Another volunteer for the war crimes scaffold after the civil war she solicits doesn't turn out the way she expects.
Adventures in "Journalism." Julius Streicher, Hitler's favorite newspaperman, before.
Americans cannot continue framing gun control laws in terms of infringement on their freedom.
Yes, we have constitutional rights that allow us to bear arms and to produce and consume violent entertainment. Yet these freedoms have proven to have dangerous, if not fatal, impacts on public safety. Moreover, these freedoms are derived from a document written by human beings - and what people have created, people can change, for their own good.
Julius Streicher, after. His hope and change didn't work out the way he expected either.
9 comments:
Why wait? What she is preaching is treason.
All my life I have been under the impression that the Bill of Rights is inviolable. The reason for my belief is, the Constitution was ratified by the States, on the promise of a Bill of Rights to follow. In a hypothetical, if the left won and the 2nd amendment was thrown out, then the ratification of the Constitution is null and void. If I am wrong, please post and correct my thinking. On another note: I constantly see in print that in a martial law scenario, the Constitution can be suspended. No where in the Constitution, have I ever read an article that allows for it's suspension, beyond habeas corpus. These left-wingers need to know I'll resist any attempt to change either of my understandings, with deadly force.
Well, it is Aljazeera. I'm not sure anybody would have seen it, had you not noted it here.
The problem with these collectivist libtards is that they live in a fantasy-world of ideal academic theory with no real-world experience. They have spent their lives immersed in "what might be" thinking and really don't know what happens in actual life. This stupid bitch is going to be horrified when law abiding citizens finally do come for her kind and hoist her treasonous traitor ass over a lamp pole. She cannot even conceive of the idea.
This typical liberal argument was the basis for getting rid of the idea of "God-given rights," in favor of "Constitutional rights."
The founding fathers understood our rights to have come from our Creator and only codified that which was already ours by birth.
If you are an atheist, you really have no philosophical basis, other than brute force, to claim those rights. Shaky ground to stand upon, at best; as you may well run up against a force greater than yourself.
If you claim such rights as "natural rights" you imply God, whether you like it or not.
It's fine to claim your "constitutional rights" as long as you know where those rights really come from.
Al Jazeera? Really? I'm supposed to take anything from Al Jazeera seriously?
Well, Swift, it has already happened. The 'Left' and the 'Right' have been nullifying the Constitution for aver 100 years. The false Left/Right paradigm is just a circus to keep us all distracted. The Constitution is pretty much null and void, thanks to Democrats and Republicans alike. Their legitimacy to rule us is also null and void. Hedge accordingly.
Well I wouldn't sneer at Al Jazeera too much guys. After all they are head and shoulders above typical American "journalism".
"For our physical safety, we now routinely take off our shoes and submit to body searches at US airports, practices unheard of just over a decade ago."
The author excuses yet another vile tyranny. Nothing new there...
Our Constitution, part of which the bill of rights became upon ratification , is the supreme law. That means all other legislated law must abide by the plain text presented. True it is that the bill of rights passage into LAW was done as a "set" but in reality that was old time horse trading and vote buying that we witness today. You scratch my back and I'll scratch your back.
That's why it's called the great compromise.
The reason, beyond that. ( and arguably more importantly) is this- they work hand in hand and without one the process becomes corrupt.
Remove speech or religious choice and all society implodes. Remove self defense and tyranny imposes its will. Quarter soldiers and there is revolt and intentional subversion. Skip rules for searches and a police state ensues. Compel testimony and torture becomes the norm with truth falling asunder along with honor.
We as a society CAN absolutely amend our Constitution right down to changing just one word. It just HAS TO BE done the correct way - amendment.
The Second Amendment itself COULD be changed added to subtracted from or removed entirely. It could be done as simply as the 21st - simple repeal.
Remember, it's not "the constitution and the bill of rights ". It IS just "the constitution". What WAS a BILL became LAW! The constitution itself was amended. There is truly only "the constitution".
Now, it is unwise to compromise the great compromise in such a way. And as jacked (booted thugged) up as out country is this day, as literally stupid and ignorant as so many people have become, elimination of ANY enumerated right - keeping and bearing as specific example - would be met with overwhelming opposition. That's why they have long played "gun control" instead. The loyalists know even today that enumerations are set.
Thus is true for this reason. Even dumbasses understand that if "government" can strip away by amendment one enumerated right, then it could turn right around and amend away another and another.
More WISDOM demonstrated by the original Framers.
Holder once preached openly about the need to indoctrinate people regarding guns. He proves his status as a mental midget in thinking that strategy will bear the fruit he seeks.
For in the end, as the movie IDIOCRACY presents, it only takes one Patriot to break through the idiocy. The HUMAN SPIRIT is built to be FREE and not even blatant indoctrination can exterminate it.
The loyalists are truly close to having to openly argue for repeal of the Second. And they will be laughed off the stages they attempt to take when they do.
She is just another liberal tool.
Post a Comment