PDA

View Full Version : How do you guys feel about the Govts position on the rights of "We the People"?


ENTHUSIAST
02-09-2011, 1:25 PM
I am always amazed at the progress that CalGuns is doing on the frontlines of the 2A. GREAT job guys keep up the good work!!! :)

That said what about our other rights?

Do you think we as a country will regain or lose more rights in the next 10 years?

I found this post VERY telling about our current State of the Union.

It is was posted in this thread:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=393368

It makes me very proud to see that gun owners are waking up to the importance of the 4th Amendment. It is becoming clear that we have to defend the entire Bill of Rights, not just those that relate to RKBA.

Our government is out of control and in full attack mode

1. They put their hands down your pants as a condition to fly.
2. They have checkpoints where the demand to know where you are going and intimidate you into letting them search your vehicle
3. They are now trolling and harassing gunowners who just want to shoot at many places in California (Lytle Canyon).
4. Homeland Gestapo is on TV screens in stores telling you to spy on your neighbors.
5. They search your bags without warrant in NYC on public transportation.
6. In Philly, Police stop and frisk people without warrant.
7. Trash collectors, cable TV people, and soon mailmen are trained to spy on you.
8. They even feel you up to attend the Superbowl.

The government is out of control. It is great to see gun owners refuse (peacefully) to give up their rights. If we could just get the rest of the sheep to refuse on the above points, we can turn back the tide of tyranny.

Legasat
02-09-2011, 1:43 PM
I think the pendulum is swinging in the direction of more Freedom at the moment. Lots of people/groups responsible for this: 2A groups, Tea Party, Radio/TV people, etc; but mostly Obama. He is showing America a vision that not everybody wants to be part of. Me included!

AJAX22
02-09-2011, 2:10 PM
I think short term we will see gains, but long term there will be problems.

ocspeedracer
02-09-2011, 2:13 PM
I said decreasing. I'm hopeful but I consider myself a realist and I don't see most people wanting less government handouts, and thus giving them more control.

I hope I'm dead wrong.

N6ATF
02-09-2011, 2:43 PM
Constitutional rights don't change without amendment, only the level of government compliance. So stay the same in theory, decrease in practice. Rights are legislated away on a daily basis, while courts take at least 2 years to reverse each piece of legislation. They can't possibly keep up.

stix213
02-09-2011, 2:50 PM
I think the Internet has been responsible for allowing the easy assembly of like minded individuals fighting for rights. Its allowed easy networking, planning, and execution to get rights back. Calguns is an obvious example, but there are others. I see this trend largely continuing, even though there will certainly be push backs from time to time.

With so many other avenues and opinions on news available, its also harder and harder for government to control what individuals see and hear. Its easier for the truth to get out, and the truth has a certain ring to it :D

d4v0s
02-09-2011, 2:59 PM
I think and said decreasing, but with a qualifier attached. Decreasing If we continue to allow these seemingly small issues go unprotested. I was once of the mind that "if cops are only looking to catch drunks then a little bit of my time is ok so we catch these guys". I am aware now that its a slippery slope, and you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

I am about sick and tired of having to prove that i am a law abiding citizen, and I just hope the sheep wake up and see this for what it is, Its been said before, "if you arent pissed, you arent paying attention."

curtisfong
02-09-2011, 4:01 PM
By definition, the power of government (and the concentration of wealth and influence) always increases. Our founding fathers never had any illusions that they could stop (let alone reverse) this flow. The constitution was designed to slow it as much as possible.

How many laws are passed every year, at every level of government (local, state, federal)? How many are removed from the books?

SgtDinosaur
02-09-2011, 4:21 PM
By definition, the power of government (and the concentration of wealth and influence) always increases. Our founding fathers never had any illusions that they could stop (let alone reverse) this flow. The constitution was designed to slow it as much as possible.

How many laws are passed every year, at every level of government (local, state, federal)? How many are removed from the books?

I agree with this. Trillions of dollars have been stolen from taxpayers over the past 10 years. It has nothing to do with political parties. The ruling class (not necessarily politicians) continues to enrich itself and seize power. No good can come of this. We are headed down the road to totalitarianism and it will take a lot to change it. In a way, I think the Egyptians have the right idea. All the people I used to think were tinfoil hat nutcases are looking more right every day. I do not blame President Obama, either.

PatriotnMore
02-09-2011, 4:32 PM
The purity of our courts at the highest levels will be a large determining factor, IMO, on whether our Constitutional rights and freedoms increase, or decrease. The larger factor is the public taking up the responsibility of becoming and staying politically active, and placing the right candidates in office who are committed to Constitutional governance, and removing from office those who are a danger to our freedoms.

forgiven
02-09-2011, 4:34 PM
Decreasing :(

Window_Seat
02-09-2011, 4:36 PM
I said decreasing because 2nd Amendment rights isn't the only issue. With all the handouts, entitlements and with the possibility looming on the front that BHO could be re-elected a second term, our SCOTUS 5 could very easily become "theirs", and that could spell certain disaster for the well being of our freedom. And in the case we get a majority of so called pro COTUS in the Senate, doesn't mean that they won't confirm radical Justices.

The people do not vote based on how the make-up of the Supreme Court, and other federal benches is determined, and that's one of the biggest problems. The Congress can pass flatulence all day, but it's the SCOTUS that really determines the quality of life (and freedom).

Erik.

yellowfin
02-09-2011, 5:42 PM
We're accomplishing nothing by not rigorously pursuing an effort to axe the Wickard, Slaughterhouse, and Carolene decisions, among others. Without economic rights and limited scope of government that MUST play by the rules without exception it's all a moot discussion at best. All I hear is hollow squawk, squawk, squawk that means little and does next to nothing.

kcbrown
02-09-2011, 5:52 PM
By definition, the power of government (and the concentration of wealth and influence) always increases. Our founding fathers never had any illusions that they could stop (let alone reverse) this flow. The constitution was designed to slow it as much as possible.


They failed massively on that front.

Combined with a prohibition against any legislative body at any level of government delegating its authority in any way, a clause in the Constitution requiring that every law at every level of government have a maximum duration of something like 4 years, that every law can have no more than some maximum number (again specified in the Constitution) of words in it, and that every word used in a law must exist in the most popular dictionary at the time the law was originally passed, would have effectively eliminated the gradual encroachment.

A direct prohibition on the passage of laws that are contrary to the Constitution is also needed.

Oh, and actual consequences, as specified in the Constitution, for violation of the Constitution. Which is to say, if anyone, including a member of Congress, does something that violates the Constitution, he gets his *ss tossed in jail for a long time.


Oh, yeah: and a final check against the Supreme Court: if SCOTUS declares a law Constitutional, make it possible for the people to vote otherwise, with a relatively low threshold (say, 33%, because rights are rights even if only a minority believe in them). If the people decide that a law is Unconstitutional even if SCOTUS says it is, the law is null and void and those members of SCOTUS who declared the law Constitutional are guilty of violating the Constitution (and thus, get their *sses thrown in jail).


The Constitution needs real teeth. Right now it has none.

inbox485
02-09-2011, 6:20 PM
The biggest constitutional failure is the courts. They do as they please with immunity, and as a collective they disgust me.

curtisfong
02-09-2011, 6:27 PM
kcbrown: I agree with your assessment.

However, I don't think the Constitution would have been ratified had it had that many wonderful sharp teeth :)

Not to mention that if it did, I have the feeling it would have been amended several times to neuter it by now..

kcbrown
02-09-2011, 6:43 PM
kcbrown: I agree with your assessment.

However, I don't think the Constitution would have been ratified had it had that many wonderful sharp teeth :)


That's possible. :(



Not to mention that if it did, I have the feeling it would have been amended several times to neuter it by now..

That is also possible, but I should note that it's very hard to amend the Constitution.

Also, I should note that some things are so important that they should not be subject to amendment. The teeth I described could probably count as part of that, and therefore be part of an "unamendable" section of the Constitution. The bit of language that specifies the parts of the Constitution that are unamendable would, of course, have to specify itself as well. :D

Barabas
02-09-2011, 6:56 PM
I'm excited because people seem to be more aware that there have been steady infringements of our civil rights as our legislators have attempted to make their marks on history. As a result we're getting heard cases that wouldn't have been heard just a generation ago. I'm really looking forward to a solid 14th case. It has the potential to "reset" us back on the path we deviated from without the violent revolution so many armchair revolutionaries are dreaming of.

Once we open source the USC, add civil liability to bad lawmaking, adopt a flat tax, and repeal the proposition system in California, we'll start seeing some sensible small government and get back to a proper representative republic.

JJ_
02-09-2011, 7:24 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned Wednesday that the threat of terrorism against the United States was in some ways "at its most heightened state" since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

"The threat continues to evolve and in some ways the threat today may be at its most heightened state since the attacks nearly 10 years ago," Napolitano told the U.S. House of Representatives' Homeland Security Committee.


Yes and the sky is falling said chicken little….Every time the provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire they make the same claims in one way shape or fashion. Scare the masses with the Commies Terrorists are coming.

diginit
02-09-2011, 7:28 PM
Unfortunately, I see what is happening in Egypt, Happening here in the near future. Millions of True Americans speaking out against our government and demanding reform. Our government knows this and that is why they want to ban guns. Just like England and Australia's government knew...Our forefathers saw this coming.