Why is this so hard to understand?

imported post

ROOK_WI wrote:

Gleason, that is pure poetry </sniffle>

I hear "Battle Hymn of The Republic" in my head now...

Click to expand...

Is this instrumental or do you hear vocals too? :uhoh:

imported post

Bump

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

This is your God given right. Given too you by our fore fathers and fought for by thousand of veterans, many who lost their lives in the fight.

Click to expand...

Wonderfully put. I only have issue with this one little piece.

God given right yes. Guaranteed by our forefathers in the Constitution of the United States.

Not nit picking, it's a great read, and I agree except that no "rights" are given to me by any politician. In my experience they have plenty of experience infringing on them however.

In today's USA it's high time we remind the jokers in DC, ALL OF THEM, that they work for US, not the other way around.

We need to be REAFFIRMING our "rights".

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

So the right to a gun is a privilege granted by the state to its citizens?

Click to expand...

No the right to keep and bear arms is a right granted by the U.S. Constitution to the citizens of the United States.

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and it applies to American citizens here in America. It does not apply in any other country and therefore should not apply to any non citizen in this country. But that is just my opinion.

Look at Mexico for example, if a person here, even a legal citizen commits murder and runs to Mexico, the Mexican government will not even extradite the individual unless the U.S. Government promises that the individual will not face the death penalty.

Now, if that is the case then the Mexican Government should take full responsibility for that individual from that point on. That individual should lose all citizenship in the U.S.

Not having individual Constitutions and allowing every person in this world Rights and privileges under the U.S. constitution amounts to nothing more than a One World Government period.

Click to expand...

imported post

This is the first time I read this post.

SPOT ON! Mr. Gleason. SPOT ON!

What you wrote in words is what my inner voice told me. When I started to OC, I did so solo. I had not met anyone or had friends that OC before I started.

IT'S LEGAL. JUST DO IT.

Not that I was not before, but now I am even more polite and considerate of others when I OC. Not coyish or apprehensive, but proud and confident.

Thanks agian, Mr. Gleason.

imported post

ColdBlueSteel wrote:

J.Gleason wrote:

This is your God given right. Given too you by our fore fathers and fought for by thousand of veterans, many who lost their lives in the fight.

Click to expand...

Wonderfully put. I only have issue with this one little piece.

God given right yes. Guaranteed by our forefathers in the Constitution of the United States.

Not nit picking, it's a great read, and I agree except that no "rights" are given to me by any politician. In my experience they have plenty of experience infringing on them however.

In today's USA it's high time we remind the jokers in DC, ALL OF THEM, that they work for US, not the other way around.

We need to be REAFFIRMING our "rights".

Click to expand...

J.Gleason wrote: Doug Huffman wrote:

So the right to a gun is a privilege granted by the state to its citizens?

Click to expand...

No the right to keep and bear arms is a right granted by the U.S. Constitution to the citizens of the United States.

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and it applies to American citizens here in America. It does not apply in any other country and therefore should not apply to any non citizen in this country. But that is just my opinion.

Look at Mexico for example, if a person here, even a legal citizen commits murder and runs to Mexico, the Mexican government will not even extradite the individual unless the U.S. Government promises that the individual will not face the death penalty.

Now, if that is the case then the Mexican Government should take full responsibility for that individual from that point on. That individual should lose all citizenship in the U.S.

Not having individual Constitutions and allowing every person in this world Rights and privileges under the U.S. constitution amounts to nothing more than a One World Government period.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Main Entry: pos·ter·i·ty Pronunciation: pä-ˈster-ə-tēFunction: noun Etymology: Middle English posterite, from Anglo-French pusterité, from Latin posteritat-, posteritas, from posterus coming afterDate: 14th century 1 : the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2 : all future generations
I don't believe "illegal Posterity" was used in the preamble.


Let me be clear so there is no mincing of my words.

The Constitution was written by our forefathers granting us certain "God given" rights.

As far as those forefathers being "politicians", it seems no one has any problem with bringing up the fact that these constitutional rights were set in writing by these "Politicians." Why is it ok that they were politicians when they were guaranteeing us something?

Whether we say granted or guaranteed it is taken in the same context unless we choose to nit pic such petty words in which case we could stay on this topic forever.

The fact is the U.S. Constitution pertains to U.S. Citizens not those illegally here.
Being an Illegal immigrant does not make you a citizen. It makes you a criminal. While the authorities here are supposed to act in accordance with the laws of this country. That still does not guarantee an illegal immigrant rights under the U.S. Constitution. Technically the illegals can be sent out of the country using the fastest method and save the tax payers millions, as it should be.

Unless your in support of the Obamanations One World Government Campaign.

imported post

The fact is the U.S. Constitution pertains to U.S. Citizens not those illegally here.

Click to expand...

Wrong. It applies to the government. The government is to protect the rights of all people and that includes illegal aliens. This was done that way for a very important reason, it was so that our rights could not be removed by the government by declaring that a person was no longer a citizen.

There was a history of European tyrannies violating people's rights by protecting the rights of only citizens. That was fine as long as you kept your head down and did as you were told then you would not be declared to no longer being a citizen by the aristocracy.

People on this forum need to read a bit of history on the Miranda court cases. If illegal aliens have the right to a fair trial then they have all the other rights as defined in the Constitution. Saying anything else is playing right into the gun grabbers hands and making OUR right to self defense a somewhat "lesser" right.

The Bill of Rights is not a buffet, it's an all or nothing deal.

imported post

IA_farmboy wrote:

The fact is the U.S. Constitution pertains to U.S. Citizens not those illegally here.

Click to expand...

Wrong. It applies to the government. The government is to protect the rights of all people and that includes illegal aliens. This was done that way for a very important reason, it was so that our rights could not be removed by the government by declaring that a person was no longer a citizen.

There was a history of European tyrannies violating people's rights by protecting the rights of only citizens. That was fine as long as you kept your head down and did as you were told then you would not be declared to no longer being a citizen by the aristocracy.

People on this forum need to read a bit of history on the Miranda court cases. If illegal aliens have the right to a fair trial then they have all the other rights as defined in the Constitution. Saying anything else is playing right into the gun grabbers hands and making OUR right to self defense a somewhat "lesser" right.

The Bill of Rights is not a buffet, it's an all or nothing deal.

Click to expand...

So what is the the difference between a citizen, alien and illegal alien if the Constitution only applies to the Government? Looks like all the hoopla over the new AZ lawsis justwasted breath and doesn't even apply.

imported post

So what is the the difference between a citizen, alien and illegal alien if the Constitution only applies to the Government? Looks like all the hoopla over the new AZ laws is just wasted breath and doesn't even apply.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the question.

If you read the Constitution carefully you will find that the authors used "people" or "the people" when placing limits on the government. Pay special attention to the Bill of Rights since it is not worded in a way that the people or a person have these rights granted but that the rights already exist and the government "shall not make any law", "shall not violate", "shall not ... deny or disparage", and (everyone's favorite) "shall not be infringed".

Take a look at the Sixth Amendment, it says "the accused shall enjoy the right". I see nothing that so much as hints that only citizens enjoy these rights or that the enumerated rights are granted by the government. It says that people have these rights and the government must respect those rights.

When it comes to the privileges granted to citizens the Constitution will use the word "citizen". When the Constitution describes human rights it uses the words "person" or "people". It really is not that hard to understand the Constitution since it was not written in the legalese that is all to common in law today. It was meant to be read and understood by anyone with a sufficient grasp on the English language.

When it comes to the Arizona immigration law large portions of it is simply unenforceable since only the federal government can enforce immigration law. A state can be allowed by the federal government to enforce federal law but both sides need to agree on how that is done. What this Arizona law has attempted is to assume that authority. Problem is that only the federal government has the database of those that have entered the country legally.

The Arizona LEOs can check the papers of an accused illegal alien but it takes access to the federal database to verify that the papers are valid, and have not been falsified, altered, etc. It is really that simple, Arizona cannot enforce immigration law unless the federal government is willing to play along. Problem is that the federal government has been unwilling or unable to enforce the law and so nothing that Arizona can do is going to change that, it must come from the federal government alone.

imported post

To get back on topic, Just Do It!

imported post

waiting for the federal government to act is like waiting for a bus that will never come. plus do you realy want to get on that bus, as it will probably take you to a fema camp.

imported post

LOL! Good point! "Rex84"

imported post

Bump

Bump