Keep whining about all your Freedoms....

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

what are you talking about?
seriously, the simple things that have held true about people for hundreds upon thousands of years is outdated?
because our country is supposed to be based on a weak central government and strong locals, and gave the power to the people, these rights, the promises, these basics that our very country is based upon are outdated?
thats the best argument you can come up with?

even i gave you more credit than that. i figured this may be a good strong debate.
i was wrong.

our civil war has been over for a very long time, just because you come across an occasional weirdo that still thinks its going on, doesnt mean shit.

if something happened right now could we unite? i do believe that on sept 11 2001, our country came together pretty good.
you, as a person talking about fighting for our freedoms, obviously dont know what you (im not sure if you served but im just assuming you did) fought for.
clearly you have been thinking wrong.

outdated, wow. if thats such an outdated document, then why is our country still wrapped around it? why does it still exist? why do we even still have the constitution? thats outdated too right? the bill of rights also?
you are saying that everything our forefathers fought for, everything that they built is outdated?

well, sounds to me like you are saying that you are endorsing the abolishment of our current government and everything it is based on.
in that simple statement you just said that our soldiers out serving our country, our laws, our leaders, are all representing, and fighting for something that is heavily outdated and needs to just be done away with?

you should learn to choose your workds more wisely. because they are clearly leaning toward contridiction.
 
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

yeah, thats relevant.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

read it. read it carefully and compare what it was meant for. it was meant in reference to the king of england.

i'm not saying it doesn't belong, i'm saying it should evolve and shouldn't be held as teh gospel. the world has changed a lot in 200 years.

A great quote, "treason is merely a matter of dates"
 
I cannot imagine living in a country where necessities of life (like the internet) are subject to rolling blackouts.

EDIT:

Found a better article about this here http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/china-censors-internet-before-tiananmen-square-anniversary/

The censoring began at 5 p.m. local time on Tuesday as access to sites was blocked, though users could still reportedly reach some of them through proxies, VPNs and third-party desktop clients.

The blocked sites include Twitter, Flickr and Microsoft’s Hotmail, according to the Telegraph. FoxNews added The Huffington Post, Life Journal and the MSN Spaces blogging tool to the list. BBC viewers in China also saw their screens black out when the news service broadcast stories about the anniversary, and foreign news crews have been barred from filming in the square. Readers of the Financial Times and Economist magazine found stories about Tiananmen ripped from their pages. Authorities also plan to begin cracking down on unapproved internet cafes, according to reports from state media.
 
Last edited:
yeah, thats relevant.

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

read it. read it carefully and compare what it was meant for. it was meant in reference to the king of england.

i'm not saying it doesn't belong, i'm saying it should evolve and shouldn't be held as teh gospel. the world has changed a lot in 200 years.

A great quote, "treason is merely a matter of dates"

That is EVERY bit as relevant now as it was 230 years ago. What its saying is that no military paid by the US government can requisition a US private citizens house to use without the owners consent.

The taliban is doing this to residents of Iraq and Afghanistan right now. They're taking control of households and not allowing the adults to work or talk to anyone. Would you rather live with that or be able to come and go as you please to your own home?
 
the only thing keeping that from being "relevant" is the fact that there hasnt been a war on american soil in 144 years
 
the problem with our country and our laws, is the fact that people choose to take them how they please, it doesnt matter why it was writ, what matters is the fact that it was there for a reason, all of it still holds true, the problem is, its a hell of a lot harder to act upon anything now because of our government.


EDIT:
if the constitution were taken 100%literally, this would be a much better country to be in.
instead everything is up to translation.
there lies our biggest issue.
people like you translating rights into privileges.

all of that is relevant in this day.
the problem is that it has been misconstrued in too many ways other than its actual intent.
 
Last edited:
It states both in times of war and peace... Basically any time at all, ever.
 
the problem is, that the government and the people in this country think it is the governments job to care for them and everything else... the entire purpose of the constitution and the bill of rights, was not to tell the people of this country what the government was going to provide for them, it was to tell the government what it absolutely could not do.... the entire purpose was to limit the power of government...
the federal government is not supposed to be this powerful... none of its branches are...
the states are supposed to impose laws at their level, and the federal government is supposed to make sure that the states are being fair with each other
and the states also are not supposed to make laws in opposition of the constitution and bill of rights... the federal government is supposed to see to that as well

essentially the federal government is supposed to govern the states... the states are supposed to govern their people

but that system has been getting ass fucked and side stepped from the day after it was signed
 
Amendments

* First Amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

* Second Amendment – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [5][6]

* Third Amendment – No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

* Fourth Amendment – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

* Fifth Amendment – No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

* Sixth Amendment – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

* Seventh Amendment – In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

* Eighth Amendment – Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

* Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

* Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.




looks to me like everything there is telling the people what the government CANT do
 
EDIT:
if the constitution were taken 100%literally, this would be a much better country to be in.
instead everything is up to translation.
there lies our biggest issue.
people like you translating rights into privileges.

all of that is relevant in this day.
the problem is that it has been misconstrued in too many ways other than its actual intent.

I can agree with this. we are somewhat meeting in the middle.

people expect to be able to do a lot, but still bash the government. thats what i don't like. people who enjoy the freedom, but contribute nothing to the betterment of the nation. if they were speaking out for the whole country, that would be one thing. but all too often the hippie protestors are fighting for themselves.

I also think the amendments may be misconstrued other than intent. when the forefathers gave the right to bear arms, i don't think they intended on having nut jobs gather 100 uzi's and mini guns. but people think it's a right. no, having guns is a PRIVELAGE of living in the U.S.
 
This is what they really meant.

1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg
 
looks to me like everything there is telling the people what the government CANT do

it's because the basis of it was to negate everything england was doing to them. I don't think that they forecasted the day when citizens would use it in the manner that it is.
 
I also think the amendments may be misconstrued other than intent. when the forefathers gave the right to bear arms, i don't think they intended on having nut jobs gather 100 uzi's and mini guns. but people think it's a right. no, having guns is a PRIVELAGE of living in the U.S.

Their intent was to ensure that the citizens had MORE military power than the federal government. 100 uzi's and miniguns doesn't even come close to the military power of the federal government. Power that they were NEVER MEANT TO HAVE. You still don't get it.
 
it's because the basis of it was to negate everything england was doing to them. I don't think that they forecasted the day when citizens would use it in the manner that it is.
Everything England was doing to them is EXACTLY WHAT THE FED IS DOING TODAY. It is so relevant, it's spooky, yet you still don't get it.
 
I also think the amendments may be misconstrued other than intent. when the forefathers gave the right to bear arms, i don't think they intended on having nut jobs gather 100 uzi's and mini guns. but people think it's a right. no, having guns is a PRIVELAGE of living in the U.S.

your right... they intended the general populous to have weapons that were equal to or greater than the military issued weapons of the time

then it was single shot muzzle loaded muskets
now its full auto magazine fed AR15s

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
 
I also think the amendments may be misconstrued other than intent. when the forefathers gave the right to bear arms, i don't think they intended on having nut jobs gather 100 uzi's and mini guns. but people think it's a right. no, having guns is a PRIVELAGE of living in the U.S.


this is the worst part of you whole statement.

its a right, a right, a right, not a privilege.

the Bill of RIGHTS

2nd amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

nowhere in there does it say the privilege of the people.

where are you getting your facts/theories/ideas?
 
your right... they intended the general populous to have weapons that were equal to or greater than the military issued weapons of the time

then it was single shot muzzle loaded muskets
now its full auto magazine fed AR15s

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Yet in New York City its Impossible for me to own & operate a firearm due to excessive cost & carry restrictions.
 
and that shit is unconstitutional
 
Back
Top