An America where the people no longer have a voice

[BartenderElite]

the government was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself. - thomas jefferson.

No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words "no" and "not" employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” - thomas jefferson

There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787)

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

I don't really disagree, and it's an interesting debate. I also think the founders never would have envisioned the kinds of weapons that would be available today, or in the future beyond this.

Let's say they come up with a personal nuclear device, that the average citizen could operate and purchase if it was legal. We can use that as the extreme. Most reasonable Americans would not want that legal; that's just a fact.

So, somewhere between that and the average handgun, there is a level at which most reasonable Americans agree that certain weapons should be legal and available, and others should never be accessible by regular citizens.

And this is where the government does have a role. Protecting the citizenry is really their prime responsibility.

Grenade launchers fall more toward the personal nuke on the scale. Most simply wouldn't agree that a weapon like that falls under 2nd amendment protections, particularly as those protections are weighed against other responsibilities of the government.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't really disagree, and it's an interesting debate. I also think the founders never would have envisioned the kinds of weapons that would be available today, or in the future beyond this.

at the time of the writing of the constitution and bill of rights there were already inventions of repeating arms......so the founders were well aware of advancing technology, not to mention that every single piece of historical documentation from the framers era all stated nearly the same thing, that the PEOPLE were to be armed with all the weapons of war that a soldier could be.

So, somewhere between that and the average handgun, there is a level at which most reasonable Americans agree that certain weapons should be legal and available, and others should never be accessible by regular citizens.

that is not reasonable at all, considering the intent behind the 2nd Amendment.

And this is where the government does have a role. Protecting the citizenry is really their prime responsibility.

No, it's not. The primary responsibility of the government is to protect the RIGHTS of the people. all else is secondary

Grenade launchers fall more toward the personal nuke on the scale. Most simply wouldn't agree that a weapon like that falls under 2nd amendment protections, particularly as those protections are weighed against other responsibilities of the government.

anything that the government would use against us, we should not only own, but have more of than the government. otherwise, we're just slaves with permissions.

 

[AProudLefty]

During the time of the Founding Fathers, they had bombs, cannons and weapons that resembled automatic weapons.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

During the time of the Founding Fathers, they had bombs, cannons and weapons that resembled automatic weapons.

The Puckle gun was the first known revolving cannon. It fired a 32mm round, had a 11-round revolving cylinder, and was invented in 1718. It never saw mass production but demonstrations were performed and it was covered by the newspapers. What killed it was the fact that the parts for it could not be easily produced at that time.

thats just one of them......but you're also deflecting and ignoring. the founders knew of technology advancement but they also had the mindset of the people being as well as, or better armed than the government

 

[AProudLefty]

The Puckle gun was the first known revolving cannon. It fired a 32mm round, had a 11-round revolving cylinder, and was invented in 1718. It never saw mass production but demonstrations were performed and it was covered by the newspapers. What killed it was the fact that the parts for it could not be easily produced at that time.

thats just one of them......but you're also deflecting and ignoring. the founders knew of technology advancement but they also had the mindset of the people being as well as, or better armed than the government

Yes that's one I was talking about.

And how was I deflecting and ignoring? The point of my post is that they had similar weapons that would have been illegal to own today and that they knew of advancements. One thing's for sure, they didn't envision atomic bombs.

 

[Carmine]

Make no mistake at all: that's what Trump is fighting for right now, and what the craven GOP is enabling.

Our vote is our voice. That's really the main foundation of this American experiment. We fought a revolution to escape monarchy and assert our right to representation - and that is all encompassed in our vote.

This Texas SCOTUS suit that Trump is touting takes that all away. It seeks to disenfranchise literally millions of voters, and give the power of selecting a leader to a small, privileged few. That concept would sound very familiar to those who had to live under British rule in the 18th century.

Actually, it's a Planet of the Apes strategy.

The diseased pig fucking orangutan wants to transfer the power of the ballot box from rational humans to trumpanzees.
He doesn't even like trumpanzees, but he loves how they suck up to diseased pig fucking orangutans so he caters to them.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes that's one I was talking about.

And how was I deflecting and ignoring? The point of my post is that they had similar weapons that would have been illegal to own today and that they knew of advancements. One thing's for sure, they didn't envision atomic bombs.

how would they have been illegal today if the founders knew about them? or are you trying to say that there was no way the founders intended citizens to have the same weapons of war as soldiers????

 

[AProudLefty]

how would they have been illegal today if the founders knew about them? or are you trying to say that there was no way the founders intended citizens to have the same weapons of war as soldiers????

I am saying that they would have disagreed with making certain weapons illegal. Nothing in the 2nd are about restrictions.

 

[Walt]

Are you referring to all those votes for Biden from people that don't exist?

If there were votes from people who do not exist, that would be easy to prove. The voter rolls are public. Anyone could prove they do not exist.

But you still have zero proof. I have to wonder how weak your political views are that you need pathetic lies to support them.

 

[gemini104104]

Make no mistake at all: that's what Trump is fighting for right now, and what the craven GOP is enabling.

Our vote is our voice. That's really the main foundation of this American experiment. We fought a revolution to escape monarchy and assert our right to representation - and that is all encompassed in our vote.

This Texas SCOTUS suit that Trump is touting takes that all away. It seeks to disenfranchise literally millions of voters, and give the power of selecting a leader to a small, privileged few. That concept would sound very familiar to those who had to live under British rule in the 18th century.

Well then, leave America or never come to it and go to Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, in particular, to hear your voice loud and clear. If you think the average American does not have a voice in their country and despite the un American tRump gutter mob, then you can consider yourself as a fool, and flunk tRump.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The Tech Overlords have been very clear that they will stomp all over our voice if we disagree with them.

 

[CFM]

If there were votes from people who do not exist, that would be easy to prove. The voter rolls are public. Anyone could prove they do not exist.

But you still have zero proof. I have to wonder how weak your political views are that you need pathetic lies to support them.

Not when those there to watch such things aren't allowed to do so.

 

[Walt]

Not when those there to watch such things aren't allowed to do so.

The voter rolls are public. Anyone can get the names of the people that voted. You do not have to be there to check.

Get the names that voted, and prove they do not exist.

 

[CFM]

The voter rolls are public. Anyone can get the names of the people that voted. You do not have to be there to check.

Get the names that voted, and prove they do not exist.

So signature verification can be done without someone being there?

 

[Walt]

So signature verification can be done without someone being there?

Sure, you ask the person if they signed it. That is the best signature verification available.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Make no mistake at all: that's what Trump is fighting for right now, and what the craven GOP is enabling.

Our vote is our voice. That's really the main foundation of this American experiment. We fought a revolution to escape monarchy and assert our right to representation - and that is all encompassed in our vote.

This Texas SCOTUS suit that Trump is touting takes that all away. It seeks to disenfranchise literally millions of voters, and give the power of selecting a leader to a small, privileged few. That concept would sound very familiar to those who had to live under British rule in the 18th century.

why is it the left who loves corporate restrictions on speech then?

 

[CFM]

Sure, you ask the person if they signed it. That is the best signature verification available.

That's like asking a fox with feathers in his mouth is he raided the hen house then believing him when his said "No".

 

[PostmodernProphet]

O'Biden will be remembered as the first president elected by a computer.......

 

[Walt]

That's like asking a fox with feathers in his mouth is he raided the hen house then believing him when his said "No".

Asking a voter whether he signed is vote is like what?

The fact is that a voter saying they signed a document is pretty much absolute evidence they did such.

 

[Hawkeye10]

America has almost been stolen from the American people, who are generally too ignorant to know what is going on....they are the Modern Morons.

Our ancestors are turning in their graves.

And we mismanaged a pandemic too!

Buckle Up, this is going to hurt!

Performance always did matter!

SHOCKING!