There needs to be more Ron Paul's, Peter Schiffs, and John F. Kennedy's in this country. JFK was the last REAL president.





People who break the laws of the constitution, whether LEO, or government or official should be treated as treason to the country, PERIOD. Which would mean our current government would disappear (not a bad thing) and capitalism can grow instead of economic socialism. General Motors = Government Made.

I again repeat, there are laws that were written that have CLEAR specific guidelines that the government/special interest have been pushing and have been making blocks around. Anything that disturbs these 10 rights should be thrown out. Anything or any new law that does tries to go around like "bear arms, but only separated/unloaded" should be thrown out. Anything period against/around these laws that were "cemented" by people who laid the ground skeletons of rules should be tried for treason. All these topics are all related to breaking our civil rights and undermining the constitution.

 

thats a little extreme

iLoqin

you are riding your anti-police horse a little hard arent ya, eventually you gotta give it a rest or it will die or someone will come out and shoot it

i find that people who have the hardest time with police authority are either hippies or people who cant seem to not break the law... which one are you?

 

I am Pro-America. I believe in the constitution and I believe in the citizens and I take pride that it is the citizens's job to push the information when other peoples judgments are too clouded with the media and propaganda. This isn't your perspective versus mine. This isn't schemas or personality differences. This is plain written law. I'm not anti-cop or anti-police. I am pro civil rights. I might be in the minority, but the information should be announced. It should be discussed, cuz it seems that people think there is a gray area when there really isn't. It's very simple. There are laws, you obey them, don't make a rule around them. Period.

 

i agree with you, but laws are not black and white. laws were written to be interpreted by the supreme court, those interpretations change with the times. the constitution states some things clearly and other things not so clearly. it also says that individual states have rights to grant more protections to its citizens but not take away the basics.

 

That is correct, at one point separate but equal was legal, and now it isn't. That is probably the easiest and most classic way to explain changing times. The gun laws I'm still confused about. A right to bear arms is a right to bear arms, but we can't bear arms without ammo? It doesn't say that in there... that's just a law that in my opinion is around the 2nd amendment. Sure you have your firearm... but what's a firearm without ammo in it?

 

1) 2) 3) 4) I assume that point 1 is a reference to the first ten amendments to the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. The first amendment states: "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."

Based on the definitions of press and (mass) media listed in points 3 and 4 one can deduce that they are similar if not synonymous. In daily conversation the two terms can easily be interchanged.

Point 1 makes it very clear that the Bill of Rights should be respected and observed absolutely without equivocation. In point 2 the media (the press) is compared to propaganda and is discredited. A law to respect the freedom of the press but a meme to disregard what it has to say?