Have we waited too long?

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 to.

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 happen?

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 Constitution?

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?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You guys are not fighting government, you guys are fighting each other...

Peace

The answer to your question is decided by the population, or a percentage of the population.
Your question is dependent on if the population wants to be controlled.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

While I don't necessarily disagree, really I am questioning whether its too late for the common man to fight back at all. We will always find a reason to fight each other. But we should at some point come together to fight our common foe as well.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

I have to believe that freedom is paramount. Yet I continually see people vote for politicians that openly state they will violate our rights every chance they get. Have we reached a point where the general population is willing to settle for domination because it is easier than fighting for freedom and having to take care of yourself?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: operation mindcrime

While I don't necessarily disagree, really I am questioning whether its too late for the common man to fight back at all. We will always find a reason to fight each other. But we should at some point come together to fight our common foe as well.

It's never to late to fight back.
At time the fight should have started earlier as we have seen through out history.
But it's never to late.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I really didn't want to grace your eloquent post with a one line post but it is all I could say about the situation.

It seems so obvious from an outside point of view that the middleground appears to be lost (If this really is the situation or just a warped perspective forced onto us by the media is hard to tell) but with you polarised political landscape you get a strong sense that it is either for us or against us and those who are against should have less rights...

Peace

Are you guys part of "A well regulated milita"?

Otherwise as I see the second amendment, you are not part of the people who have the right to bear arms.

As I see it there is already a "well regulated milita" which is the National Guard. As long as you have those, you have no direct right to bear arms as a private person not being a member of the National Guard.

Alexander Hamilton wrote 1788 "If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security." and "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it." Source

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: operation mindcrime

While I don't necessarily disagree, really I am questioning whether its too late for the common man to fight back at all. We will always find a reason to fight each other. But we should at some point come together to fight our common foe as well.

Doing that will have you labeled a terrorist and a nice comfy bed awaits you in gitmo, even peaceful protest is a risk at this point.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I suspect that when people would come together they would find there is no enemy to fight...

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Absolutely, people come together all the time, 20 000 or so will be here soon for falls festival, they're going to party hard and get #faced, I'm gonna join them.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Sounds like a blast!! Have fun...

Peace

a reply to: ManFromEurope

That is Hamilton's opinion and is one of several interpretations.

Most recently, SCOTUS has affirmed the right of the individual to keep arms for defense and only bans felons and mentally ill. Further attempts to put the genie back in the bottle by confiscation would not go well. Some states are now attempting to tax and limit ammunition but that hasn't yet reached the breaking point.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

It will be, cheers.

Priorities seem to be the issue, people for the most part are happy and don't want to protest, the people that do are not only a minority but dissenfranchised enough to never be any kind of threat to the status quo.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

It's okay that you don't understand our Constitution, since you're not an American.

As the Supreme Court of the United States sees the 2nd Amendment, it is the right of the individual to bear arms in the defense of yourself and your country, and against your country's government if necessary.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Vroomfondel

You guys are not fighting government, you guys are fighting each other...

Peace

And here is Jerry Springer throwing the chair into the fray ..... way to go man... a true champion among men

a reply to: ManFromEurope

A well regulated militia is made of citizens - the general population. It does not mean it must be a state regulated/controlled military force. The most important distinction between the two is that a militia is comprised of men using their own weapons - hence the right to bear arms. State and federal military organisations use state and federal weapons. We fully expect a state and federal military. The second amendment was intended to be a way for the general population to, if necessary, fight against the state and federal military. A militia can therefore not be a state or federal body.

Yes, it is too late. The fight over firearms isn't the defining issue. It has been far too late in that regard. The people wouldn't stand a chance today in a fight to overthrow a totalitarian regime that usurped the government. The key issue of the day was and still is, however, the internet. And we're letting that slip away as well. Think about how much more free and a place of expression the internet was even as recently as 2007. Now look at it today. It is a place of censorship, repression and corporate and government tyranny the world over.

I remember a time when you would be considered a complete fool to post any private information about yourself on the internet. Now that is all the internet has become -- a soul sucking machine designed to suck up your identity to use it against you. And we willingly and gleefully go along with this. And we hook our children up to it when they're still merely toddlers.

A good book recommendation on this matter is 'The Shallows' by Nicholas Carr. Even Barack Obama, of the Google Presidency, is now pleading with people to read this book as a warning about the state of society. We've allowed the internet to be corrupted by wicked forces, both in the private sector and the state. And now the internet is remaking us in its image. The internet is the new god. Only it resembles more of a devil.

Something we can do to combat this is to become more aware of and support the people who are still trying to fight this. People like the internet's original creator, Tim Berners-Lee, who has seen the evil his creation has become and is building a new, decentralized internet - Solid Inrupt - to give the internet back to humanity and take it out of the hands that seek to use it as a weapon against us.

This is what we need to do. Not stockpiling weapons and bugging out in the mountains like a loon. That is precisely the response these types would want you to have. That would be checkmate. This is the 21st century. It is time to start fighting back using 21st century means of warfare. And it wouldn't even cost us a single bullet nor an ounce of blood. Merely mindfulness and a desire to be free.

When the Constitution was ratified the only Americans who could participate in government (i.e. vote) were property owning White free men 21 years of age or older.

Many folks would be surprised by this. More might be surprised with what John Adams had to say about the situation:

Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open So fruitfull a Source of Controversy and Altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the Qualifications of Voters. There will be no End of it. New Claims will arise. Women will demand a Vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their Rights not enough attended to, and every Man, who has not a Farthing, will demand an equal Voice with any other in all Acts of State. It tends to confound and destroy all Distinctions, and prostrate all Ranks, to one common Levell.

Letter from John Adams to James Sullivan 1776

Yep. That’s right. Adams wrote that letter in 1776 a few weeks before he and Jefferson and Franklin sat down to work on the Declaration of Independence.

He was not alone. There has ALWAYS been an authoritarian side of American politics. Adams, Hamilton even Washington very much felt that all men were created equal ... just not too equal. Jefferson and Madison stood against this trend. as we know which resulted in our Constitution being structured to protect the rights of all ... but at the core of it all is a moneyed-class based system that is still in power. Non property owners couldn’t vote until the 1870s.

And the concept of one person one vote? 1964. 55 years ago.

We hear the same arguments today, when push comes to shove. The ONLY way we are going to keep the rights we have such as they are is to continue to fight for them both as individuals as as groups every single day. Don’t ever fall complacent to believe that there is any other way.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Vroomfondel

You guys are not fighting government, you guys are fighting each other...

Peace

Until someone like Warren is elected President.

Her idea to fund Medicare for All, is to tax not just your income, but everything you own.

If you think her taxation will be just for the "rich", think again. In Europe, it began with just the rich, who soon were tapped out and now it is the middle class who is grossly overtaxed to pay for "free" healthcare, and "free" University. (between income tax / sales (VAT) tax of avg 25% / gas tax avg $3 gallon / TV tax / and other taxes) The average European with all taxes combined "gives" (is forced to give) the government 70% of their entire income.

Think revolution, think tea party, think he-double-toothpicks, YES, middle American flyover joe/jane will revolt. Especially once they realize that medicare is crap and they won't be allowed supplemental insurance or private insurance to cover the huge financial gap. Especially once they realize "free college" means only 10% will go to University (the US definition of college), the rest to trade schools, where like in Germany there is a mandatory 2 year "college for janitors".

Think Executive Order as the OP suggested, think EO putting legal penalties for hurting people's feelings (the biggest crime imaginable in the PC progressive liberal world).

There may come a day when the government that Warren and The Squad desperately want, will enrage and oppress and repress the flyover population who will most likely revolt.

The civil war, a real one is inevitable at this point, the hostility and polarization of values/morals, the polarization of political values have already resulted in a "cold war" of sorts. Over 600 people have been physically beaten for wearing a certain hat, have you heard even one liberal politician decry and try and stop this, no. The civil war has begun at the fist fight level.

Once things like this are overlooked by the government entirely because of who is in charge, the first "shot" will have been fired in a real revolution, and it will be progressive/liberal/left government against traditional constitutional conservatives.