The US Constitution and Bill of Rights Ain't Worth The Paper Its Written ON!

[bhdpal]

Maryland is a socialist occupied third world dictatorship, whose elected leaders were put in office by liberal left wing theocracy of three municipalities out of thirteen that control the ballot box because they are either federal, state or local government employees or their pay checks come from easily acquired government subsidies. The rest of us poor smucks just pay the bills.

The politicians get rich, the freeloaders get paid, government employees get good health care, benefits and substantial salaries and pensions. Violent criminals are welcomed, illegal aliens are protected and sheltered, murders do not get executed, but law abiding working men and women who, want to own or buy a handgun for self defense, defense of their family and home protection for the illegal hordes that roam the streets and prey on unarmed citizens in and out of their homes, these good folks get SCREWED BY MD.


Under the new MD Firearms [so-called] Safety Act enacted 10/1/13 you cannot buy a handgun until you fulfill the State's Handgun purchase mandates that must be paid for out-of-pocket in money, time and a lot of personal inconvenience, getting fingerprinted by a private security fingerprinting service [around $75] locating, enrolling and attending 8 hour handgun courses given only by MD State Certified Instructors [around $100 per person], paying the State of MD Handgun processing $15 fee to get the Handgun Qualification License [$50], and once you got all these goodies you can go to an FFL Dealer to purchase a handgun, which will cost you $350-$600, if they even have them in stock, and don't forget another $50 for ammo, which will most likely be out of stock thanks to the DHD creating panic buying by handgun owners.

After you complete another FORM for your Background Investigation and STATE REGISTRATION OF YOUR NEWLYU PURCHASED FIREARM, all under supervision of the FFL Dealer, the FORM gets sent to MSP and you wait and wait and wait for it to come back to the FFL Dealer Approved or Disapproved. If you get approved the FFL Dealer will release your prepaid handgun to you. But Careful Here! MD has some gut wrenching handgun transportation regulations that you must follow or you ass will wind of in jail and your new handgun will become evidence tagged and stored in a local police department evidence room. WELCOME TO MARYLAND MY MARYLAND!

Recent 2A court decisions regarding THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE from district courtS, court of appeals and SCOTUS regarding injunctions, appeals and petitions for certiorari against MD's tyrannical gun control laws are trashed by the men and women in black robes appointed by liberal left wing politicians. Lawful regulated firearms (handguns) owners or first time gun owner lawful citizens, as of 10/1, who need a handgun to protect their families or themselves at home from crime and violent criminals who prey on unarmed citizens and love strict gun control laws, now have to jump through a series of well contrived devious, misdirecting loops, dictated to state elected officials by the well healed anti-gun & animal rights campaign contributors, who bank roll political leaders re-elections to gain favor for their "causes." Majority of this anti-American, anti-Family, anti-Religion. dope smoking segment of MDs population live in the heavily populated metro areas in and around Baltimore and DC, usually in secure communities protected by armed guards, like our elected officials.

In MD the US Constitution and Bill of Rights "ain't worth the paper its written on!" In MD there is NO RECOURSE FOR JUSTICE. If you can't afford to hire an expensive attorney or pay mucho buckos for court fees and administrative fees, or have ANY issues related to 2A Right To Keep And Bear Arms, FORGET ABOUT IT1

Lets suppose ONE LAWFUL MD CITIZEN wanted to seek legal recourse just to be allowed to exercise a Lawful Constitutional Right and the State Government denied that person this Right, with all its privileges, accommodations and freedoms, what could this individual do on his or her own without spending one hell of a lot of his or her own money, time and effort? Where does it specify in the US Constitution what steps to take to right this wrong without the expense, time loss and efforts beyond their capabilities? Please someone tell me? Does the US Constitution contain a Bill Of Rights Violation Application For Recourse to take his or her case through the Court system all way to the USSC if needed? Is there a downloadable PDF Anti-Rights Judicial Form that must be completed by the aggrieved party and first mailed to the District Court for a hearing? Is there a -800 phone number to call to file a complaint for this Constitutional Rights Violation By Governent? Hell NO!

If you don't have the money, time and can deprive your family of its father or mother for "God Knows, How Many Hours A Day, to prepare this case, FORGET ABOUT IT. WELCOME TO MARYLAND MY MARYLAND!

THE ONLY THING THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS RECOGNIZE [certainly not individual Rights] IS REVENUE OR A LOSS THERE OFF. BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT EVERYTHING MARYLAND. DON'T SPEND MONEY HERE, DON'T DO BUSINESS HERE, DON'T SHOP HERE [who would want to with our Sales Tax], DON'T VACATION HERE, DON'T BOAT, FISH, HUNT OR RECREATE HERE, AND DON'T MOVE HERE. A hell of a lot of good lawful recreational shooters and handgun owners have had it with MD and they are moving to other States. A lot of businesses are moving out of MD to other States because of the extremely high taxes and regulatory fees they must pay annually to keep their doors open. BRETTA ARMS CO is in the process of choosing another State [probably Texas] to move their entire firearm building business to set up shop in a business friendly and gun friendly State. Even though the State of Maryland publically claimed in the recent past that "they own all the water in the ground, that falls from the sky, in the rivers and bays within state borders, MDs Elected Officials sponsored and passed a TAX ON RAIN WATER THAT FALLS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND RUNS INTO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY. Now that's some creative 'taxation without representation."

So Why Don't Your Move MR.BIGMOUTH? (1) I can't afford to. (2) I am old-old and ObamaCare heath care rationing will assuredly reject me for any life saving treatment I may need in the future, so its kind of late in life to fold up my tee pee and move. The doctors that I now have said they will still treat me even after OBAMACARE. (3) I have family nearby. (4) Driving long distances is not an option. (5) I was born, raised, worked, and raised a family here. (6) I want to spend my last days here with my family. However when time comes I want to know that the US CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE WORTH THE PAPER THEY ARE WRITTEN ON and I lived a full life as a FREE AMERICAN who had the distinct privilege of enjoying CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" [for self defense and against a tyrannical government], WHICH ARE NOW BEING "INFRINGED" BY MARYLAND MY MARYLANE.

IS THE US CONSTITUTION WORTH THE PAPER ITS WRITTEN ON? If you live in Maryland the answer is NO! Listen carefully to MDs Elected Officials when they swear to obey and defend the US Constitution under penality of law in their OATHS OF OFFICE. And then do just the opposite when they are in OFFICE. The "lincoln Memorial" in DC probably weep real tears every time a MD elected official recites those words. FDR said it best "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." But Thomas Jefferson said it better, "when the people fear their government you have tyranny, when the government fears the people you have liberty."

 

[davidmcbeth]

Make your own guns .... you need not purchase them .. you need not tell the guberment you have them ...

 

[XD40sc]

or move

 

[Citizen]

Welcome aboard.

Pretty shocking when the realization sinks in, isn't it?

Of course, the anti-rights stance of government extends well beyond hostility to the Second Amendment. And, its more governments in this country than just the MD state government. At one time, I wrote that politicians would sell your rights for a buck from a lobbyist. I think that was too charitable. Now, I'm pretty convinced politicians would smash our rights just because they like controlling others, forget the buck.

You can skip over a lot, I think, by heading straight for the fundamental lie about rights. As near as I can tell, anyway.

Its somewhere in the vicinity of an idea in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths...all men are created equal...unalienable rights...to protect these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Who consented? I didn't. Yet, I am governed. I cannot free myself from government abuse by unconsenting to be governed. I cannot refuse my consent and be left alone, un"governed" by the criminals in government. In short, the consent angle is a lie. Government neither obtained my consent, nor will recognize my refused consent. Government intends to govern me whether I consent or not.

Once you realize that people in government intend to govern others whether they consent or not, it immediately follows that those in government do not--cannot!--view others as equals. And, those two characteristics tell you all you need to know. Everything else we see going on in government today is totally predictable after those two characteristics are recognized--refusal to see others as equals; intention to govern others whether they consent or not. From there its only a matter of how badly--a matter of degree--they are going to mistreat you.

Before long, you stop being shocked, and start wondering what else they're up to that you don't know about. For, there can be no question--they most assuredly are up to something, lots of somethings. They don't view you as an equal. They intend to rule you whether you consent or not. Its not a matter of whether they are up to more somethings. Its only a question of finding out what. And, finding out how many different ways.

If all are equal, the only legitimate way for one to govern another is if the latter consents. As a philosophical exercise, follow that logic and see where it takes you with regard to the legitimacy of any of the governments that force themselves on you.

 

[Citizen]

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights Ain't Worth The Paper Its Written ON!

I agree with your sentiment about the US Constitution. Here's some historical info no longer taught in school. Look into it, and be ready to look past a smoke-screen of excuses intended legitimize things.

1. The word federal as applied to the central government is a lie. We already had a federal government. At the Framing, the word federation and confederation were synonymous. And, we had the Articles of Confederation. The name of the group promoting the constitution--the federalists--is a lie. If they were genuine federalists, they would have been promoting keeping the Articles of Confederation, not the new centralizing government they'd schemed up.

2. Guaranteed to fail. See Ben Franklin's closing address to the constitutional convention--he knew it was going to fail. He only assented to it because he thought it was the best that could be agreed to (after months of bickering in the summer heat of Philadelphia). Meaning, one of the most important guys at the convention didn't think it was a great document. He viewed it as defective; only second rate, because the people arguing it out were incapable of setting aside their petty biases and achieving something better. This whole business of deifying the Framers, and putting the constitution on a pedestal came later.

3. Sneaky dealings. The constitutional convention started as a convention to tune up the Articles of Confederation, but morphed into a conspiracy to write a whole new scheme of government. Several delegates got up and walked out early, protesting that they did not have authority from their state legislatures to write a new scheme--their authority was only to tune up the Articles of Confederation. Meaning, even the state legislatures that sent delegates were deceived about the intended purpose of the convention.

4. End run around democracy. The federalists engineered to have the constitution ratified by state legislatures or ratification conventions in each states. Only one state--Rhode Island--submitted the constitution to the people for a vote. Rhode Island voters defeated the constitution by a margin of 11-1.

5. Anti-freedom. The constitution almost wasn't ratified. A lot of people saw the endless expansion of power of the proposed central government. The constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights. James Madison added them to shut up the opposition. He was able to shut up just enough opposition that the constitution finally went through. Hunt up the writings of the Anti-federalists. See if you don't think their predictions about what the central government would become were a lot more accurate than the rosy picture painted by the federalists.

6. Self-interest. Something like 70-80% of the convention delegates ended up in the federal government. Also, most of the delegates were politicians or lawyers. One of them, Alexander Hamilton, was a documented monarchist. He's on record wanting to create a society modeled on Britain's levels of status, meaning he liked the idea of centralizing power.

I agree the Bill of Rights is not worth the paper its written on. Its worth a lot more. I see three shortcomings. One, no enforcement mechanism for government perpetraitors (deliberate misspelling) who violate its provisions. Two, the way things are rigged, the government gets to decide whether its violating rights. Three, the list omits tons of rights. For example, economic rights. Another example, the right to sound money that isn't devalued by inflation arising from Federal Reserve printing.

 

[mpguy]

I agree with your sentiment about the US Constitution. Here's some historical info no longer taught in school. Look into it, and be ready to look past a smoke-screen of excuses intended legitimize things.

1. The word federal as applied to the central government is a lie. We already had a federal government. At the Framing, the word federation and confederation were synonymous. And, we had the Articles of Confederation. The name of the group promoting the constitution--the federalists--is a lie. If they were genuine federalists, they would have been promoting keeping the Articles of Confederation, not the new centralizing government they'd schemed up.

2. Guaranteed to fail. See Ben Franklin's closing address to the constitutional convention--he knew it was going to fail. He only assented to it because he thought it was the best that could be agreed to (after months of bickering in the summer heat of Philadelphia). Meaning, one of the most important guys at the convention didn't think it was a great document. He viewed it as defective; only second rate, because the people arguing it out were incapable of setting aside their petty biases and achieving something better. This whole business of deifying the Framers, and putting the constitution on a pedestal came later.

3. Sneaky dealings. The constitutional convention started as a convention to tune up the Articles of Confederation, but morphed into a conspiracy to write a whole new scheme of government. Several delegates got up and walked out early, protesting that they did not have authority from their state legislatures to write a new scheme--their authority was only to tune up the Articles of Confederation. Meaning, even the state legislatures that sent delegates were deceived about the intended purpose of the convention.

4. End run around democracy. The federalists engineered to have the constitution ratified by state legislatures or ratification conventions in each states. Only one state--Rhode Island--submitted the constitution to the people for a vote. Rhode Island voters defeated the constitution by a margin of 11-1.

5. Anti-freedom. The constitution almost wasn't ratified. A lot of people saw the endless expansion of power of the proposed central government. The constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights. James Madison added them to shut up the opposition. He was able to shut up just enough opposition that the constitution finally went through. Hunt up the writings of the Anti-federalists. See if you don't think their predictions about what the central government would become were a lot more accurate than the rosy picture painted by the federalists.

6. Self-interest. Something like 70-80% of the convention delegates ended up in the federal government. Also, most of the delegates were politicians or lawyers. One of them, Alexander Hamilton, was a documented monarchist. He's on record wanting to create a society modeled on Britain's levels of status, meaning he liked the idea of centralizing power.

I agree the Bill of Rights is not worth the paper its written on. Its worth a lot more. I see three shortcomings. One, no enforcement mechanism for government perpetraitors (deliberate misspelling) who violate its provisions. Two, the way things are rigged, the government gets to decide whether its violating rights. Three, the list omits tons of rights. For example, economic rights. Another example, the right to sound money that isn't devalued by inflation arising from Federal Reserve printing.

Just out of curiosity, paint a picture of how you see things say, 10-15 years down the road.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Citizen]

Just out of curiosity, paint a picture of how you see things say, 10-15 years down the road.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk 2

I'm not sure how it will turn out. I'm only sure it will get worse.

Just off the cuff, I would say my main premises are something along these lines:

1. The criminals in government will do anything to maintain and expand their power; they absolutely will not relinquish, nor do the right thing. Recent history bears this out. And, for historical perspective, Patrick Henry, once asked when in history did government ever give back rights without bloodshed?

2. Economic distress arising from the interaction of the government and the banking system. The Federal Reserve causes inflation by printing vast amounts of money, much loaned to the fedgov as the fedgov racks up vast debts. The further along we go, the less other creditors will trust repayment, and they will demand higher interest. This will equal less spending power for the same amount borrowed. For example, sell a bond at $100, on 7% interest, you get $93 to spend. When the bond buyer demand higher interest, say 9%, you sell the $100 bond, but only get $91 to spend. It doesn't take a great movement in interest rates to really screw things up if you're already borrowing heavily/spending well beyond your means.

When the crash of '08 hit, the only sound solution was to let the insolvent companies go under. Instead the banking system and government propped things up and printed vast amounts of money. Basically, instead of doing the right thing that would also get the pain over the fastest, they kicked the can down the road. Basically, we're still in the crash of '08. The rebalancing never occurred. It was never permitted to occur. Thus, literally five years later, the economy is still struggling along. What little recovery that has occurred was faked by massive money printing and war spending. This is completely unsustainable. And, now, when it hits the wall and the fake propping up doesn't work, the economic disturbances will be worse than if they'd just done it in '08.

So, will we have austerity riots ala Turkey and Greece? To which the government will respond with more force and more crack down? Ida know.

Will a demagogue take over, the rest of the government supporting him "to save us from economic ruin?" Ida know.

Will the central banks of the world unite and push a one-world currency as the solution to "global economic distress"? Ida know. (The attempt was already made in the form of a trial ballon a couple years ago.)

But, I am totally certain the government won't stop spending and borrowing until there is a huge problem it can blame for stopping. And, the central banks won't stop printing up money and causing economic bublbles, inflation, and crashes.

And, the solution always proposed by government and banks is more of what they were doing that caused the wreck in the first place. Government alway advocates for more power. And, bankers always advocate for more banking centralization and control.

 

[HPmatt]

3. Sneaky dealings. The constitutional convention started as a convention to tune up the Articles of Confederation, but morphed into a conspiracy to write a whole new scheme of government. Several delegates got up and walked out early, protesting that they did not have authority from their state legislatures to write a new scheme--their authority was only to tune up the Articles of Confederation. Meaning, even the state legislatures that sent delegates were deceived about the intended purpose of the convention.

4. End run around democracy. The federalists engineered to have the constitution ratified by state legislatures or ratification conventions in each states. Only one state--Rhode Island--submitted the constitution to the people for a vote. Rhode Island voters defeated the constitution by a margin of 11-1.

Another example, the right to sound money that isn't devalued by inflation arising from Federal Reserve printing.

Don't know how to split up responses to quotes, and have not studied the Federalist Papers extensively, but from my readings on Geo Washington:

3. The Constitutional Convention was an outgrowth of the Annapolis Convention, where there were not enough delegates to reach a quorum. Actually the states did authorize their delegates to develop the new framework. However to the states had to ratify the work of the Convention - so it wasn't really done against the wishes of the states. Geo Washington very reluctantly came out of retirement, and he did so only with support of Adams, Madison & others that the Convention w/b a success - he was risking his personal reputation - and that was something he was always concerned about from his boyhood till his death- to be President of the Convention and he approved of its final product. If he had not attended the Convention, nothing would have been done and the 7 years or so of weak Articles of Confederation would have resulted in the US disintegrating - literally. The states were trading more with England and France than among themselves under the Articles.

4. The Founders absolutely did not trust the uneducated general electorate - they wanted the power in the States, which birthed the Constitution. Lots of talk about the power of the minority vs the majority. Small states w/b crushed by VA and NY. Ours is a representative republic, not a democracy - the House is closest to the people and has the power to tax - # reps based on population. The Senate originally was constructed to have the Senators chosen by the States, and represent the States Rights and keep the Federal Government in check and keep small states place in checking the power of the large population and bigger states. The 17th Amendment took this power away from States and gave rise to Senators McCain AZ, Graham SC, Hatch UT - being elected by populace and then screwing their states - they would have been jerked out of Washington if the State Legislatures appointed them pre-17A.

Franklin or Poor Richard had a great analogy of inflation - that by inflating the 'specie' in circulation a little each year, it boosted business and made debt less costly - under the Articles of Confederation states printed their own paper money and inflation was rampant - the English coins were the stable currency. It was a well known subject all the colonists dealt with everyday w/o a Federal Reserve.

Mark Levin's book - The Liberty Amendments goes over a lot of the current shortcomings of the Constitution - how the courts and politicians have weakened it, and how the States will have to once again create state conventions under Article V to fix what Wilson and FDR put in motion 100 years ago to collapse what the Founders so masterfully created.

 

[swinokur]

Dreamer, is that you?

:lol:

 

[OC for ME]

Maryland is a socialist occupied third world dictatorship, <snip>

And I bet you did not see this coming over the last several decades. As so eloquently stated above.....move.

 

[Norton]

Dreamer, is that you?

:lol:

Read my mind.

 

[acmariner99]

Very interesting thread - the subject at hand reinforces a thought that I've had recently that there is no ideal system of government. Human nature makes it impossible for any system to run well for an indefinite period of time. We idealize government and think there is a perfect way to run things, but it will never happen. I can summarize this thoughts in one of the best lines in an otherwise horribly acted movie (ironically stated by the villain): "Those who gain power are afraid to lose it."

True democracies were thought of by the Founders as a great evil because all it takes is a simple majority to override the freedoms of a minority. The "ideal" communist society acts as a true democracy. What the ruling majority says - goes.

Other collective forms of government like socialism require everyone, even those who oppose it to contribute in order to function. By nature, it requires an excessive amount of force to keep rulers in power and suppress those who oppose it. Since those who produce lose their incentive (profit), the fruits of production eventually run out.

A loose federation or confederation is flawed as without a central governing body, confederated states have the ability to assert their own rules locally - which can lead to stagnation in the movement of goods and services. Instead of one powerful state, you have a bunch of bickering smaller ones. I would wager that if the Articles of Confederation had been allowed to remain in place, you'd have state fighting state over the western territories, refusal to provide men and material in the event of a national emergency, state border controls, and other expansions of power at the state level. I would characterize the European Union as a confederation. They don't cooperate militarily (unless the US tells them to) and even with a uniform currency, the producing states are quickly beginning to tire of supporting those that do not.

Anarchistic idealists think that the abolition of the state would allow for unfettered freedom of -- well, anything. Actually the idea scares me as much as a totalitarian dictatorship would. Why? Because - there will always be individuals or entities that are more powerful than others and will seek to impose their version of order, take what they need, or control what they want. An example: eminent domain I consider to be a despicable practice the state engages in. In a stateless, ruler-less society, what is to stop a large corporation with a private army from seizing your home on a whim? They need it, they have the means to take it if you say no - what do you do then?

Even the Republican system of government is flawed - personally I think if enacted maintained properly you have an effective balance between regulatory/moral authority and personal freedom, but its weakness centers on the fact that it is a bottom up style of governing. It is completely dependent on constant vigilance from those being governed to ensure that the powers that be remain within their authorized boundaries. The powers that be can entice the masses with social systems to increase their dependence on the power of the state, they provide handouts to the powerful entities that supply it with the means to maintain and enforce its edicts, media releases the information it wants to release. These examples and others inadvertently will turn a well intentioned system into any other totalitarian style of government.

There will never be equality - henceforth there will always be individuals and entities that are more powerful than others. Efforts to create "equality" only hamstring the honest efforts of those capable of producing and reduce the incentives for those with less current ability to actually try.

I have met many wonderful liberty loving people - I know people from all walks of life. The idea of a society governed by the "non-aggression principle" of libertarian thought is a good one, but it is still an ideal. No system accounts for the fact that those who gain or are given power will not relinquish it absent the use of force not to mention those who want power will attempt to obtain it. It would be nice to see groups of people with differing ideas and governing structures keep to themselves, but usually do not. It would take a monumental effort to teach younger generations to exchange ideas without imposing their will on those who disagree with them, but it still doesn't account for those who are "more equal than others."

Sic Semper Tyrannus

 

[cirrusly]

While we're railing on Maryland stripping rights from citizens, I did some Googling, and must say, Maryland is about on par with Russia for RKBA

Only Russian citizens who are over eighteen years of age can own civilian firearms. Guns may be acquired for self-defense, hunting or sports activities only. Russian citizens can buy smooth-bore long-barreled firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules. The use of long-barreled weapons for purposes of self-defense is prohibited. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns unless part of a registered gun collection, guns that shoot in bursts and having more than a ten-cartridge capacity are prohibited.
Carrying permits are issued for hunting firearms licensed for hunting purposes. People who acquire firearms for the first time are required to attend six and a half hours of classes on handling guns safely and must pass federal tests on safety rules, and their background is checked.[82][further explanation needed] Gun licenses are for five years and can be renewed.

 

[davidmcbeth]

And I bet you did not see this coming over the last several decades. As so eloquently stated above.....move.

Why move? Just make your own guns yourself....