Europeans and The US Constitution

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by boymonkey74
 

I did. I also answered your question with information that took less than 1 second for google to locate. Our President is not a king, imperial ambitions of the last two occupants not withstanding. He cannot just change the law of the land at will. Unlike Europeans, correct me if I am wrong but I see no information to the contrary, we believe that our rights are not granted us by our government. Ultimate power and sovereignty resides not in the state, this includes our federal government, but in the people the citizens of our nation. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT! We have the right to overthrow our government should the necessity arise. THe second amendment ensures we have the power to enforce that right.


How ironic that as an American you don't know what the 2nd amendment is about or for. Here is what it says:

"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."

The security of a free state, what is that? One that is not conquered or subject to the whims of another. And a well-regulated militia is needed for this. What is a well-regulated militia? Who would doing the regulating? I'd imagine some level of government would. This government-regulated militia is going to be used to overthrow the government? I don't think so. But let's say you're right and that is what it means, well the Confederate states tried this once and failed. You really think a bunch of Rambo wannabe with a few guns -- and I'll even throw in assault rifles -- are going to be overthrow the US government and all of its military and surveillance forces? Get serious.

And really the 2nd Amendment is an artifact because we have no well-regulated militia of citizenry. The National Guar, since WWI, has been used for foreign military adventures and no longer functions to protect the homeland. During hurricane Katrina there weren't enough N.G. helicopters for rescue operations because they were mostly over in Iraq killing Iraqis in order to get oil contracts for petroleum multinationals.

So no, don't buy your big, bad patriotic 2nd Amendment claims.
edit on 17-12-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


the militia is to be a STATE one in case the central Federal government should be resisted or in extreme cases, over thrown.

The state troopers, law enforcement in general, national guard, ect, answer to state authorities, should they fail or fail to respond, the citizenry should have a regular maintained militia to be called upon in cases of extreme emergency. They are to be trained and supplied by the common citizenry (themselves). Meaning we have a RESPONSIBILITY to know how to use fire arms.

And that is secondary to us being able to own weapons.

EDIT:
did you know that the revolutionary war was fought with less than a third of the total population in support of it?

They also beat the best trained and equipped army of the time. The English crown sent wave after wave of the best trained and equipped troops in the world to quell the rebellion, even sending the best mercenary armies of the time (Hessians), but it wasn't enough.

I do not support a violent revolution, but get serious, if we wanted one in the US we would have it and it would not be "crushed" so easily. England was "unbeatable" yet some farmers and shop keepers beat them back into the ocean, SEVERAL TIMES, until they stopped coming back.

Also,
Europeans are more inclined to be willing subjects to the UN and her mandates. They are more supportive of any of its resolutions since the EU usually falls in line with what is practically the same leadership of the UN and EU.

Nationalism in any good sense (not extremism) has been destroyed. National identity in the EU has been obliterated. Euro skepticism (against the EU and in favor of national sovereignty) has been targeted and every nation in the union has lost its identity. The UK is losing itself to absurd multiculturalism and Islamic extremism faced with a lax law and a sort of favoritism towards outsiders. The rest of Europe is being devoured by eastern nations who are more ruthless and aggressive then their western cousins, and all the while the leadership carelessly watches.

They know that when the uncontrolled social tensions they generate will eventually lead to a hard core "European" identity when the people feel empty of their own. Every host nation will become a sort of powerless state and the union, which is a mirror reflection of the UN, will take hold.

You cannot argue our national identity with a people willingly suppressing and erasing their own.

edit on 17-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by boymonkey74
 

I did. I also answered your question with information that took less than 1 second for google to locate. Our President is not a king, imperial ambitions of the last two occupants not withstanding. He cannot just change the law of the land at will. Unlike Europeans, correct me if I am wrong but I see no information to the contrary, we believe that our rights are not granted us by our government. Ultimate power and sovereignty resides not in the state, this includes our federal government, but in the people the citizens of our nation. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT! We have the right to overthrow our government should the necessity arise. THe second amendment ensures we have the power to enforce that right.


How ironic that as an American you don't know what the 2nd amendment is about or for. Here is what it says:

"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."

The security of a free state, what is that? One that is not conquered or subject to the whims of another. And a well-regulated militia is needed for this. What is a well-regulated militia? Who would doing the regulating? I'd imagine some level of government would. This government-regulated militia is going to be used to overthrow the government? I don't think so. But let's say you're right and that is what it means, well the Confederate states tried this once and failed. You really think a bunch of Rambo wannabe with a few guns -- and I'll even throw in assault rifles -- are going to be overthrow the US government and all of its military and surveillance forces? Get serious.

And really the 2nd Amendment is an artifact because we have no well-regulated militia of citizenry. The National Guar, since WWI, has been used for foreign military adventures and no longer functions to protect the homeland. During hurricane Katrina there weren't enough N.G. helicopters for rescue operations because they were mostly over in Iraq killing Iraqis in order to get oil contracts for petroleum multinationals.

So no, don't buy your big, bad patriotic 2nd Amendment claims.
edit on 17-12-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)


I believe (although he didn't directly say it) that Darth was referring to where the Declaration of Independence says that "it is their duty, to throw off such Government". The second amendment is the just tool that the constitution creates to achieve this end if it's ever needed.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Not a topic i care about to be honest - it doesn't affect or concern me so i stay clear. However, i would like to point out that Europeans wrote your constitution...........



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


I am sorry to burst this little bubble but Britain had a pretty rubbish army at this time. It was small and not well equipped. Or particularly well trained.

We did, however, have the finest Navy going (by quite some distance).

This is one of the primary reasons that the British Empire was not based on military conquest and settlement. We simply didn't have an army strong enough to handle it.

I would also like to point out that at the time, the choice for Britain was defend the Caribbean or defend the Colonies (as they were called). As spices were the black gold of the day, Britain chose to defend the Caribbean and sent a hugely inferior force to the Colonies. It was one of those quirks of history.
edit on 17-12-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by boymonkey74
 

I did. I also answered your question with information that took less than 1 second for google to locate. Our President is not a king, imperial ambitions of the last two occupants not withstanding. He cannot just change the law of the land at will. Unlike Europeans, correct me if I am wrong but I see no information to the contrary, we believe that our rights are not granted us by our government. Ultimate power and sovereignty resides not in the state, this includes our federal government, but in the people the citizens of our nation. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT! We have the right to overthrow our government should the necessity arise. THe second amendment ensures we have the power to enforce that right.


You don't seem to have a clue about the history of the US Constitution.

Where did it come from? What are its source documents?

Ever heard of the Declaration of Rights in 1688? Ever heard of a little place called Runymede around AD1215?

The US Constitution is a "copy" of much older documents, and beliefs that rights are not transferable, they are not removable, and are sacred.

As you said "a little google search" proves that.

But then, as with so many egotists such as yourself, you forget that this world is full of people who also have an opinion and a curiosity about the world around them. Stop being so arrogant and rude. Learn something about history, and most of all learn about the Constitution, because it is not the document you think it is.

In fact you need to check out the MASSIVE landmark case that proves that ordinary citizens cannot rely upon the Constitution because "They are not signatories of that document"!!!! Do a little search, and you'll see that the reason the Government doesn't give a damn about our rights, is because we aren't considered to be signatories of that document.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by spangledbanner
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Ha!



Damn, I kinda wanted to argue. I agree that many commenting on the constitution from UK have no idea.


Oh, it's so sad.

Another "American" who wants to rule the world with the "Constituion", but has no idea about the Declaration of Rights of 1688, Magna Carta, and so on - all of which the Constitution is based on.

History seems to be the one thing that people forget to learn about. Instead it's a concentration on "look at me, look how great I am" - all the while standing on the shoulders of others without any real research or knowledge.

Welcome to the modern and enlightened world.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


EDIT:
did you know that the revolutionary war was fought with less than a third of the total population in support of it?

They also beat the best trained and equipped army of the time. The English crown sent wave after wave of the best trained and equipped troops in the world to quell the rebellion, even sending the best mercenary armies of the time (Hessians), but it wasn't enough.

I do not support a violent revolution, but get serious, if we wanted one in the US we would have it and it would not be "crushed" so easily. England was "unbeatable" yet some farmers and shop keepers beat them back into the ocean, SEVERAL TIMES, until they stopped coming back.

Also,
Europeans are more inclined to be willing subjects to the UN and her mandates. They are more supportive of any of its resolutions since the EU usually falls in line with what is practically the same leadership of the UN and EU.

Nationalism in any good sense (not extremism) has been destroyed. National identity in the EU has been obliterated. Euro skepticism (against the EU and in favor of national sovereignty) has been targeted and every nation in the union has lost its identity. The UK is losing itself to absurd multiculturalism and Islamic extremism faced with a lax law and a sort of favoritism towards outsiders. The rest of Europe is being devoured by eastern nations who are more ruthless and aggressive then their western cousins, and all the while the leadership carelessly watches.

They know that when the uncontrolled social tensions they generate will eventually lead to a hard core "European" identity when the people feel empty of their own. Every host nation will become a sort of powerless state and the union, which is a mirror reflection of the UN, will take hold.

You cannot argue our national identity with a people willingly suppressing and erasing their own.



You clearly have little understanding of the history of the Americas, or the British, or the Europeans.

Revisionist history is what is leading us all to a big fall.

The British did not send "wave after wave" of the best trained and equipped troops. In fact, what would be a good starting point find a copy of the Treaty of Paris, and have a read. It's a very important document that the Crown signed with the Colonies at the end of the so-called Revolutionary War... You'll find out some interesting facts about the "Special Relationship" that the US has with the UK.

Your suggestion that people are suppressing their national identities in the EU is also completely misguided. Ever been to Europe? I have... Germany, Holland, France - to name just three - and I can tell you for a solid fact that there are lots and lots of people over there, who are deeply proud of who they are, where they come from, and what they want to be. I have met few who want to be "European"...

But, it's a shame real research and facts are cast aside in favor of spouting off and espousing what a dictatorial revisionist Government wants you to believe....



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedomSlave
I really don't give a crap about your constitution . Don't really feel sorry about people who get offended by people taking jabs at your country How many times have america or americans stuck their nose and business where it never belonged . Deal with it or people of your country can stfu on any international affairs .


On behalf of all Americans everywhere, please accept my apologies for the ignorance displayed in the OP. There is still a small segment of our population which reads books...and that segment is deeply embarrassed by such comments.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by boymonkey74
 

I did. I also answered your question with information that took less than 1 second for google to locate. Our President is not a king, imperial ambitions of the last two occupants not withstanding. He cannot just change the law of the land at will. Unlike Europeans, correct me if I am wrong but I see no information to the contrary, we believe that our rights are not granted us by our government. Ultimate power and sovereignty resides not in the state, this includes our federal government, but in the people the citizens of our nation. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT! We have the right to overthrow our government should the necessity arise. THe second amendment ensures we have the power to enforce that right.


...actually according to the real United States Constitution (as opposed to the largely imaginary one you reference), overthrowing the government with guns provided to you in the Second Amendment is Treason...the literal definition of "anti-American"...and it's punishable by death in this country.

www.theonion.com... fender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
reply to post by boymonkey74
 

I did. I also answered your question with information that took less than 1 second for google to locate. Our President is not a king, imperial ambitions of the last two occupants not withstanding. He cannot just change the law of the land at will. Unlike Europeans, correct me if I am wrong but I see no information to the contrary, we believe that our rights are not granted us by our government. Ultimate power and sovereignty resides not in the state, this includes our federal government, but in the people the citizens of our nation. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT! We have the right to overthrow our government should the necessity arise. THe second amendment ensures we have the power to enforce that right.


How ironic that as an American you don't know what the 2nd amendment is about or for. Here is what it says:

"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."

The security of a free state, what is that? One that is not conquered or subject to the whims of another. And a well-regulated militia is needed for this. What is a well-regulated militia? Who would doing the regulating? I'd imagine some level of government would. This government-regulated militia is going to be used to overthrow the government? I don't think so. But let's say you're right and that is what it means, well the Confederate states tried this once and failed. You really think a bunch of Rambo wannabe with a few guns -- and I'll even throw in assault rifles -- are going to be overthrow the US government and all of its military and surveillance forces? Get serious.

And really the 2nd Amendment is an artifact because we have no well-regulated militia of citizenry. The National Guar, since WWI, has been used for foreign military adventures and no longer functions to protect the homeland. During hurricane Katrina there weren't enough N.G. helicopters for rescue operations because they were mostly over in Iraq killing Iraqis in order to get oil contracts for petroleum multinationals.

So no, don't buy your big, bad patriotic 2nd Amendment claims.
edit on 17-12-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)


Correct. The Second Amendment exists because the real founding fathers who existed in real-life knew that domestic police forces and "standing armies" were terribly, terribly, dangerous. Thus the idea was that the people elect a Sheriff who can, in turn, deputize the armed public to POLICE THEMSELVES and in extreme cases of foreign invasion serve as a paramilitary guerrilla warfare unit.

"Overthrowing the government" with weaponry is classified as Treason by the same U.S. Constitution all of these people forgot to read...as is secession, for that matter....and the offense is THE ONLY CRIME in that is punishable by death in all 50 states.

Good thing Obama realizes that these people are simply poorly educated...otherwise we would have already had to execute the 700,000+ people who signed those stupid "secession petitions" without understanding the crime they were committing by doing so.

Sweet Jesus, we Americans are a stupid bunch.....



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Could it not be said, that a document dated 1788 (or first mooted thereabouts) for the protection of citizens for the following reasons:
a) new to the country b) at a time when the west was very wild c) when the native indians were on the rampage protecting their lands and d) when war with the English was current was top topic...that this document is rather outmoded and unecessary in many cases today?

This was at a time when the memories of British rule were strong and there had to be some way to unify the states but without a king at the top of the pile which was too reminiscent of the Brits.

There are quite a few clauses or articles in the constitution that appear pointless such as piracy and the building of post offices etc. A bit like our own legal system which still has laws going back hundreds of years that have never been repealled such as highway robbery
)

The document to my knowedge was mainly to serve those purposes as well as ratify the confederate states and replace the articles of Confederation, so as such it does seem pretty obsolete whilst serving the initial purposes for which it was made.

That being said, I suppose, at least you actually have a constitution which is more than we have!



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


I don't think you are stupid at all.

I do, however, think you have something of a blind spot when it comes to cherry picking! "This bit is good, we will use that - but we don't like that bit so ignore that".


Mind you, you could argue that is rather clever in itself.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   


You clearly have little understanding of the history of the Americas, or the British, or the Europeans.

Obviously. Please accept my apologies for my countryman's continued willful ignorance.


Revisionist history is what is leading us all to a big fall.

Correction. This isn't "revisionist" history...it's just straight-up fiction. I have a Master's Degree in History and I cannot think of a single one of my mentor's, peers, or understudies who have revised their interpretation of history in this manner.


The British did not send "wave after wave" of the best trained and equipped troops. In fact, what would be a good starting point find a copy of the Treaty of Paris, and have a read. It's a very important document that the Crown signed with the Colonies at the end of the so-called Revolutionary War... You'll find out some interesting facts about the "Special Relationship" that the US has with the UK.

As an American myself...may I suggest that you take your statements and wrap them up some sort of ridiculous hyperbole and deliver them while wearing a cowboy hat and brandishing a Bible? You will find Americans are much more receptive when you communicate with them in their native tongue.


Your suggestion that people are suppressing their national identities in the EU is also completely misguided. Ever been to Europe? I have... Germany, Holland, France - to name just three - and I can tell you for a solid fact that there are lots and lots of people over there, who are deeply proud of who they are, where they come from, and what they want to be. I have met few who want to be "European"...

Oh yeah?!? Well how come that's not what the maps in my kid's Geography book say!?! Here they are...see for yourself!!






But, it's a shame real research and facts are cast aside in favor of spouting off and espousing what a dictatorial revisionist Government wants you to believe....




Will you please adopt me? I'm sick and tired of living with crazy people...I wanna go to where people know how to read.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by dampnickers
 


I disagree with almost your entire post. The UK did not just give up their American colonies and another front in a series of wars against other European powers without a hell of a fight.

I don't know if I want to even bother with you. Stay in England bub. Why don't you worry about your own constitutions being ass raped by austerity measures......



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


why don't you leave then?

I don't see the point in staying if you dislike your own people so much.

Just go, we don't need people who hate the very ground they walk on or think EVERYONE of their people needs to be on their level.

So we are all below you are we? then leave. Why stay just to snicker about how we are so bad?

edit on 17-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   


I don't think you are stupid at all.

Well...perhaps we can agree to disagree. I was born and raised in this country (in the small town "Real America" you might have heard so much about) and my career has afforded to live in all of the main geographic regions of our vast country (East Coast, Deep South, Midwest, Rocky Mountains, and West Coast)...and I personally think we are about as dumb as a damn box of rocks.

In fact, being willfully ignorant is one of our highest virtues...second only to being loud, obnoxious, fools who simply do not know our own strength. We are like the "Slingblade" of the world (American movie reference...not sure if that one made it overseas or not. Watch it if you get a chance...it's one of our few cultural exports that doesn't involve CGI and pyrotechnics).


I do, however, think you have something of a blind spot when it comes to cherry picking! "This bit is good, we will use that - but we don't like that bit so ignore that".

You are a true Diplomat. You're words are far more gracious than we deserve.


Mind you, you could argue that is rather clever in itself.

True...but never fear...these highly selective "arguments" that we Americans are so famous for are not derived by the actual American you might be conversing with. Rather, they are simply regurgitated verbatim from whatever the TV instructed them to believe.

While it is true that at least SOME Americans are clever and even that MANY of these clever Americans use their cognitive powers for purposes of mass deception to the detriment of the other 7 billion people on planet earth...rest assured most of us are fat, lazy, bumbling, idiots who are largely symbolic of the gradual de-evolution of homo sapiens.

Silly me...if you believe in that sort of thing, that is. How could I forget...we now teach our children that humans are equally likely to have been created by a magical old man sitting on a cloud a scant 9,000 yrs ago in "science" class.

Now if you'll excuse me...I have a bit of a cough this morning. I best run down to the supermarket and pick up a newt's tail, the hair of a black cat clipped beneath the full moon, and a four-leaf clover to finish making my "antibiotics" which were prescribed to me by my "doctor".



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


Dispute all you want but facts are facts. Keeping hold of the Caribbean was seen as far more desirable than keeping hold of the Colonies. Obviously, the wish would have been to keep hold of both but due to wars in Europe, this wasn't a viable option. So it was Europe plus one other and the Caribbean was that other. A smart move at the time - control of the Spice trade allowed the growth of the Empire.

I suspect that had the Revolutionary War started 100 years later, Britain would have chosen to put most resources into defending the Colonies - that is one reason it just one of "those" quirks of history.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
EDIT:
I love how Europeans are SOO critical of Americans defending their constitution and their cultural identity while erasing their own cultural identity for a BS European identity you are winging as you go. You people have no national identity for the most part anymore, follow the marching orders of the UN on demand, and try to live in a multicultural lie, all the while bending over and lubing up for austerity measures which violate and revalidate EVERY one of your constitutions.

SO why would I even consider your opinion when you have destroyed all euro skepticism like it was the plague. Enjoy your union, watch out or you might find you don't have a sovereign country to live n anymore, just a state to a central federal government......pitiful.

OH, and the marshal plan is what you guys enjoyed for a many years after the mess you got yourselves into. Take a look at those constitutions you so eagerly throw away....when were they written?
edit on 17-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


no France was making the UK have to consolidate its forces to defend its home borders and exert its power in Europe, which was being threatened.

They also had an eye on Canada and wanted to secure it first since the resistance was from natives and not armed colonists who formed an army, or is that a lie as well?


But hell, I don't want to even talk history with an Englishman, since you people don't even KNOW about the revolutionary war. You think you just gifted the colonies their freedom. Talk about skewed view on history.

Yeah, you guys were so noble to just give up all your colonies, except you always gave them up AFTER an armed rebellion erupted with FEW exceptions. That is not gifting freedom, it is surrendering because your population is limited and so your ability to maintain an empire is limited once native /local populations revolt because you needed them to govern your territory.
edit on 17-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join