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.

 

Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US

page: 25
23
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Oceanborn
 


Manufactured by whom? If a person wants to learn about something, they will go learn about it and research it wont they?

Parents use schools as daycare, and are increeasingly pushing to get shools to be substitute parents as well. If we know these are problems, why havent people come together to fix them? If people dont know what their rights are, how they work, how government works, how can we fix it?

A lot of people oin this sight bash the government, make the claims, post the info, and thats where it stops. We have the governments playbook, the Constitution, and yet we refuse to use it to make the needed changes to government.


Isn't this confusion manufactured by the government (among others)?You brought up the 2 party system and i gave you an example with it,didn't you read my whole post?By distracting and dividing the people,don't they create a confusion?

Parents use schools as daycare because,in most families,both parents have to work. (this is a whole issue on its own but i wont go further since you don't answer my questions and you don't comment on the points i make)

What you're trying to do here is to make me go in circles.I've allready explained why the people react they way they do and you didn't even bother to agree or dissagree with what i've said.You're only proving me right about you defending the government while putting 100% of the blame on the people.

You haven't really replied to my previous post.




posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by mal1970
 


Because the Supreme Court in earlier rulings left the regulation of weapons to the states and their laws. The government banning a fully automaic AR-15 does not infringe on your right to own / possess a weapon. If the fully auto AR-15 were the only weapon, then it would infring on that right. Since alternatives exist, it doesnt not violate it.

Do you think it should allow it?



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Oceanborn
 


Im sorry you feel that way, but I did in fact answer your questions.

2 party system - Confusion? I guess if we include people who are not able to think for themselves. If we look at political ads, speeches, etc that they put out, we can see no one is being forced to read watch or listen to them. We have the ability to form new parties, yet we stick with the status quo. Why have the people not forced the issue in order to get campaign finance, truth in political ads, require politicians to support their claims with the source they got it from.

Is the Government not the people? Our Government does not elect itself does it?

The school issue is a topic all on its own, as well as fitting into this thread, but it is part of the problem. Using the excuse of the parents work is a cop out and nothing more. The schools didnt have the children, the parents did. The parents are responsibile for their kids education, and that includes being active in their kids life as well as being involved in the school itself to ensure their kids are getting the best education they can to prepare them for life. Since you dont wish to discuss it, Ill stop here.

As far as reading your posts in their entirety I have. Whats apparent though is you have not read my posts, and that is evident by stating im defending the government, which I am not doing.

Your view, from what im getting out of your post, is that the Government is to blame for the issues we have and for the people being unable to think on their own - that the government confuses them.

My point is the government answers to the people. The people should take the time to learn how it works and take active participation in it, instead of bitching all the time and doing nothing. If a candidate makes a claim, and a person takes that claim at face value without doing their homework, whose fault is that?

As I said, the government doesnt elect itself, the people do. Call it what you want - confusion, apathy, anger, happiness, it all comes back to the starting point - The People.

So because the government confuses people, we can use that as an excuse for the mess we are in? If people dont get with the picture, we can have this exact same conversation over and over and over for decades to come. I say we are done with talking, and should take action, which means education, participation and follow through on the people elected to office.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by mal1970
 


Because the Supreme Court in earlier rulings left the regulation of weapons to the states and their laws. The government banning a fully automaic AR-15 does not infringe on your right to own / possess a weapon. If the fully auto AR-15 were the only weapon, then it would infring on that right. Since alternatives exist, it doesnt not violate it.



to infringe: from Latin - infringere - to break, to weaken.
ANY restriction or weakening by the Fed Gov of my right to keep & bear arms is an infringement. My right has been weakened unlawfully & in violation of the supreme law of the land.

to question: to challenge or dispute, to cast doubt upon
Any challenge or dispute by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to my right to bear arms has been forbidden by it's own Constitution.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
Do you think it should allow it?


No, they should not 'allow' it because I ALREADY HAVE that right. Both the Fed 2nd Amendment & Art1Sec21 of my State Con simply state that the Fed Gov & my State Gov respectively do not have the power or authority to restrict, trespass upon, hinder or even question that right. Period. It is other color-of-law statues that violate these superior laws that restrict my ability to do so.


Edit to add:

So, by your logic, if all arms were banned except the sigle-shot .22LR Cricket, then my right to keep & bear arms has not been infringed or questioned?
edit on 2011/10/17 by mal1970 because: addendum


Edit to further add:

Now, to use your own logic against you, you have stated that protestors blocking a street are violating others right to travel. But, by your reasoning, if they have an alternate means of reaching that destination, then no one's rights are being violated. So, next time protestors close down a street, tough crap. Turn around & find another way. The only time protestors would be in the wrong is if that street is the *only* way to go from point A to point B. Correct?

So then turning airports into constitution free zones & molestation stations is perfectly fine, as you don't have to fly, you can drive, walk, take a horse, etc. So this logic would hold true for picketers clogging up 4th St. Take 5th St instead & let the protestors alone.
edit on 2011/10/17 by mal1970 because: further addendum



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You haven't answered any of my questions.The only thing you typed and was relevant to my post was the question "Manufactured by whom?".After that you skipped my post completely.

Question No1:
"I agree that lots of times people complain,shout and protest without even knowing what they really want or what they really fight but do you deny that their confusion is manufactured?"

Question No2:
"You mentioned the 2 party system.Are they not the very same thing?"

Question No3:
"Sure,most of the times they say different things but what are the results they both bring when they govern?Aren't those results the same?"

Question No4:
"If what i have allready wrote isn't enough for you,then what about the educational system?Does it help children to grow as critical thinking human beings or to grow as robots with automated actions,reactions and way of thinking?"

Question No5:
"Do they help em become vital and energetic citizens of the society or just to become a part of the current system and roll with it?"

Question No6:
"Well,aren't the people a product of our society?"

Question No7:
"Aren't the people a product of the educational system?"


These were my questions,you said you answered them.Please quote your answers.


A reminder: In my first post in this thread (page 19) i did say the people are to be blamed too but should they be blamed fully?Hell to the no.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
My direction was to point out that the people stating their rights were being aken away, couldnt adequately explain what their rights are. If they dont know, then how can they make the claim?


Freedom is a privilege?

You must prove yourself competent to deserve rights?



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Life liberty and the pruist of happiness is not a right, yet people invoke it.


Woah, wait, what?!

Life is not a right? Liberty is not a right? I think you are missing a major point here. These 'non-rights' are natural rights, endowed upon us by our Creator, inherent in all mankind. They are so fundamental as to not need to be mentioned or enumerated & they are certainly beyond questioning. I can see now why you *think* traveling in any method one chooses is not a right. It is, of course, falling under Liberty, but i can see your argument against it with your... umm, belief structure. You call upon all these statues, the fallacy of case law, & your LE background, but you fail to grasp the basic rights of just being a human in God's image.

Wow, just... wow. That clears things up for me.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Well, The Patriot Act would be the most obvious. We've been losing rights for almost 100 years.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
A whole lot went down the can with the patriot and victory acts.

www.scn.org...

irregulartimes.com...

But I guess if you play ball and are obedient you wont notice that.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Check your facts again Mr.Shill. It was presented to congress prior to Ist Trade Center Bombing. It failed to get the votes. But after.... well we all know the outcome. And we as individuals cannot do anything about repealing the patriot act. Plain & simple. It aint on the ballot.

Saying it does not take rights away is silly.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Why don't YOU explain to ALL OF US how are rights are NOT being violated. We all wait with baited breath for your reply. I agree with the others, your either Gov employed, a shill for an agenda. Or just a troll . We wait for your explanation as to why our rights arent being taken away....The floor is yours sir.

Seeing how you have 258 threads & 7,705 posts on ATS & you have been a member for 1 year 7 months. You average about 13.5 posts a day . Which is 1 per hour during waking hours. Which tells me you are either a Government Employee, or a Paid Shill. In my opinion, your just sad..... No more replies from me. Mr.Shill.


edit on 17-10-2011 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by gwydionblack
 


Actually there are no rightts violations contained in that.

Congress is the body that can decalre a war, so says the Constitution. Please point out in the Constitution where it states Congress must use the term declare war?

The TSA is not a law enforcement agency, and is governed under a different set of requirements in that regard.
There is no 4th amendment violation because the 4th amendment only applies to the government.
There is no 4th amendment violation because the security procedures are voluntary and not forced.
A person is guaranteed the right to travel within a state and across state lines. The manner of that transportation is not a guaranteed individual right. You can fly, walk, drive, crawl, roll, take a cab, have a friend drive etc etc etc.

That is not an individual right.

The remaining bulk are not guaranteed individual rights. They fall under the operation of the FEderal Government.


edit on 15-10-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


HEY you are RIGHT!! That's exactly how Hitler used the Gestapo to get past the German constitution!
Wow people- stop complaining! You haven't lost any rights at all!



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Easy answer here . . .


I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


--Laws are constantly made to prohibit the free exercise of religion.


This is an interesting topic for discussion and JPZ would better suited to answer; but the basics of it would be:

If Government has been restricted and is prohibited from the free exercise thereof, why do we require permission from the IRS to proclaim our faith in regards to tax purposes. Maybe Jean Paul could expand that for me. I know him and I have discussed that very issue.




or abridging the freedom of speech


--You can only have freedom of speech when they let you. And it can't be to provoke people into action either. Oh, and freedom of speech has consequences.



My question is who is "they"? The Sedition Acts where a blight upon our young nation. It was that type of act via the Government that the First Amendment was written to prevent; dissenting Government is to never be restricted. Even though we all know politicians and Government have found creative measure on doing so. Say what you will about Citizen United and their case, they effectively shattered the modern day equivalent of the Sedition Acts when they won their Supreme Court case.




or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


--Only if you get a permit, and stay within this certain little area.


I agree and disagree. This has been applied narrowly to large protests that would have the possibility to disrupt other citizen's rights such as; travel, their peaceful assembly, etc. This is though a State or Municipality issue and not that of Congress (in which the First Amendment is directly aimed toward). Typically these situations are looked at on a case by case issue.




II. 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.


--Firearm licenses, permits, registrations, confiscations, and outright banning across the country.


Can you list the areas where outright banning is in effect?
I do though agree that the Second Amendment is the cream of the crop. That is the reason it is constantly highlighted and attacked. If we do have any tangible Right, it is self-preservation and self-defense.




IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--OMG . . . really. Where to start. But it is all for our safety. mmhmm


Again, these types of cases when taken up at the Supreme Court level are highly narrow and very specific. Otherwise (unless there is a glitch in the Matrix) they toss out cases in which Governments have applied it without diligence and inconsistently.




The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


--Look at all the Federal laws and bureaucracy. Nuff said.


Fear not, the current crop of SCOTUS have been making it clear that Individual freedoms are to be cherished and protected.



Just because rights have not been acknowledged for a long time does not mean that they don't exist. That is just an excuse for the people in power to retain that power.

Those are rights, and they will be returned sooner or later, one way or the other.


The rights have never been taken away. No Government can take away what is a Right. They can take away Civil liberties; hence the long road to change the National dialouge to be about "civil liberties" and not "rights".



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





If Government has been restricted and is prohibited from the free exercise thereof, why do we require permission from the IRS to proclaim our faith in regards to tax purposes. Maybe Jean Paul could expand that for me. I know him and I have discussed that very issue.


"Voluntary" application for "tax exempt status". This volunteering for "tax exemption" becomes a contract and the terms of that contract include the voluntary waiver of certain rights.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 




Individual rights are my rights to do WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT if you want to get technical. You sound like you believe rights are given to us by government, but that is wrong. Rights are inherent in us from birth, not because someone says they are, but because they simply are. When an entity seeks to regulate, control, or take away those birth given "rights" then they are "taking them away" and we are "losing" them.


Actually, some rights are granted to us. "Rights" are generally classified as inalienable (by birth) and civil rights (by law).

Just sayin'.
edit on 17-10-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
"Voluntary" application for "tax exempt status". This volunteering for "tax exemption" becomes a contract and the terms of that contract include the voluntary waiver of certain rights.


But is obtaining "tax exempt" status an abridgement of the free exercise clause? It is of my opinion that the convoluted mess that we consider our tax code creates an unnecessary question.

501c(3), the tax exemption that a large swath of religious organizations structure themselves voluntarily under have given consent to the Federal Government to regulate and change their First Amendment protections.

Though this leads to a question of importance. If the body voluntarily consents to the rules laid out in 501c(3) and the restrictions that come along with it, can Government restrict their First Amendment privileges?



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





Though this leads to a question of importance. If the body voluntarily consents to the rules laid out in 501c(3) and the restrictions that come along with it, can Government restrict their First Amendment privileges?


It is the People who hold the inherent political power, and I can think of no stronger evidence of this than in the voluntary surrender of rights. If a church wants to keep their tax exempt status then they must abide by the rules of the country club they joined, and the First Amendment has no audience within this club.

Why a church, in light of the First Amendment, need "tax exempt status" to begin with, I think is the real question.



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is the People who hold the inherent political power, and I can think of no stronger evidence of this than in the voluntary surrender of rights. If a church wants to keep their tax exempt status then they must abide by the rules of the country club they joined, and the First Amendment has no audience within this club.

Why a church, in light of the First Amendment, need "tax exempt status" to begin with, I think is the real question.


Indeed that is the real question. Depending on who/what you read we can formulate a ton of speculation on why 501c(3) was ever created or introduced.

Some say it was to place all religious institutions under the thumb of the Government by feeding these organizations a carrot. By getting groups to voluntarily place themselves into this compact, the Government can effectively reduce and confine the influence of clergy, priests, pastors, etc from engaging their congregations on the topics and issues of the day.

It could be part of a larger plan to continue the divide and conquer strategies that pit those who engage in religious activities via organizations that are under a 501c(3) and those who pay their taxes. This is evident in pockets of conversations that I have come across. The typical question/complaint being "Separation of church and state, yet Churches are exempt from taxes?"

That question of course could easily be quelled by a logical person that explains they should be happy that the religious organization has structured under that exemption! They are limiting their political activities and voluntarily revoking their First Amendment rights to redress the Government via the organization!

Either way, it leads to more and more questions, which is one of the underlying issues I believe it was meant to create. Just law and legislation are transparent. When it takes an army of "tax" professionals to even come close to understanding the convoluted code, it is evident it is down right nefarious in nature and serves nothing except to feed the beast.



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Lousianians can't sell used items to anyone with cash
Californians can't have more than 10 bullets on hand
Colorado can't collect the water off their own roof
Tenesee cops stop people and take their cash without charging them
Most states you cannot buy raw milk
Local zoning has stacks of incredulous restrictions, like no hanging laundry outside, no camping on your property
The list is big these are just the headlines research yourself



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 





Either way, it leads to more and more questions, which is one of the underlying issues I believe it was meant to create. Just law and legislation are transparent. When it takes an army of "tax" professionals to even come close to understanding the convoluted code, it is evident it is down right nefarious in nature and serves nothing except to feed the beast.


There are not only "specialized" tax attorneys to "explain" the five volume set of codes from the Internal Revenue Code, there are tax accountants! Cottage industries have sprung up because of this odious tax, and if that isn't a clue to its dubious nature, then I just don' know what clues are.

If legislation cannot be understood by someone with an average or better intelligence then the legislation is deeply flawed. A person cannot be lawfully subjected to legislation they do not even understand.

Post Script:

While we're on the subject of this so called "Personal Income Tax", another question that might be asked is does Congress - who undeniably has the complete and plenary power of taxation - have the power to tax a right. Is not earning an income a fundamental right?






edit on 18-10-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join