Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you unfamiliar with the term, "abuse of power"??? There are supposed to be checks and balances to keep the executive branch in line, along with all other branches. Each branch is supposed to be a check on all the others. but what if the congress and the supreme courts / federal courts were also stacked in the executive branches favor? At that point, the executive would have a blank check to do whatever. In recent years, we've witnessed the passing of the NDAA, which gives government the authority to hold a US citizen without trial indefinately, right down to the NSA spying scandal and on up to the IRS targeting certain political groups it's leaders and the current administration find unfavorable. Of course, you would actually have to see those actions as tyrannical before you could use that as an example of how a democratically elected government could go bad, and I'm not sure you do.
The founders took great pains to ensure that there were plenty of checks and balances, but even they knew that it wasn't full proof, and this is why they recognised the right of the people to alter or ultimately abolish government if it became destructive to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
Even Ben Franklin, upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, when asked what kind of government he and the framers had forned, replied:
"A republic..... if you can keep it"
Great post, but as always he will not understand it or choice not to...
Only for people like you who don't want to obey the rules set by society. From ancient times every society has been setting rules and laws governing social interactions and if you were found breaking these rules you were simply banished.
Remember, you live in a society and have to obey its rules or find your own place with your own rules elsewhere.
We already have laws and rules set by society, it's called the Constitution. If 99% of people thought that we should not have the right to keep and bear arms, and only 1% thought we should, it wouldn't matter. The Constitution protects the rights of the 1%.
You're free to change or amend it if you like. Until then, leave us who want to excercise our rights alone.
I think you meant Mormons not Morons, and no it wasn't tyrannical: every society has the right to set it's own rules that every member of that society has to obey. That's the foundation of social order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover
When Morons were disarmed and murdered via the Missouri Executive Order 44 aka "Mormon Extermination Order", was not a tyrannical action because the people that signed that law were elected in a free election?
We already have laws and rules set by society, it's called the Constitution.
Not just the constitution but the laws of these United States as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
If 99% of people thought that we should not have the right to keep and bear arms, and only 1% thought we should, it wouldn't matter. The Constitution protects the rights of the 1%.
If 99% of people were against arms the constitution would be easily amended to reflect that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
You're free to change or amend it if you like. Until then, leave us who want to excercise our rights alone.
Nobody is going to leave you alone or above the law. Don't count on it.
We already have laws and rules set by society, it's called the Constitution. If 99% of people thought that we should not have the right to keep and bear arms, and only 1% thought we should, it wouldn't matter. The Constitution protects the rights of the 1%.
You're free to change or amend it if you like. Until then, leave us who want to excercise our rights alone.
And ever if those control freaks did amend it, it still would not matter, our rights do not come from government, the majority and their opinions, or the Constitution they are endowed by are existent.
I think you meant Mormons not Morons, and no it wasn't tyrannical: every society has the right to set it's own rules that every member of that society has to obey. That's the foundation of social order.
So disarming and murdering Mormons was not a tyrannical act because it was a law or rule that "society" has agreed upon?
What about the Holocaust?
Or the great lap forward?
Or the purges in the Soviet Union?
Where they not acts of tyranny?
The more I read you post the more right you proven my views on the leftist...I can not begin to describe how sick you make me...T
Dragging whole families out of their houses, beating the men, raping the women only to shoot them our tie them to their beds and burn the house down, just because their were Mormons and the law allowed this made it ok...And you agree with it..
I guess if passed a law and said people with your point of view should be rounded up and worked to death in the southwest, I think would have a different view. .
Nobody is going to leave you alone or above the law. Don't count on it.
I'm well within the law...
What are you even talking about?
Quote:
Not just the constitution but the laws of these United States as well.
The scope of those laws are limited by the Constitution. So long as those laws do not violate the Constitution, I have no problem with them and will gladly obey.
We already have laws and rules set by society, it's called the Constitution. If 99% of people thought that we should not have the right to keep and bear arms, and only 1% thought we should, it wouldn't matter. The Constitution protects the rights of the 1%.
You're free to change or amend it if you like. Until then, leave us who want to excercise our rights alone.
I think our founding fathers are rolling in their graves because of our abuse of the 2nd amendment. It was written for 1791, not for 2014. How do you think it would be written now.
I think our founding fathers are rolling in their graves because of our abuse of the 2nd amendment. It was written for 1791, not for 2014. How do you think it would be written now.
Don't know
Don't care
Doesn't matter....
That's about the gist of it. As I tell everyone else, if you do not like the fact that we have the right to keep and bear arms, you are free to petition your government to change it. We can't just decide to interpret an amendment differently because a few of us have decided "well, we don't need it anymore"
Until you get it changed, removed, or amended, we have the right. It's just that simple.
I think our founding fathers are rolling in their graves because of our abuse of the 2nd amendment. It was written for 1791, not for 2014. How do you think it would be written now.
Yeah that would not be. Why? because they would understand that there is not "our" abuse of a right, just a few people who`s actions should be punished and not the vast majority of people punished for their crimes by losing our rights..
Yeah dates change, human nature, liberty, and our right to it does not change.
It should be written the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, any laws that are drafted or passed that do are null and void, and any person who voted in favor of said act and or law should be kicked for office and bared from hold office for life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
