-66 votes

Constitution is just a piece of paper, not an Alex Jones call to arms

I've heard a few people on this site and Alex Jones himself, call for violence if the government takes away assault weapons. I personally don't have much of an opinion on whether or not an assault weapons ban would help stop mass murder in this country. I do know that the constitution guarantees little in regard to your freedom, and the right to bear arms is just a few sentences on a piece of paper rather than a natural right you own based on being alive. Therefore, the fight to protect the "right" to bear arms has to be given a proper cost benefit analysis rather than a philosophical stand to the death based on "rights" that are granted by a piece of paper.

There are some lawful avenues that the liberty movement can take to help ensure that gun owners can hold onto the weapons they want. All of these lawful avenues include non-violent protest, whether it is marching to the white house, going on TV, or simply posting a Facebook message. Nonviolent protests have again and again proven to be a successful means of convincing others of any arbitrary message, and have kept guns in the hands of civilians for more than 200 years. Many people on the left would like to abolish the 2nd amendment; but responsible gun owners, with logical debate have kept the 2nd amendment alive.

Unlawful violent protests are more probable to hurt the movement in which they are meant to support. 9/11 has caused almost the entire world to feel hatred for ultra-conservative Islamic belief. Violence committed by Israel into Muslim regions, which is mainly retaliatory, has continually united terrorist organizations to continually terrorize the Israeli population. Violence almost never works. When Alex Jones and other "hardcore gun owners" threaten violence as retaliation to 2nd amendment offenses, it only strengthens the opposition's resolve. Is it possible that a guerrilla style revolution with AR-15 style assault rifles could stifle a government strike against its own people? Yes; but what is more likely is that a military, which has technologically advanced beyond anything available to the public, would mow down revolutionary gun owners and kill the second amendment for the next 200 years.

The constitution is a piece of paper written by a group of old, rich, dead, white men. It was so flawed that it actually allowed slavery to exist for nearly 100 years after its creation. The rights that the constitution "ensure" do not actually exists. You can kill almost anyone you want to if you wanted to. The constitution, as a piece of paper, can do nothing to protect anyone. You may go to jail for murder, but the person you killed is dead and nothing will ever bring that person back to life. What does exist, is public opinion. The only way to ensure freedom for ourselves, our children, and our people, is to sway public opinion in our favor. The best way to do that is non-violent protest using logical debate with provable facts.

I've heard many of you give constitutional arguments as to why it’s illegal for the government to take away our guns. Realize that you are quoting a piece of fiction that was used as a means to unite a group of states around one federal government. It was a compromise of power, and it was almost immediately brushed aside (See 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts). The only way to keep your guns is to use the power of logic and persuasion to get the public behind your ideology. A piece of paper will do little to help you.

If you don't want to take it from me, let George Carlin explain your rights to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otp2UGH32Rw



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A slave believes his rights come from his master

In America power began with an armed populace that shared fundamental beliefs about when violent action could properly be considered self defense. These beliefs are the right to liberty life and property. It's a system that relies on the participation of an armed and restrained citizenry that still believed in these fundamental rights. Otherwise it is merely a government of master and slave .

Government gets power from people

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Our constitution gives government powers we the people have because we have guns. Rights are the things that restrain our forceful interactions with others and are things we cannot give to government. Neither can government ask for those things without inviting war. Rights are common beliefs about how force can morally be used. They are a matter of conscience that we use to guide us in knowing what is self defense. For some matters of conscience are god given. A slave believes his master gives him rights. An armed man knows he has rights, can protect them and if he is prosocial, chooses to give some of his power to a government.

Communism

Is alive and well. The daily punishment inflicted on the populations of this ideology is beyond comprehension. Many committed suici

donvino

Cyril's picture

IMO, everything is fine with the U.S. Constitution...

IMO, everything is fine with the U.S. Constitution...

... up to the 13th Amendment, inclusive.

However, granted, things indeed WENT DOWNRIGHT TO LEGALESE HELL with the 14th and up.

What is left to us now is a grotesque caricature of what your founders intended (just IMO, again).

Government or anarchy - which is best?

Neither, likely :

http://freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuse...

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Troll much do ya???

Troll much do ya???

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Before voting this down,

Before voting this down, consider the many friends of liberty that were opposed to the constitution.

Lysander Spooner
George Mason
Patrick Henry
William Lloyd Garrison

Sounds like W

George W. Bush referred to the Constitution as a "gd piece of paper" . You've referred to it as "just a piece of paper" before you elaborated that "The constitution is a piece of paper written by a group of old, rich, dead, white men. It was so flawed that it actually allowed slavery to exist for nearly 100 years after its creation. The rights that the constitution "ensure" do not actually exists." Obviously, you aren't a fan of Jefferson but how does your view of the Constitution differ from W. Bush's?

My research

My research failed to turn-up any credible evidence that Bush said that the constitution was: "gd piece of paper."

If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easie

Off the top of my head, I believe it was more than one source and in a Woodward book, it was also reported by a few DC connected bloggers.

"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator" -- George W. Bush, December 18, 2000

And so you fall directly into

And so you fall directly into their trap. They want you to think of it as a piece of paper, if its just a piece of paper...why pay any heed to it at all...just like them, ignore it at every turn. We all know the constitution is flawed, but since it is the law of the land, its all we have to fall back on. Personally I say god bless Patrick Henry and the fact he included the bill of rights....without that we would already be a total collectivist state, as it is its a huge stumbling block for them and has delayed them for decades.

Right,

"Ron Paul is a gateway drug to liberty" and I think you either know that or are about to learn. (That was Larken Rose who said that.)
Our rights are natural rights. The Constitution is an attempt to define them. However, the actual natural right is the right to defend myself, by whatever means I can avail myself. This right is unalienable. They can try, and they do. But gangs are the proof that people will arm themselves regardless of pieces of paper for or against their arms. They have the right to machine guns, because they took the necessary steps to get one. The laws matter not one whit to them, if they can find it, they can buy it. Gun bans will ONLY remove guns from the hands of "law abiding citizens" That is the truth - do you not see that?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

...

Martin Luther King, Jr. believed in peaceful resistance. I don't think I have to remind people what happened to him.

More of a Malcolm X fan?

More of a Malcolm X fan?

Exactly

Thanks for this reply to this topic. I had a thought yesterday at lunch. What is this fixation with Martin Luther King Day?

Seriously, the man was in every way a "conspiracy theorist" but his version of action against the criminals running the government was effective so he is given a day of remembrance for effectively fighting against the people who give him an "official" day of remembrance?

So my thinking goes like this (as I try to figure out how the "authorities" want their subjects to think):

"Here you go, slaves, of any color, we at the Top of the Crime Food Chain, your Masters, we, we Legal Criminals want to send you a message and the message we want to send you is to let you slaves know that it is OK for you to grow restless, as in it is fine for the natives to grow restless, up to a point, and that is the point we want to get across to you slaves. You can go this far, exactly this far, and then if you cross that line you will be murdered, and not just you will be murdered, since there will be a need to murder any other slaves that grow restless concerning the murder of your leaders, as they too may cross the line that we, we meaning your masters, the line we may arbitrarily draw in the sand whenever we care to do so, at our pleasure, and at your expense. Have a nice holiday."

Does John and Bobby Kennedy get an official day of remembrance for doing basically the same thing, crossing the line, and paying the price?

Hey, folks, don't forget about these two too?

I want to add so much to this sentiment concerning fallen friends of liberty who push the line in the sand despite orders by our masters to obey without question.

The OP has an opinion, sure, and I read some of his opinion before finding inspiration to read the replies instead. How does the Original Poster fit Waco into his viewpoint?

Please consider watching Waco the Big Lie on Youtube. The videos were produced during the siege and soon after by a person named Linda Thomson. These videos were previously not available, as far as I knew, other than my own original copies, but now they are and here is a link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iCfvhl9NXw

If anyone has a question concerning possible editing out of any information from the original VCR tapes as those originals are now available on Youtube then I can check my own copies to find out if the information has been removed.

The Original Topic quoted:

"Many people on the left would like to abolish the 2nd amendment; but responsible gun owners, with logical debate have kept the 2nd amendment alive."

No, this is false, the supposed "left" (which is not left, they are criminal not left) AND the supposed "right" (which are not right, they are criminal not right) cooperate with each other to disarm their targeted victims, and they do so effectively with the tools that they must employ, and those tools are:

1.
Effective deception
2.
Effective threats of violence
3.
Effective violence

The quote:

"Many people on the left would like to abolish the 2nd amendment; but responsible gun owners, with logical debate have kept the 2nd amendment alive."

That is so absolutely false it is almost unbelievable for me to even begin to consider how someone arrives at such a false viewpoint.

Why call criminals "people on the left"?

Who benefits when criminals are called anything other than criminals?

Why single out "people on the left" and not name all the "people on the right" who are as criminal as anyone else, when someone uses crime to commit crime it is the fact that they are guilty of crimes that makes them criminals, and who does it serve to ignore roughly half of the criminals?

"Many people on the left would like to abolish the 2nd amendment; but responsible gun owners, with logical debate have kept the 2nd amendment alive."

The criminals do not want to "abolish the 2nd amendment" since they, the criminals, want their so called "gun rights" themselves, and what they want is to disarm their targeted victims, so the concept of some nebulous "left" (ignoring the other half of the actual group of criminals) wanting to "abolish the 2nd amendment" is about as false as saying that the Moon is made of Cheese.

Then the person writing the sentence for anyone to read and to understand, to agree with, or to contend with, chooses the words "responsible gun owners" as if such a phrase makes any sense outside of the narrow corridors of false "debate", which is more nonsense. Responsible people hold their own deeds to be accountable to their own hides, and that has nothing to do with the tools used by anyone at any time, other than any case where the individual person chooses to employ deception and in that case they are no longer holding themselves accountable for their own ability to respond or "be responsible".

Why does anyone connect an individual's choice to willfully avoid accurate accountability for crimes that an individual may commit, connect that crime, with the tool used in the crime?

Why is the crime no longer the focus of attention, and why is the tool used in the crime now the focus of attention?

"Many people on the left would like to abolish the 2nd amendment; but responsible gun owners, with logical debate have kept the 2nd amendment alive."

The focus of attention is no longer the crime done by the criminal, now the focus of attention is the nebulous "side" that the criminal is on, and the focus of attention is no longer the crime done by the criminal, now the focus of attention is on a nebulous "amendment", and no longer is the focus of attention the crime done by the criminal, now the focus of attention is the tool used in the crime instead of the crime and the criminal in question.

What is a crime?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Amendment 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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cut and pasted

You infringe you, you there, you with the counterfeit badge, you perpetrate a crime, says so right there, nanny, nanny, poo, poo, stick your head in do, do?

Seriously?

"Many people on the left would like to abolish the 2nd amendment; but responsible gun owners, with logical debate have kept the 2nd amendment alive."

Next is the word choice "logical debate".

Fraud is not "logical debate".

Fraud is fraud. Fraud is understood to be fraud when it is fraud.

When fraud is used to infringe upon the rights to defend liberty then that is a crime covered by that specific well documented measure of crime. Which measure of crime?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Amendment 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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Liars lie.

Is that a new bulletin to someone? Speak up - please.

"Many people on the left would like to abolish the 2nd amendment; but responsible gun owners, with logical debate have kept the 2nd amendment alive."

You, anyone of you, can engage in a "debate" with a liar, see how far it gets you, and while you are at it, have a chat, or a debate, or whatever you want to call the exchange of words with one of the survivors of Waco, as I have, and see how far "debate" works when dealing with Frauds, Torturers, Experimenters of Torture Devices on Babies, Assassins, Serial Killers, Mass Murderers, Sociopaths, Psychopaths, on your payroll, as they work on you as they have worked on so many innocent people so far in what could be called American History on the factual account of crimes made legal by that group that does make their crimes legal for them to do, and not for you to do, because they say so.

"Many people on the left would like to abolish the 2nd amendment; but responsible gun owners, with logical debate have kept the 2nd amendment alive."

There is a group called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

In the effort to defend efforts to discredit me I see an opportunity to link a web page that may help in my defense, and the link may also serve a good purpose in defense of the lies so often invented or merely parroted by so many people in our time of Crisis:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/bsbhm2.html

Two more links that may help someone someday:

http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequences-John-Ross/dp/1...

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/34738-and-how-we-burned-in-t...

Ending quote (there is a relevant context if you dare to look):

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

One more link on Crisis:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/crisis/index.htm

Joe

i don't understand

why you're getting flack here from liberty minded people. anybody here read the anti-federalist papers? i admit, i plan on starting them soon, but i've read a couple online, and they read like prophecy. patrick henry was against federalism. ron paul himself, in his last speech to congress, said that the constitution had failed.

the OP's ideas are not new. maybe, it's a knee jerk reaction, because the government itself is attacking the ideas in the bill of rights.

i agree that rights don't come from pieces of paper. everybody is born with them, whether the constitution is there or not.

however, i do wish we could go back to the proper function of government that the founders intended.

i can't remember who said it, but i love the line, "think like an anarchist, but act like a libertarian."

I suggest...

You get your hearing and eyes checked...

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Scroll up.

It says "Dedicated to restoring Constitutional government to the United States of America". That's what the DP is about.

To address some of your argument, the Constitution without the Bill of Rights is a document of tyranny. The Constitution will remain a document of liberty so long as the Bill of Rights are intact. If the government kicks in the doors and starts confiscating firearms, that is exactly where the line in the sand should be drawn, but we are not there yet. Live Free or Die > Cost Benefit Analysis. You can't defend any of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights if you loose the 2nd. It is our teeth, and expecting everyone to do nothing after having their teeth knocked out is not realistic. Again, we are not there yet. Please see:

Line in the Sand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpToQqYs75A

You said "The only way to keep your guns is to use the power of logic and persuasion to get the public behind your ideology. A piece of paper will do little to help you." This is false. It is the preferred way, but not the only way. I think the Declaration of Independence did much to help, by galvanizing at least 1/3 of the country behind the cause of liberty.

In the mean time, yes, people should remain calm, and use the pen, but buy lots of ammo and get your gear squared away.

Every natural right described in that piece of paper" has been..

defended by the blood of heroes since The Boston Massacre, including the "free speech" right you have exercised with your post. I would not dishonor that "blood sacrifice" by hesitating to add more blood, be it of patriots or tyrants. We are already following those "lawful avenues" you defined, ever so mindful we face an enemy who cares nothing about our morality, truth,liberty or lives.

"My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once....that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting." Gandhi

.

"It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf."

Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

Excuse me?

There are no lawful routes you can take when those you hope to protect yourself from make the laws and control the courts.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

Only because you ask your daddy the BARFLY what the law is.

This is comical. All the MASTERS all fearful that the SERVANTS are going to take their RIGHTS away. American's have been so dumbed down... we are KINGS and QUEENS. Since when does the King's SUBJECT tell the KING what to do? Learn the law - stop letting BARFLIES (attorneys) TELL you what the LAW is. Geeze - get edjmacated or give up your guns - you don't deserve any rights if you don't even have a clue what a RIGHT IS.

jrd3820's picture

Bobby Fuller fought the law and the law won

Breakin’ Rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
I needed money cause I had none
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won

SteveMT's picture

The 2nd Amendment is something that can only be lost once.

"Nonviolent protests have again and again [NOT] proven to be a successful"

Kent State
Tienanmen Square
Wounded Knee Incident
Waco
9/11 truth
Iranian Protests
Tea Party Movement
Anti-Agenda 21
Occupy Movement

I don't want to say you're wrong

But we're talking about assault weapons in this country right now. And we lost that "right" for awhile, and then we got it back.....

....so technically speaking, you are wrong in your assertion that the second amendment can only be lost once.

Furthermore, government has been coming after the guns for a long time now and we still got them, we never had to go to war to keep them, unless you count 1776.

So yeah, non-violent protest has done us well for quite some time now.

no we did not lose that right

no we did not lose that right for a while. You were still allowed to purchase those weapons. You could buy an AR-15 with out the 30 round magazine and the bayonet lug. Also none of the rifles already owned by the populace was not confiscated.

SteveMT's picture

We were very lucky to get that right back again.

Why do you want to risk that happening again when the tyranny is now much worse than before? We know what our government is capable of, anything and everything.

"Violence almost never works." However, the threat of violence does work as a deterrent. The Cold war and the Cuban missile crisis were both stalemates, equal deterrents equally negating one another. 200 million civilians armed with the same assault rifles as 2 million well trained soldiers is a strong deterrent against tyranny. Hopefully that would be enough of a neutralizing stalemate.

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. ~James Madison

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. ~James Madison

George Carlin was stretching

Most people will find that at least some rights, though an "idea" and imperfect safeguard of a natural ("god given") life free of coercion and abuse at the hands of government, are worth defending with arms if necessary. Yes, the idea of rights and limited government is threatened and has been ignored before. All the more reason to be armed should you need to defend yourself and your loved ones. Your cost benefit analysis should take into account that without arms you will have a much more difficult task defending any rights where your cost benefit analysis leans in favor of fighting when all else fails.

I like your comment

We just got to figure out where the line is drawn with that cost benefit analysis.

And for sure, be armed. There's nothing wrong with having the means to defend yourself.

But there is something wrong with your post...

...down playing the importance of the constitution and rights. Ideas are important. You'd do well to reconsider the apathetic position that the constitution is no more than its paper vessel.