How Can This Happen? How do Law makers get away with this?

[M4A3]

First off I'd like to say, ANYBODY who tries to change the constitution or bill of rights should be DEPORTED!! (period) No acceptions!!

So I thought I'd take a stroll the the "library" section of the forum to see whats in there. Then I clicked on "The Bill of Rights" and started reading down the list.

Then somthing hits me. Take a look at the laws that have been put in effect between today and lets say 15 years ago. The law makers are simply OUT OF CONTROLL and don't take our rights given to us by the BILL OF RIGHTS when thay make the laws.

Example:

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

I had to pay a 90.00 fine because I had automotive performance parts stickers in the back window of my car. That if you ask me goes agenst "nor excessive fines imposed" but yet thay get away with making laws like this.........HOW???????

Try this. Go look in the "bill of rights" section and read down the list. I bet you won't have a hard time finding an example whare a law(s) has been made that goes agenst the constitution and bill of rights.

Here is some more examples:

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.

One word, California....

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 wherein 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 defence.

OJ Simpson....PFFFTTT what did that go on for 2 years is it. Then he gets away with it because 1) he's rich 2) he was a well liked foot ball player.

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.

When did thay take Bibles out of school? "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

:barf: :barf: :barf:

Somthing drastic has to be done here.... We have or had good laws but over the years some have been allowed to (edit) them up royaly

One day thay WILL try and ban guns.

(language snipped by Dennis.)

 

[DadOfThree]

You got a $90.00 fine for having a sticker in your window???
Well, I couldn't live in your state. But then again, I couldn't live in one of those subdivisions with all of the rules on grass length, tree height and number, house color, what kind of mailbox you can have, etc. Pretty soon I won't be able to live anywhere

 

[Dennis]

The method is similar to this...

Den: Give me a hundred dollars!
M4: No!
Den: But you have so much and I have so little!
M4: Tough! You don't work and I work hard!
Den: But you buy things I can't have!
M4: Then work for me and you can earn money and buy things.
Den: No! I don't wanna! Give me a hundred dollars!

Big argument ensues. People gather. Some support me, some support you.
Finally we compromise and you give me fifty dollars. I go away.

Twenty minutes later I come back.

Den: Give me a hundred dollars!
M4: No!
Den: But you have so much and I have so little!
M4: Tough! You don't work and I work hard!
Den: But you buy things I can't have!

This time you know how to get rid of me—we compromise and you give me fifty dollars.

Twenty minutes later…
- - - -

Well, you get the picture.

We lost control of our government when we came to believe that the two parties ARE our government. Then the two parties united against us. Still we continue to support what has become, in effect, ONE political party.

Now the government (the Party) selects who we can vote for and we blindly vote for the Party (the Democrat wing or the Republican wing) and expect "change."

In other words, we have been (and, for the most part we remain) stupid.

That's why a sticker on the back of your vehicle "endangers" the public and you get fined.

That's why you must pay a fine (tax, fee, whatever) to own a full-auto weapon.

That's why I must register with the police, give my fingerprints and give my photo to the police, pay a fine (tax, fee, whatever) to the police, and ensure the police have my current residence address at all times and renew all these things to carry a firearm in Texas. (… shall not be infringed, huh?) Yet, the "compromise" of the Second Amendment is considered a "good thing" because without the compromise of registering, fingerprinting, picture-taking and fine-paying, I earlier had NO rights at all!

The list goes on, gets longer, more tedious, more expensive, and we are supposed to be proud when we can buy back something that is supposed to be free but is now at the whim of the government (the Party) to let us buy back or not.

We may (or may not) still be the most free country in the world, but we are no longer as free as we were fifty years ago. We have exchanged tyrants in Britain for tyrants in Washington.

 

[Waitone]

Another radicalized constitutionalist is born.

What you just realized is precisely why I went to the RKBA movement. I learned I simply could not fight every constitutional outrage, so I picked my shots.

Now, if you really want to get huffy, thumb over the to Declaration of Independence and read the list of complaints against the king of England.

Pick your shots. You can't fight every battle everywhere.

 

[Art Eatman]

Dennis was probably editing when DeTocqueville wrote that Democracy is fine until the populace discovers it can vote itself largesse from the public coffers. That wuz before the War of Yankee Aggression.

FDR was the first, major active proponent of said largesse. LBJ's Great Society added greatly to that.

Now a majority of various normally-conservative groups, a majority of people, have been co-opted into dependency upon Big Nanny. Further, our economic successes have inculcated an irrational caution and need for security within the populace. Safety campaigns by such as Ralph Nader have abetted this mindset.

And now, with terrorism, we have an even greater willingness to trade liberty for security...

1. All our usual pro-freedom cliches apply.

2. A cliche becomes a cliche because of the truth therein.

Art

 

[Dennis]

Actually, Art, the first time I edited an article was before I reached my teenage years. When you were a senior in college, I stole your notes for a high school paper.

They caught me. Your vocabulary was too advanced for a kid my age.

Oy! I'll pay for THIS one!

 

[pax]

When I was in 7th grade, I was sitting in my World History class one day, idly listening to the teacher drone on and on. Suddenly, something he said caught my attention, and I sat up and raised my hand.

"Wait a minute! I don't understand..."

The teacher looked shocked. No one had ever shown any sign of interest in his class before. "What?"

"What you just said. I don't understand."

"What didn't you understand?"

"Well, you just said that the people in Russia --"

"--in the Soviet Union. Russia is only part of --"

"--in the Soviet Union, they have a Bill of Rights in their Constitution."

"Yes, they do. It's in the book, on page --"

"Like anyone's going to read the book!" "No, I mean, you said they have a right to freedom of religion."

"Yes, their Constitution says --"

"But I read the Gulag Archipelago, and weren't a lot of those people sent to Siberia, or in prison because of their religion? How can you say they have freedom of religion?"

"Well, their Constitution says they have freedom of religion, but that isn't the whole story. They have other laws, too, not just the Constitution..."

"Wait a minute. Isn't a Constitution, like, the highest law of the land or something? Look, that was on the quiz last week, that's what you said a Constitution is. Right?"

"Well, technically that is true. But the Soviets haven't followed their own Constitution for several years. That's one of the reasons it's better to live in America than it is to live in the Soviet Union..."

He went back to droning, and I spent the rest of the day in shock. I knew America was better than Russia, because we obeyed our Constitution.

Such a disillusionment when I learned otherwise.

I sympathize with you, SR_15_M4. Read the Bill of Rights again and again, and mourn over what we've lost. Then ask yourself, "What am I willing to do about this? And how much am I willing to pay for it?"

pax

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. -- The Declaration of Independence

 

[BrianW]

How Can This Happen? How do Law makers get away with this?

Because we, the people, not only let them, we beg them to.

[sarcasm]After all, isn't the public safety more important than performance parts stickers?[/sarcasm] And, young man, you don't need aftermarket parts (or stickers) to travel the legal speed limit. Straighten up and toe the line.

pax, great story.

 

[M4A3]

[sarcasm]After all, isn't the public safety more important than performance parts stickers?[/sarcasm] And, young man, you don't need aftermarket parts (or stickers) to travel the legal speed limit. Straighten up and toe the line.

Well first off I wasn't some "jr." smoking his tires to show off to the chicks on the corner. (we were in a traffic jam down at the crusing spot durring a car show). These stickers were to advertise my business. (I build performance/racing engines)

I see cab cars and other buisnesses with stickers to advertise there business all the time. He pulled me over bucause I am 23 years old (22 at the time) and I was driving a loud car that has a rough idle. I wasn't speeding, I wasn't smoking tires, I was in a fricking traffic jam.

And that cop knows darn well that I'm not going to skip a day of work to go fight it.

Then to top it all off the darn thing was $90.00 !!!! Thats WAYYYY to much!!!!

 

[BrianW]

Ah, driving while young, a classic offense. And you compounded it with a Noisier-than-Necessary exhaust, shame on you.

When I was 16-24 years old, I got speeding tickets regularly, several of which were for as little as 6 mph over the posted limit. (dry, clear empty hiway, btw) I've noticed a distinct drop in tickets since I cut my hair, started driving nicer rigs, and grew some grey in the beard.

Sounds to me like a municipality padding it's coffers via nonsense tickets.

 

[Chuck Dye]

Slightly OT, but curiosity wins again...

Then to top it all off the darn thing was $90.00 !!!! Thats WAYYYY to much!!!!

Evidently not enough to get you into court. In most jurisdictions, blocking the back windows is a non-issue if you have two working mirrors. Indeed, most trucks have no back window. I suspect that either there was more to the cite than you have told, or that you needlessly went belly up on a bogus cite. If it was a bogus cite, you have "fed the troll," positively reinforcing an unacceptable behavior. (Hope I have not done the same!)

 

[Joe Gunns]

Dennis - Very common misconception in your opening remarks.

The rights we have are NOT "...given to us by the Bill of Rights...". The founders believed that these and other rights were inherent. If you are a living human being, you have Rights. The Bill of Rights was an attempt to specify the more important rights to ensure that the government did not infringe on them. Amendment 9 alludes to the existence of other rights.

"We the people..." create the government. WE (through the representative that wrote the Constitution and the state legislatures and conventions that accepted it) granted the government some of our power, and control over some of our rights. Since the government is not the source of rights, it cannot GRANT rights to us, and, beyond the extent specified in the Articles, was not expected to take rights away. (When the Constitution was first proposed, it did not include a Bill of Rights, since it was believed that the systems built into it would enable the People to effectively defend against efforts by groups in and out of government to limit rights. The Bill was added only after it became apparent that the Constitution would be rejected without some specific guarantees of protected rights.)

This misconception of where Rights originate is ONE of the reasons so many today are willing to blythly allow laws that obviously infringe on Rights, whether they be college codes of political correctness or bureaucratic regulations about what you can and can't take on an airplane or Congressional approval of laws limiting citizen access of certain weapons.

In the time of the founders that wa the theory. Your post demonstrates the sad reality in our own time.

Freedom,
Joe

 

[Dennis]

Joe,

I could not agree more. We are congruent on the subject.

However, with the exception of the Declaration of Independence (which is not part of our federal governing document) and the Constitution (as amended), I know of no federal governing document which acknowledges our Natural Rights.

I agree with you that the Bill of Rights is only an enumeration of some of our Natural Rights.

Thanks for stressing that!

 

[Dave R]

The voters elect the people who do it. The voters generally get what they want/deserve. Occasionally they get hoodwinked, or they never know the whole story.

IMHO, the worst offenders are the agencies with no responsibility to the electorate. The wetlands act is a great example.

The good news is, we, the voters, can take us back to a more Constitutional form of government. But it gets harder every year, it seems.

There have been a few bright points along the way. Several years ago there was a movement in Congress to get back to States Rights. Reagan won a landslide campaigning on reducing Government control.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

SR_15_M4, you continue to amaze me with your understanding of matters such as the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the logic of your arguments. I think you have completely missed the boat here.

Your statement that, "First off I'd like to say, ANYBODY who tries to change the constitution or bill of rights should be DEPORTED!! (period) No acceptions!!" is a clear example of just how blatantly you did miss the boat.

Think about it...the Bill of Rights specifically ARE changes to the Constitution. That is why they are called "amendments." If your idea was in effect, then there would be no Bill of Rights.

 

[M4A3]

SR_15_M4, you continue to amaze me with your understanding of matters such as the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the logic of your arguments. I think you have completely missed the boat here.

Hmmm... Should I comment? Naw. Why not? Because I don't want to waist my time, and I don't care.

Double Naught Spy, you missed MY point....

 

[Art Eatman]

There are two ways to restore "the way it wuz". One is to get personally involved in politics and eventually get into the public-office sequence: Local office, state office, then Congress.

The other path is followed at the same time: Work to get folks who believe as you do to get off their duffs and vote for candidates who are at least close to your beliefs, or for whichever candidates will do the least harm.

Look: As a for instance, the total voter turnout in Austin, Texas, for a city council/Mayor election, runs as low as 8% all the way up to 11%. Gun owners, alone, could elect a totally pro-gun city council! But they don't bother to win the whole bloomin' city. :barf: And :barf: again!

Trying to get "our side" to D-O do something as a group is worse than herdin' jackrabbits.

Art

 

[gryphon]

The reason I support RKBA more so than the other "rights" is because the 2nd is going ot be the only one that we can use to get the rest back if we loose them.