To take what was written in the 1700s and apply it today is crazy

It is changing around you but only to be expected considering human nature. The Framers were well aware of the dangers of government becoming more authoritarian. Our nature does not change and neither do our rights.

 

Our rights certainly change. Or haven't you noticed?

 

No, our rights never change, they may be oppressed by government but they do not change.

 

I'm not worried of having to protect my country from invasion, or from my own government, I am from these crazy citizens and illegals who think they can break into my home or accost me, or my family when outside. By that time, you can't depend on the law to rush in and save you. So England and Scotland band guns and people started using knives. Now they have laws about knives. If a person wants to kill you, there are a million ways to do it.

 

Irrelevant.

Not sure why you should be concerned about that. The Constitution
forbids it so you're okay.

 

The U.S. Constitution may have barely changed, but state Constitutions change every year. Those governments should be changing and adapting constantly, but the federal government is meant do stay relatively the same. That's not too say it couldn't use more changes, mainly it's membership.

 

Well to be fair it needs to be expanded to.include the police, especially now that they are a military force.

 

Apparently, you're not familiar with the lack of voting rights originally bestowed by the Constitution. Or are you saying blacks and women always had those rights, but were denied them for all those years? I guess the founders weren't so brilliant after all.

But I'll disagree with you on rights not changing. The government giveth rights and the government taketh away rights. The right to marriage equality (equal treatment under the law) is one example. Is that a right that has been denied all these years, or is it a right that we're just beginning to recognize?

 

Laughing. You say that the Constitution is just a valid today as it originally was and I point out exactly how it isn't. And the best response you have is "irrelevant"? I submit that your claim is the irrelevant one.

 

You are just proving my point. The government cannot give rights but only oppress them. Marriage is only governed to apply special status to married people in the way of tax breaks and for married people to use the courts. Marriage through government is not marriage per se, but a contract with the government. Marriage existed before government.

 

There's a case on that actually. Plaintiff claimed that the police barging into their house to use it for surveillance violated their 3rd Amendment rights. I don't think it's gone to trial though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/07/anthony-mitchell-lawsuit-third-amendment-_n_3557431.html

I think there may be case-law saying the police are not military, but I would need to research that.

 

Laughing, too. Yes. It's just as relevant today. And your original post
is truly irrelevant.

Good try, though.

 

You clearly don't believe that "rights" exist at all. You think that you only have a series of privileges granted to you by your superiors. It is a sad and dehumanizing position to take but you do have the right to your opinion (even if you think that right is only a privilege at the end of the day).

 

The 2nd amendment is an insurance policy. The political reasoning behind it does not stop being valid simply because weaponry changes.

 

And from the "I hate liberty and freedom and the rights that keep government tyranny at bay because I like being a ward of the state and I like government telling me what I can and can not think, say, or do, because I surrender my free will, abilities, and gifts, to the state because I have not the imagination, the will, or the ambition to use them as I see fit" files we get this total surrender gem.

The conditions are exactly the same and the wisdom of the founders said these days would descend on us if we let down our guard.

 

I'm not aware that the police is a military force.

 

I don't understand why people think that way. Liberty is the most
important item we have in the USA. To think for a moment that we need
a government to treat us like children is preposterous.

The Constitution of the US is perfectly fine.

If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the
people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become
happy. Thomas Jefferson

 

I've heard. I'm sure our government will make an exception and say that police can simply take over your house against your will but it does defeat the purpose of the third.

 

Automatic weapons, body armor, chemical weapons, armored vehicles, helicopters, drones; they're making out better than most third world nations.

 

Things written in the 1700s just can't apply today.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

What silliness. How could any corrupt, dishonest, lying liberal possibly agree with something like that. They know that the self-proclaimed elitists are superior in every way.

Or, for really outrageous 18th century rhetoric try:
"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. "

Thank god Sen. Harry Reid is going to take care of that. Imagine someone thinking the government shouldn't control your speech, your religion or lack of religion, and shouldn't have total control of the press. And why should people want to assemble anyway.

Truly disgusting. Fortunately, we have visionaries among the liberals who will free us from this nonsense.

And what about those disgusting non-liberal folks who agree with John Adams, 18th century, that we are a nation of laws and not of men? Are the trying to deny the king the power to make laws with his pen? Are they wanting to deny his highness the ability to rule without Congress? What kind of animals are these.

 

If you have ever had someone try to take your life in earnest, you'd understand.

 

Isn't that a bit over the top for a parking fine?

 

Liberals want centralized government authoritarian control. They are Stalinist.

The freedoms and liberties protected by the Bill of Rights are an obstacle to the totalitarian rule they wish to apply.

 

So how is this whole "St; and against the government" thing supposed to work - I mean without starting a civil war

 

You reduce the size of government by reducing spending. It's that easy.