It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Declare unto me the non-sham of the U.S.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Look into these five things listed:

1. The Democrats.
2. The Republicans.
3. The Federal Government.
4. The State Government.
5. The U.S. Constitution.


The constitution is just a peice of paper not being followed by both federal and state government. The federal and state government are in the same bed together. Nobody is fooling nobody. The democrats and republicans have grown to be nothing but one in the same.

There is not a single state in the U.S. of A. today that's upholding and abiding to the U.S. Constitution. Not one! Just ask ex-felons and the mentally ill that can't exercise the right to bare arms. The U.S. Constitution, which the whole USA is not following, doesn't state anywhere to exclude ex-felons or the mentally ill from the right to bare arms, but yet the state which aren't constitutional aren't constitutional. There is no way the slice it. Either a state is sticking to the U.S. constitution 100%, or a state is not at all. There is no acception for even sticking to it 99.99%. And since it is not at all, the U.S. constitution is just a peice of paper already in the trash can.

I'd like to thank our fellow ex-felons and our fellow mental ill for just so happening to be what definitely exposes the entire country's united-ness under a constitution as one big river of a shamful sham.

Congratulation, U.S. of A. Your glory card has been revoked. Who can declare unto me the non-sham of the U.S? I'd really like to see you so much as try to.

If any of you truely like the U.S. Constitution, then I take it it is only because you are no ex-felon or are no declared mental ill person. Let the government come true for a change and tell it that certain of these ex-felons didn't even do the crime to begin with and certain of the declared mental ill are not actually mental ill. But certain people don't care about what's going on in the real world where there is government abuse of power and government frame ups. And never get it twisted, I'm not an ex-felon nor mental ill. I look out for such kinds like how I look out for minors which should be given priviledge to things based on ability and capablity. Like the Godsmack song goes, "Never misunderstand me!"

Sincere message to the reader that can understand:

Don't be fooled any longer. Wake the hell up and do something already! He who have an ear to hear, let him hear.


[edit on 1-4-2010 by Tormentations]




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Is that to say you've been convicted of a felony or found mentally unstable and are now spouting off about being precluded from "rights" afforded by the constitution?

perhaps, check with your state ... of mind.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Interesting take on things. I agree with you that the constitution is in the trash and the Reps and Dems are one in the same.

But you can't use the ex-felons/metally ill as an argument to why the constitution is illegitimate. I mean if you wanna be technical, You have a right to bear arms. Arms can be anything from a knife to a nuke. So everyone should have access to an extremely dangerous weapon? No. There are restrictions on the whole right to bear arms thing, and rightly so. Exactly why a felon can't carry a weapon.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
An ex-felon convicted of having the slightest bit of violent tendencies, and anyone with a mental condition of which has been determined an impairment to proper mental judgment SHOULD be restricted from owning a device that has the potential to severely injure or kill another human being. That is common sense, and one would have to be out of their mind to disagree with this.


[edit on 1-4-2010 by SunIsSon]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunIsSon
An ex-felon, and anyone with a mental condition of which has been determined an impairment to proper mental judgment SHOULD be restricted from owning a device that has the potential to severely injure or kill another human being. That is common sense, and one would have to be out of their mind to disagree with this.


Like I said, the OP couldve used something a little more concrete to frame his argument, rather than felons and unstable people.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunIsSon
An ex-felon, and anyone with a mental condition of which has been determined an impairment to proper mental judgment SHOULD be restricted from owning a device that has the potential to severely injure or kill another human being. That is common sense, and one would have to be out of their mind to disagree with this.


That's all dandy to say. But what about those defrauded against into then becoming ex-felons or mental ill? So not all mental ill declared people are actually impaired at all. You're making it easy for the gov to abuse its power over people by not letting the constitution fly 100% with any man.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Tormentations]

Plus, why does the government fear ex-felons coming in possession and ownership of guns for?


[edit on 1-4-2010 by Tormentations]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Tormentations
 


OK. So lets not judge any one to be mentally ill or a criminal just to be safe since the government likes to classify people's in these categories just so they can't own a gun?

EDIT: Added to go against your edit. Are you joking? Please tell me you are.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Portugoal]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Portugoal
reply to post by Tormentations
 


OK. So lets not judge any one to be mentally ill or a criminal just to be safe since the government likes to classify people's in these categories just so they can't own a gun?

EDIT: Added to go against your edit. Are you joking? Please tell me you are.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Portugoal]


Well, the non-impaired ability to handle a gun should be seperate from whether or not someone is declared mantal ill. There are some people who go for being declared mental ill just to get state benefits that provide cash and a place to stay such as a group home. They are not impaired actually. This is why I say what I say that people should be seperately determined on whether or not they are too impaired to own and handle a firearms. That's common sense right there. The stuff going on now is not common sense.



[edit on 1-4-2010 by Tormentations]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Tormentations
 


Here is the Second Amendment on The Right to Bear Arms:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It states a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. Meaning they can make laws limiting the rights of the mentally ill or convicted felons from carrying firearms.

I also want to state I support the right of everyone to bear arms and have done so in the past myself.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Tormentations
 


Here is the Second Amendment on The Right to Bear Arms:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It states a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. Meaning they can make laws limiting the rights of the mentally ill or convicted felons from carrying firearms.

I also want to state I support the right of everyone to bear arms and have done so in the past myself.


Agreed. In the olden days you were expected to keep gun, powder, and shot handy in case the govenor needed you to go shoot some Indians. The 'well regulated milita' is a debatable subject, as the original militas were more or less co-opted into what is now the US National Guard and Reserves.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Tormentations
 


Have the people you said were poisoning you with radioactive dust been charged with any crimes yet?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You said your face had acne, I mean boils, induced from radioactive poisoning. Do you remember? Do you think the people supposedly harming you in such a malicious manner should have access to any arms the desire? You said there are actually beasts, like in 'They Live,' among us. Should they access arms at will? Seriously, though, the topics you rant on pretty much have little to do with the constitution. The constitution is a political document in the real world.

Besides, stop trying to pose these almost provocative, incomprehensibly cloaked, posts using topics that the 'grown-ups' are discussing. Seriously, the constitution says that blacks were 3/5ths of a person, women unable to vote, and many other inanities that were the norm 230+ years ago.

Based on looking back at all of your numerous posts, they are a glaring example of an unsettling pattern. Seriously, what's up? I think the ATS community might be more receptive of you if you try to ground yourself and your posts. Try dealing more with the real world, and your personal story. It's possible you do have potential, but as it is now, I'm not sure most people are interpreting your attempts as anything more than noise.

Best,
Skunknuts

P.S. Didn't you recently state that some huge calamity was going to happen today (4/1) based on numbers and the bible, or something? Are you still sticking to that prediction?

[edit on 4/1/2010 by skunknuts]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join