Our Government Has Forgotten Its Place

[candycorn]

I wish they would strictly interpret the 2nd amendment and leave guns to the militia only. Somehow, that would be government over-reach as well.

Some truth in what TK said but only in the broadest possible sense.

I'm in a family militia comprised of 4

-Geaux

The problem for people like corny, when they do strictly interpret the Second, it gives the right to people, not militia's only.

People should learn how to read.

Militia=group No problem here.

 

[candycorn]

The militia is the people who, being well armed, assemble for the defense of the country.

well-regulated...

Hence the standing army which, if we're going to give the Constitution eyes, is clearly what the framers meant.

But if we're strictly reading the Constitution, to keep and bear arms, you need to be part of this "well regulated" militia; drilling regularly, deployed frequently as part of the training, willing to drop everything and go where the duly elected President and Congess send you...

Does that sound like anyone here? Obviously not. I know of none who dropped everything and enlisted...not a lot of WiFi in Khandahar I suppose.

You're stuck in the big govt knows better than you do and will provide

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

Just strictly reading the constitution. "Well-regulated militia" is in the 2nd Amendment....is it not?

If you want to keep and bear arms, you're supposed to be part of a "well regulated militia". Sorry, that's what it says.

I have no problem with that... Except when your country needs you and you're part of this militia, you decide that you're too busy cashing checks to go to Khandahar or Bosnia.

 

[candycorn]

It has become clearly evident that our government has forgotten its place in America. For reasons beyond my comprehension, our government now sees itself as the final authority on just about everything. If you want to get married, you have to ask the government first. You want a gun? You have to ask the government first. If you want to protest peacefully, you have to ask the government for a permit. If you are an 8 year old so much as wanting to sell lemonade on the street corner, you need to ask the government for permission.

Not only that, it wants to take over your personal choices as well. Why? Because it believes that it can do a better job than you at making your own choices in life. Even the very freedom to make a choice has been commandeered by our government. Look no further for an example this than the implementation of Obamacare. Government has become too large, too all encompassing for its own good. It has attempted to regulate the auto industry, and failed. It is trying to regulate our healthcare system, and once again failing. In fact, it is trying to regulate religion via the abortion mandate.

Nobody can be secure in their own privacy, no thanks to government. As evidenced by the NSA not even the contents of our phone conversations are secure. It has become more invasive, more imposing than ever before. Our politicians are unable and unwilling to cull its growth. Democrats will say "Oh, we need government, without government there is anarchy!" I would agree, if not only for the fact that we already have too much of it. Yes, we need government, but to what extent? With too much government there can only be tyranny, oppression, and undue advancement on our freedom.

Our rights as citizens are slowly diminishing in America, and Government is to blame. It has gone beyond its constitutional bounds. It doesn't matter who is president or what party is in power. The government has too much power. For those of you who believe our government cares about the people, nothing could be further from the truth. If they actually did, they would strive to protect the rights of its citizens, not usurp them on a constant basis. Government seeks to control you, from cradle to grave. Like a Leviathan in the waters, it lies in wait to consume the unsuspecting, and exact terrible vengeance on those who dare to stand against it. This, my friends, is how our government has forgotten it's place.

We The People built this government, and it's high time government understood its place once again.

I feel you frustration and sympathize,


My ONLY complaint is that you imagine that this is something new.

It isn't.

The government was collecting data of our activities under the previous administration that we can't talk about....yet somehow now it's over-reach. Back then it was being patriotic.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And yet they will continue to vote for more of it. Then complain about it after.

Maybe it has to do with obsessive compulsive behavior? We understand that some things are wrong, but we do them anyways. Old habits die hard.

There's a big difference between dumb laws and support for science, r@D and infrastructure. Learn the difference.

You're a broken record, dude. reminds me of TruthMatters..

 

[candycorn]

Quite frankly, the little fucker does not understand the English language nor punctuation...

At no point does the constitution mention conceal and carry...or maybe I missed it. But keep up with the profanity; that always helps.

Shall not be infringed

The 'militia', is considered to be a necessity for security (notice it does not limit to what kind of security).. the militia at that time is comprised of people who stand up for their security.. and because of this, the right to have those people bear arms will not be infringed upon by the federal government.. this means they have the arms before any call to arms in any militia or military force, or any situation wherein security is threatened.. it is the right of the people to bear the arms, not the right of the militia to bear the arms and call upon the people to come use them when the militia says to

Now you're interpreting...

Either the document is up for interpreting or it isn't; just not certain amendments; correct?

This is the basic lie that conservatives have to tell themselves; only "certain" interpretations are valid.

 

[candycorn]

The militia is the people who, being well armed, assemble for the defense of the country.

well-regulated...

Hence the standing army which, if we're going to give the Constitution eyes, is clearly what the framers meant.

But if we're strictly reading the Constitution, to keep and bear arms, you need to be part of this "well regulated" militia; drilling regularly, deployed frequently as part of the training, willing to drop everything and go where the duly elected President and Congess send you...

Does that sound like anyone here? Obviously not. I know of none who dropped everything and enlisted...not a lot of WiFi in Khandahar I suppose.

you don't know shit about the Constitution, you stupid bitch, and when it comes to the bill of rights your stupidity hangs out like your dirty laundry, THEN, when we get to the Second Amdt., your knowledge is on par with a new born RAT !!!

you constantly spew the liberal rhetoric/talking points, do you have any thoughts, ideas or beliefs of your own ?

please do not answer, it will only confirm my belief that you are just another liarberal puppet, or shill.

ahh, another "bitch" comment.

Love it! Keep them coming.

 

[candycorn]

well-regulated...

Hence the standing army which, if we're going to give the Constitution eyes, is clearly what the framers meant.

That's ridiculous. The very idea that would claim that the standing army is what the framers meant by "militia" is nonsensical. You may as well just come out and say "shall not be infringed" actually means "shall be suppressed at every available opportunity." It's the same, logically. Supplanting something for its opposite.

But if we're strictly reading the Constitution, to keep and bear arms, you need to be part of this "well regulated" militia

Actually, if you were strictly reading the constitution you would be focused on the "shall not be infringed" part.

Really? Why would you be focused on some passages more than others?

The writer mentioned militia; so it stands to reason that the militia was the reason for keeping arms...

Again, if you want to have a howitzer...go ahead but you have to be part of a militia according to the Constitution. This means that when the duly elected Congress and President want to send you somewhere, you go.

Now obviously, at the time of writing, we barely had a standing army much less a well-regulated one; now we do so we can all sit here and make fun of one another on a message board.

 

[Mr Natural]

Your local government is far more invasive and "oppressive" than the federal government.

 

[candycorn]

Your local government is far more invasive and "oppressive" than the federal government.

Any Hispanic in Maricopa County, AZ would agree.

 

[Esmeralda]

Seventh grade level work. Maybe 8th.

You're so right. It's absolute drivel. Nothing new at all. The government has been and does regulate a great deal. He mentions no new regulations whatsoever, though some may be somewhat different than before. And little kids do not need government permission to sell lemonade in their front yard. As well, the govenment is not regulating religion via legalized abortion. If you don't want an abortion, the government is not going to make you get one. Yep, 7th grade level drivel.

Knockoff from Libertarian blogs.....nothing new and very little accurate

Ah, that makes sense.

 

[Jughead]

And yet they will continue to vote for more of it. Then complain about it after.

Maybe it has to do with obsessive compulsive behavior? We understand that some things are wrong, but we do them anyways. Old habits die hard.

There's a big difference between dumb laws and support for science, r@D and infrastructure. Learn the difference.

A good obsessive compulsive example. Do you realize that you bring up science and r&D in almost every thread.

 

[DiamondDave]

At no point does the constitution mention conceal and carry...or maybe I missed it. But keep up with the profanity; that always helps.

Shall not be infringed

The 'militia', is considered to be a necessity for security (notice it does not limit to what kind of security).. the militia at that time is comprised of people who stand up for their security.. and because of this, the right to have those people bear arms will not be infringed upon by the federal government.. this means they have the arms before any call to arms in any militia or military force, or any situation wherein security is threatened.. it is the right of the people to bear the arms, not the right of the militia to bear the arms and call upon the people to come use them when the militia says to

Now you're interpreting...

Either the document is up for interpreting or it isn't; just not certain amendments; correct?

This is the basic lie that conservatives have to tell themselves; only "certain" interpretations are valid.

The language and punctuation separates the parts of the phrase.. the rights of the people are a separate part of the 2 part phrase/amendment.. it is simple goddamn English... perhaps you should actually look at the copy of the Constitution that was ratified

The people are not the militia... nor is there a requirement that they must be in the militia... only that the militia is essential and that the people (who can and do make up the militia when called upon) shall not have their right to bear arms infringed upon by the federal government

Go back and take basic goddamn English in school

 

[candycorn]

Shall not be infringed

The 'militia', is considered to be a necessity for security (notice it does not limit to what kind of security).. the militia at that time is comprised of people who stand up for their security.. and because of this, the right to have those people bear arms will not be infringed upon by the federal government.. this means they have the arms before any call to arms in any militia or military force, or any situation wherein security is threatened.. it is the right of the people to bear the arms, not the right of the militia to bear the arms and call upon the people to come use them when the militia says to

Now you're interpreting...

Either the document is up for interpreting or it isn't; just not certain amendments; correct?

This is the basic lie that conservatives have to tell themselves; only "certain" interpretations are valid.

The language and punctuation separates the parts of the phrase.. the rights of the people are a separate part of the 2 part phrase/amendment.. it is simple goddamn English... perhaps you should actually look at the copy of the Constitution that was ratified

The people are not the militia... nor is there a requirement that they must be in the militia... only that the militia is essential and that the people (who can and do make up the militia when called upon) shall not have their right to bear arms infringed upon by the federal government

Go back and take basic goddamn English in school

I did read it; you're simply interpreting the Constitution to fit your anger that someone would suggest you're wrong. And the anger boils over into "goddamned" when you know you're wrong but can't admit it.

But keep up with the profanity; that always helps at 7 in the morning.

You're really boring.

 

[rightwinger]

Mean Old Government is always telling us what to do.

I can't dump sewage in the rivers
I can't burn toxic chemicals anymore
I can't produce unsafe products
They make food producers maintain clean workplaces
I can't sell unsafe medicines
I can't discriminate against my workforce
I can't refuse to serve to blacks

Fucking Government needs to know their place

 

[candycorn]

Mean Old Government is always telling us what to do.

I can't dump sewage in the rivers
I can't burn toxic chemicals anymore
I can't produce unsafe products
They make food producers maintain clean workplaces
I can't sell unsafe medicines
I can't discriminate against my workforce
I can't refuse to serve to blacks

Fucking Government needs to know their place

Posted this a while back.

Day in the Life of a
Joe Six-Pack Republican

by John Gray


Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark.)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)

Joe agrees. "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

 

[longknife]

Just who exactly is The Government?

It's easy to attack something so generalized when one has to look closer to home.

Did YOU vote in the last local election? The Primary?

Did YOU go to the trouble to examine the background of local and judicial candidates? And the various initiatives and propositions?

Did YOU get involved in your political party at the local level?

Did YOU bother to make your views known to your local government representative? Or county? Or state? Or federal?

So, instead of swatting at flies, why don't you get involved and do something at the local government level?

 

[Meister]

I wish they would strictly interpret the 2nd amendment and leave guns to the militia only. Somehow, that would be government over-reach as well.

Some truth in what TK said but only in the broadest possible sense.

The Second Amendment has been strictly interpreted, just not the way you wanted it to be.

 

[Meister]

Just who exactly is The Government?

It's easy to attack something so generalized when one has to look closer to home.

Did YOU vote in the last local election? The Primary?

Did YOU go to the trouble to examine the background of local and judicial candidates? And the various initiatives and propositions?

Did YOU get involved in your political party at the local level?

Did YOU bother to make your views known to your local government representative? Or county? Or state? Or federal?

So, instead of swatting at flies, why don't you get involved and do something at the local government level?

Actually, I wish it was that easy, but those pesky parasites call lobbyists get in the way.

 

[longknife]

Just who exactly is The Government?

It's easy to attack something so generalized when one has to look closer to home.

Did YOU vote in the last local election? The Primary?

Did YOU go to the trouble to examine the background of local and judicial candidates? And the various initiatives and propositions?

Did YOU get involved in your political party at the local level?

Did YOU bother to make your views known to your local government representative? Or county? Or state? Or federal?

So, instead of swatting at flies, why don't you get involved and do something at the local government level?

Actually, I wish it was that easy, but those pesky parasites call lobbyists get in the way.

YOU are a "lobbyist" every time you contact your representative!

 

[Spoonman]

I wish they would strictly interpret the 2nd amendment and leave guns to the militia only.

The militia is the people who, being well armed, assemble for the defense of the country.

well-regulated...

Hence the standing army which, if we're going to give the Constitution eyes, is clearly what the framers meant.

But if we're strictly reading the Constitution, to keep and bear arms, you need to be part of this "well regulated" militia; drilling regularly, deployed frequently as part of the training, willing to drop everything and go where the duly elected President and Congess send you...

Does that sound like anyone here? Obviously not. I know of none who dropped everything and enlisted...not a lot of WiFi in Khandahar I suppose.

why is it you liberal gun grabbers are the most uneducated pin heads going? perhaps if you actually did a little research you would know Madison clearly defined the difference between the standing army and what he called a well regulated militia. you would also know he was explicit the this well regulated militia was not to be controlled by the government but to remain separate by leaders of their own choosing. and as far as your other comment about the constitution not mentioning anything about concealed carry, on that, you are 100 % right. that is a restriction added by liberal morons. the constitution says the right to bear arms uninfringed. we should not have to conceal anything. we should be free to carry openly, unrestricted, without any limitations. we should be free to be as well armed as the standing army. That is if we are going with the true meaning of the constitution. the militia, in the words of the framer was not to do what the president and congress said. it was to protect us from the tyranny they might try to impose on us.

But congratulations, in two posts you have managed to demonstrate you don't have a clue about history, the intent of the framers, or the provisions of the constitution.