posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 02:14 AM
There is always talk here of our government and how corrupt it is. And in that conversation there is always talk of how our forefathers created a
system of redress, that our Constitution is meant to limit the size and scope of government to something manageable that acts on behalf of the people.
And at the end of that conversation is the uneasy silence when no one wants to be the one to point out that nothing is working the way it is supposed
When the Constitution was written the general population had basically the same weapons as the government. It was assumed that people would develop
better weapons as time passed. It was also assumed that regardless of the passage of time the general population would be able to throw down against
tyranny, foreign or domestic, if need be. It was our right. The Constitution said so.
So why did the people sworn to uphold the Constitution, our elected officials, undermine our most basic and necessary rights? And why did we let it
I think its time we face the facts: We do not have the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
You say we have the right to redress? Look what it took just to get the government to admit the existence of Area 51. And when they finally admitted
the place existed, the surrounded it with signs that openly stated they will violate your civil rights, by killing you, with no warrant, no arrest, no
trial, nothing. Just because they can. You have the right to life? Not if you cross this line in the sand... Where is “that” in the
Lets say the worst nightmare of many Americans happens and some socialist, fascist pig-dog gets elected POTUS. The first thing they do is write an EO
demanding the immediate confiscation of all firearms until each individual proves they are worthy of the right to own one. (I chose those words
carefully so plan your arguments accordingly) The first argument, of course, is that our right to own firearms has been violated. The response will be
that they have not denied anyone the right to own firearms. They just want to make sure you meet the proper qualifications first. And we ask, “What
qualifications are those?” And they respond, “We will let you know...”
And that is the game government plays. You want to protest a POTUS having a rally in your city? You have every right to do so – at the designated
protest point – five miles from where the POTUS is, inside a chain link enclosure, surrounded by armed guards. But you have your right to protest so
you cant complain. So we make the logical argument, “Having the right to protest implies that the object of the protest will listen to what we have
to say. In example, what good is it to have the right to defend yourself in court if the judge refuses to listen to you? Having the right to speak is
meaningless if the appropriate officials refuse to listen. I have to believe our founding fathers assumed that the free speech they fought so hard for
would be heard by those that need to hear it. If not, what was the point? We have the right to speak in a vacuum so nothing we say will ever be heard?
What kind of right is that?
We are accepting far too many ridiculous and disenfranchising interpretations of our Constitution and our rights therein. The problem is that we have
let it go on for so long that there is literally no way we will ever get it all back. We can't fight it. The logical argument is posse comitatus. We
should be able to fight the politicians run amok without having to worry about military intervention. However, that does not apply to A) the UN troops
that will land on our shores the moment they are needed, and B) the heavily militarised state and local forces.
So the question is this: has it gone too far to ever get it back? Is there still a way for the common man, the general population, to fight against
tyrants, domestic or foreign? Will the government ever be of, by, and for the people as it was intended?