Surgeon

    The reason I bring it up is because people think its ok to be taxed on things like food, water, housing, property, and your right to live when it is most certainly not all because of this common misinterpretation.
    GOG and Mountainman like this.
  15. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    I'll buy into that readily. That said, somehow we have to support dot gov to do it's work for us as the Constitution commands. That dot gov has taken on more than it is supposed to is beyond doubt. Cutting the excess off is the main problem these days.
  16. enloopious

    enloopious Rocket Surgeon

    The people who created the problems will NOT be the ones to fix them.
  17. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Zackly zo. Vote conservative, even if you have to hold your nose. May do no good, but voting "progressive" will for sure make it worse.
    Mountainman and Salted Weapon like this.
  18. Dont

    Dont Just another old gray Jarhead Monkey Site Supporter

    The problem with not voting for the "progressive" is, WHO is the progressive, and who is not one. There are supposed conservatives that are in fact Progressives. And thus, @ghrit 's wise advise..
    Salted Weapon likes this.
  19. enloopious

    enloopious Rocket Surgeon

    If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are assuredly going to get evil.
    Dont likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary