If the Bill of Rights makes liberalism illegal how does liberalism survive?

[progressive hunter]

Our genius Founders were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers? But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!

The 14th Amendment effectively repealed the Bill of Rights and reduced them to mere privileges that government can dole out at their discretion. In other words, as "rights" go, they are no longer rights, but limited privileges.

not according to the text of it,,
nowhere does it say any other amendments are repealed, which is whats needed for youre scenario,,,

The Amendment does not have to include specific wording. Through technical court decisions that you would not understand, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment in a manner wherein it repealed the Bill of Rights.

thay gave an opinion that can be corrected later,,,

the only way to repeal a right is to directly repeal it not dance around it,,,

I stand in protest,,,

The United States Supreme Court interprets the law. When you read what they write about ANY case, they do issue an "Opinion." The majority makes a decision and the high Court starts out with a synopsis of the case and how they arrive at their final decision. That final decision is called the HOLDING. Many times the decision will read "HELD" and then they issue their interpretation which IS THE LAW. That ruling (holding) applies to every city, county, state, and federal district in the United States. It's not an "opinion," but the law. Since you want to belabor the point, let me educate you. I'll do this one for free. Let us take the Second Amendment and follow it through legal process:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
​

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealthin 1822. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

When it came to so - called "assault weapons," the high Court was even more generous to the people in the Miller ruling. The high Court ruled against Miller over a shotgun because it was not a weapon normally associated with the militia. Of course, they were wrong as shotguns were being used in the militia and our armed forces employ shotguns today. But, Miller died before his case could be fully litigated from his side. But.... today we get a different story. WHY?

Did the high Court just issue new "opinions" and change the law or did something significant happen? Actually, the United States Supreme Court is generally bound by legal precedent and they are NOT empowered to reinterpret the law, but they occasionally do because nobody points out they don't have the authority to do it. In this instance, what they did was to circumvent the Second Amendment in the Heller ruling. Let's see what they said:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008)

That holding contradicted EVERYTHING from the framers intent about the Second Amendment to the rulings of the United States Supreme Court. HOW did they justify the change? In a couple of years after Heller, we got our answer from the United States Supreme Court:

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment..." (emphasis mine, of course.)

So, let's think about this for a moment. In the Declaration of Independence, it says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

So, we began, as a nation with unalienable Rights that were ruled to be absolute, inherent, natural, above the law, and irrevocable. The government said they did not grant the Rights and all of a sudden we have gun control, not based upon a Second Amendment Right, but on the 14th Amendment. Now, let me see here. The 14th Amendment states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " (Emphasis mine again.)

Notice that the 14th Amendment does NOT limit government NOR does it guarantee ANY RIGHT. It guarantees you the equal protection of the laws. It is the government, NOT your Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence.) The second thing the courts did was to eliminate the word unalienable from the legal lexicon. The word unalienable is no longer used AND it was removed from Blacks Law Dictionary, which is the most authoritative legal dictionary accepted in the legal community. The government replaced that word with a synonym AND they redefined the synonym. That synonym is the word inalienable. Now, watch very carefully what the courts do when they legally define the word inalienable:

“Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)

You cannot consent to give up an unalienable Right. That was the whole purpose of this long winded lesson. But, you CAN consent to give up inalienable rights. The main difference is that your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestowed upon you unalienable Rights. On the other hand, the GOVERNMENT GIVE YOU "INALIENABLE" RIGHTS. So, the government can give, take away, have you surrender or transfer inalienable rights, but since the government did not give you unalienable Rights, they cannot. It's as simple as that. Now, let me do your work for you and then tear it down so we do this once.

Dictionaries will tell you inalienable and unalienable are the same thing. Layman dictionaries are not admissible in a court of law as evidence when you have a court ruling interpreting a word or phrase. So, it don't matter what they say. If MacDonald had a Second Amendment Right to keep and bear Arms, there would have no need to mention the 14th Amendment. It was supposed to give blacks the right to vote. Correct? No, it did not. The 14th Amendment took away God given Rights and exchanged them for government immunities and privileges (government granted "rights.") And there went your Bill of Rights - court rulings provided to prove it. Consider that lesson a public service from someone who spent a career on it.

thiier interpretations suck most of the time since they go the opposite of the written word,,

and they give opinions that can be changed later,,,

I stand in protest to their opinions,,,

I not only stand in protest of the unconstitutional rulings of the United States Supreme Court, but I also use passive resistance and civil disobedience when necessary... which in the grand scheme of things isn't worth a damn until you get a few hundred people to stand together and defy the government. It is estimated that over 500,000 bump stocks exist in the United States. They are a fun toy with no real world application, but what if 10 percent of those people who own one defied the United States Supreme Court and went to the local court houses all on the same day and displayed them? What happens when a thousand people in each state stand at the door of their respective state capitols and refuse to abide by an unconstitutional law?

I don't agree with the United States Supreme Court, especially when they reinterpret the law to suit their needs. But, in my lifetime, not even Jesus himself has ever over-ruled the United States Supreme Court. We either ignore them OR we pretend they are greater than God. Now, I've told you why things are and there are only three things you can do about it:

1) Amend the Constitution
2) Refuse to obey unconstitutional laws AND don't assist them by being a useful idiot. Use all of your nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress
3) Organize a massive protest and defy unconstitutional laws in public

Anything less and you're pissing in the wind.

been there done that,,,

and why non violent???
if their intention is to kill me I will kill them first if I can,,,

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Our genius Founders were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers? But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!

The 14th Amendment effectively repealed the Bill of Rights and reduced them to mere privileges that government can dole out at their discretion. In other words, as "rights" go, they are no longer rights, but limited privileges.

not according to the text of it,,
nowhere does it say any other amendments are repealed, which is whats needed for youre scenario,,,

The Amendment does not have to include specific wording. Through technical court decisions that you would not understand, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment in a manner wherein it repealed the Bill of Rights.

thay gave an opinion that can be corrected later,,,

the only way to repeal a right is to directly repeal it not dance around it,,,

I stand in protest,,,

The United States Supreme Court interprets the law. When you read what they write about ANY case, they do issue an "Opinion." The majority makes a decision and the high Court starts out with a synopsis of the case and how they arrive at their final decision. That final decision is called the HOLDING. Many times the decision will read "HELD" and then they issue their interpretation which IS THE LAW. That ruling (holding) applies to every city, county, state, and federal district in the United States. It's not an "opinion," but the law. Since you want to belabor the point, let me educate you. I'll do this one for free. Let us take the Second Amendment and follow it through legal process:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
​

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

According to Wikipedia:

"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealthin 1822. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

When it came to so - called "assault weapons," the high Court was even more generous to the people in the Miller ruling. The high Court ruled against Miller over a shotgun because it was not a weapon normally associated with the militia. Of course, they were wrong as shotguns were being used in the militia and our armed forces employ shotguns today. But, Miller died before his case could be fully litigated from his side. But.... today we get a different story. WHY?

Did the high Court just issue new "opinions" and change the law or did something significant happen? Actually, the United States Supreme Court is generally bound by legal precedent and they are NOT empowered to reinterpret the law, but they occasionally do because nobody points out they don't have the authority to do it. In this instance, what they did was to circumvent the Second Amendment in the Heller ruling. Let's see what they said:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008)

That holding contradicted EVERYTHING from the framers intent about the Second Amendment to the rulings of the United States Supreme Court. HOW did they justify the change? In a couple of years after Heller, we got our answer from the United States Supreme Court:

"McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment..." (emphasis mine, of course.)

So, let's think about this for a moment. In the Declaration of Independence, it says:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

So, we began, as a nation with unalienable Rights that were ruled to be absolute, inherent, natural, above the law, and irrevocable. The government said they did not grant the Rights and all of a sudden we have gun control, not based upon a Second Amendment Right, but on the 14th Amendment. Now, let me see here. The 14th Amendment states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " (Emphasis mine again.)

Notice that the 14th Amendment does NOT limit government NOR does it guarantee ANY RIGHT. It guarantees you the equal protection of the laws. It is the government, NOT your Creator (as per the Declaration of Independence.) The second thing the courts did was to eliminate the word unalienable from the legal lexicon. The word unalienable is no longer used AND it was removed from Blacks Law Dictionary, which is the most authoritative legal dictionary accepted in the legal community. The government replaced that word with a synonym AND they redefined the synonym. That synonym is the word inalienable. Now, watch very carefully what the courts do when they legally define the word inalienable:

“Inalienable Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights” Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (1952)

You cannot consent to give up an unalienable Right. That was the whole purpose of this long winded lesson. But, you CAN consent to give up inalienable rights. The main difference is that your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestowed upon you unalienable Rights. On the other hand, the GOVERNMENT GIVE YOU "INALIENABLE" RIGHTS. So, the government can give, take away, have you surrender or transfer inalienable rights, but since the government did not give you unalienable Rights, they cannot. It's as simple as that. Now, let me do your work for you and then tear it down so we do this once.

Dictionaries will tell you inalienable and unalienable are the same thing. Layman dictionaries are not admissible in a court of law as evidence when you have a court ruling interpreting a word or phrase. So, it don't matter what they say. If MacDonald had a Second Amendment Right to keep and bear Arms, there would have no need to mention the 14th Amendment. It was supposed to give blacks the right to vote. Correct? No, it did not. The 14th Amendment took away God given Rights and exchanged them for government immunities and privileges (government granted "rights.") And there went your Bill of Rights - court rulings provided to prove it. Consider that lesson a public service from someone who spent a career on it.

thiier interpretations suck most of the time since they go the opposite of the written word,,

and they give opinions that can be changed later,,,

I stand in protest to their opinions,,,

I not only stand in protest of the unconstitutional rulings of the United States Supreme Court, but I also use passive resistance and civil disobedience when necessary... which in the grand scheme of things isn't worth a damn until you get a few hundred people to stand together and defy the government. It is estimated that over 500,000 bump stocks exist in the United States. They are a fun toy with no real world application, but what if 10 percent of those people who own one defied the United States Supreme Court and went to the local court houses all on the same day and displayed them? What happens when a thousand people in each state stand at the door of their respective state capitols and refuse to abide by an unconstitutional law?

I don't agree with the United States Supreme Court, especially when they reinterpret the law to suit their needs. But, in my lifetime, not even Jesus himself has ever over-ruled the United States Supreme Court. We either ignore them OR we pretend they are greater than God. Now, I've told you why things are and there are only three things you can do about it:

1) Amend the Constitution
2) Refuse to obey unconstitutional laws AND don't assist them by being a useful idiot. Use all of your nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress
3) Organize a massive protest and defy unconstitutional laws in public

Anything less and you're pissing in the wind.

been there done that,,,

and why non violent???
if their intention is to kill me I will kill them first if I can,,,

Ultimately we will have a civil war OR we will surrender. By God's law and the laws governing warfare require us to seek a peaceful resolution. And so you prepare and then let nature take it's course.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ultimately we will have a civil war OR we will surrender. By God's law and the laws governing warfare require us to seek a peaceful resolution. And so you prepare and then let nature take it's course.

Does this mean you agree the Bill Of Rights and Constitution in effect makes Democrats illegal in America?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Ultimately we will have a civil war OR we will surrender. By God's law and the laws governing warfare require us to seek a peaceful resolution. And so you prepare and then let nature take it's course.

Does this mean you agree the Bill Of Rights and Constitution in effect makes Democrats illegal in America?

No because the Constitution of the United States does not give the federal government any jurisdiction over foreigners. Bear in mind, the United Stated never legalized slavery. It was a STATE issue. Foreigners working in any state in the United States are a state matter, not an issue for the federal government. The right has been programmed, Pavlovian style, to do this song and dance routine that if you don't think the feds ought to control foreigners coming into the United States when people are willingly doing business with them, then you're a liberal, pro illegal (sic) son of a bitch. Those people are so freaking brainwashed that they fail to see both sides of the coin. For example:

The right has spent TRILLIONS of dollars on silliness like the creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, the Constitution Free Zone, the so - called "Patriot Act," and the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify B.S. not to mention that damn silly wall and NONE of it has mitigated the perceived problem. And we haven't even begun to total the costs in lost Liberties. What can't the anti-immigrant lobby wake the Hell up? Let me give you an example:

I posted on this board when I first came here an on other boards YEARS before that. The United States Supreme Court would not deport DACA children. They didn't. The politicians played you like a fiddle. Now, the anti-immigrant lobby is bitching about "sanctuary cities" as they stumble about like blind men. But, you should look at both sides of the coin:

There are hundreds of Second Amendment sanctuary cities popping up all over the United States. The reason that foreigners are enjoying sanctuary cities is due to the simple fact that their lawyers relied on a precedent where local sheriffs refused to enforce federal gun laws. The United States Supreme Court determined that the Constitution forbids enlisting state and local police to enforce federal laws. Read this link:

Trump's Sloppy, Unconstitutional Order on 'Sanctuary Cities'

The president’s executive order threatening to deny federal funds to jurisdictions that don’t help the feds deport undocumented immigrants reads like it was drafted by Lionel Hutz.

www.theatlantic.com

So, here is what we have to lose. Trump already banned bump stocks - which was an unconstitutional act. Now, the ATF is secretly planning to ban AR type pistols with an arm brace (that takes an estimated 750,000 firearms out of circulation.) Now, suppose that the states with Second Amendment sanctuary cities don't want to comply. The same law protecting the foreigner is the same precedent saving your ass from gun confiscation wherein your local sheriff must take your weapon even if he thinks the law is unconstitutional UNLESS you live in a Second Amendment sanctuary city . Okay, so do we retain the Right to keep and bear Arms OR do we screw with foreigners in order to enforce anti-white immigration laws aimed at making white people the minority in America? You tell me.

The better question is, how can you impact the influx of foreigners without the federal government? The people controlling your talking points don't want to have that conversation.

 

[Regent23]

It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.

Anti-federalists. Names keep changing. Today liberals are connected to socialism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.

Yes that’s true. At the time the liberals and anti-federalist were, like conservatives and libertarians of today, wishing to constrain or limit the federal government anyway possible. They knew the federal government has been a source of evil on earth.

 

[Regent23]

It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.

Yes that’s true. At the time the liberals and anti-federalist were, like conservatives and libertarians of today, wishing to constrain or limit the federal government anyway possible. They knew the federal government has been a source of evil on earth.

The liberal philosophy of that period is the similar to the liberal philosophy to day. Your philosophy may change for a number of reasons, but the ideology does not change.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.

Yes that’s true. At the time the liberals and anti-federalist were, like conservatives and libertarians of today, wishing to constrain or limit the federal government anyway possible. They knew the federal government has been a source of evil on earth.

The liberal philosophy of that period is the similar to the liberal philosophy to day. Your philosophy may change for a number of reasons, but the ideology does not change.

The liberal philosophy then was that government was evil and liberty from government was good. Today the liberal philosophy is that government is good and liberty from government is bad. Do you understand now?

 

[Regent23]

I th8

It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.

Yes that’s true. At the time the liberals and anti-federalist were, like conservatives and libertarians of today, wishing to constrain or limit the federal government anyway possible. They knew the federal government has been a source of evil on earth.

The liberal philosophy of that period is the similar to the liberal philosophy to day. Your philosophy may change for a number of reasons, but the ideology does not change.

The liberal philosophy then was that government was evil and liberty from government was good. Today the liberal philosophy is that government is good and liberty from government is bad. Do you understand now?

It depended on the government.

 

[Regent23]

It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.

Anti-federalists. Names keep changing. Today liberals are connected to socialism.

Yes socialism for the people and conservatives believe in socialism for the corporations.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It was the liberals or Antifederalists that demanded the Bill of Rights.

Anti-federalists. Names keep changing. Today liberals are connected to socialism.

Yes socialism for the people and conservatives believe in socialism for the corporations.

Conservatives and liberals are one hand washing the other.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It depended on the government.

No, it did not depend on the govt. Our genius Founders looked at all of world history and concluded that govt had been the source of evil and that govt was naturally evil. Therefore they created a country based on a very very limited govt, and what do you know, it became the greatest country in human history because of the freedom from govt our genius Founders gave us. Now do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Conservatives and liberals are one hand washing the other.

Conservatives like Reagan Trump Goldwater are for preserving our past and slow change while liberals like Hitler Stalin and Mao were for instant change to perfect the world, as the saw fit. immediately. Now do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes socialism for the people and conservatives believe in socialism for the corporations.

Socialism is for the people? Then why did it just kill 120 million people??

 

[anynameyouwish]

Our genius Founders were not sure a Bill of Rights was necessary. The Constitution, for example, did not say anything about guns so why worry that the Federal Govt would assume the authority to restrict them? Similarly, the Constitution did not say anything about non-enumerated powers so why worry Federal govt would assume the authority to exercise non-enumerated powers? But, just in case extreme liberalism, at some point, did afflict our country they included a Bill of Rights. Little did they anticipate that treasonous liberals would ignore both the Constitution and reinforcing Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, our Founding documents are still our founding documents; with enough support liberalism, now libcommieism, can be made illegal tomorrow!!

it doesn't

so there is no problem.


I wish conservatives would STOP TRYING TO CENSOR everyone while they DEMANDING FREE SPEECH for themselves.....

that is getting old......

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

conservatives believe in socialism for the corporations.

Conservatives believe in capitalism for corporations wherein only those corporations which please with an higher standard of living through the best quality and lowest price in the world survive and the others[about 10,000 a month] go bankrupt. Now do you understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I wish conservatives would STOP TRYING TO CENSOR everyone

can you give a representative example of this or is it pure BS?

 

[anynameyouwish]

I wish conservatives would STOP TRYING TO CENSOR everyone

can you give a representative example of this or is it pure BS?

" can you give a representative example of this or is it pure BS? "

1. trump said "the only good democrat is a dead democrat"

tell me....how much free speech do DEAD people have?

2. I won't bother to go looking for them but MANY posters on this board have talked about "DESTROYING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY"

how much free speech will they have after you have destroyed them?

3. cons will always defend a conservative athlete "he has a right to his free speech!"
but will always say to a liberal athlete "shut up and play"

4. just recently a poster on this board said he wanted to "lynch me" AND "take me out back and put a bullet in my head"

isn't THAT an EXTREME form of CENSORSHIP?

if he lynches me....I will be CENSORED forever!


should you require more examples i can certainly take the time to go through HUNDREDS of files to find THOUSANDS more examples.....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1. trump said "the only good democrat is a dead democrat"

tell me....how much free speech do DEAD people have?

He was speaking figuratively. No one has killed Democrats. They just impeached him with there total power of free speech and are running ahead of him in the polls thanks to their free speech.

That's your representative example?? You just proved it was total BS!! See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?