The end of the First Amendment

[fschmidt]

Of course free speech cannot survive in a society populated by modern scum. My problem with Alex Jones is that he fails to understand that the American people are worthless moronic scum.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

We need to recognize that our rights come from The People and not from “God” or some other source. There is no such thing as inalienable / unalienable rights.

We know this as a fact because people wouldn’t need government to enforce those rights if they were inalienable/ unalienable.

 

[fschmidt]

We need to recognize that our rights come from The People and not from “God” or some other source. There is no such thing as inalienable / unalienable rights.

We know this as a fact because people wouldn’t need government to enforce those rights if they were inalienable/ unalienable.

A good example of modern American ignorance. Inalienable rights means rights that are not legally transferable.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

A good example of modern American ignorance. Inalienable rights means rights that are not legally transferable.

…Or able to be taken away.

Obviously free speech isn’t an inalienable right since you can take it from anyone. The same goes for the rights created because of the second amendment.

 

[fschmidt]

…Or able to be taken away.

Obviously free speech isn’t an inalienable right since you can take it from anyone. The same goes for the rights created because of the second amendment.

Only true when the population is modern scum. If the population wasn't scum, then they would follow the constitution which legally prevents these rights from being taken away.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Only true when the population is modern scum. If the population wasn't scum, then they would follow the constitution which legally prevents these rights from being taken away.

I appreciate you agreeing with me after consideration.

The only thing that creates and preserves rights is We The People and our government (The Constitution).

 

[Joe King]

Obviously free speech isn’t an inalienable right since you can take it from anyone.

You can't take it, only violate it.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

You can't take it, only violate it.

There isn’t even consensus what “free speech” covers.

Furthermore, a simple example of taking away free speech would be a judge issuing a gag order. Such an order can take away someone’s right to speech on any topic and it in no way violates their rights.

The gag order example also shows that the right to free speech comes from We The People. The right is created by our government via the legislative branch and is then enforced by executive and judicial branches.

Another example that proves this is Trump’s claim that his free speech rights, and that of many other Americans, were deprived of them by big tech censorship. Furthermore, he seeks government intervention to enforce his supposed rights because he doesn’t have the ability to secure his supposed rights by himself.

 

[Joe King]

There isn’t even consensus what “free speech” covers.

Only those who are against it, think that way.

The right is created by our government via the legislative branch and is then enforced by executive and judicial branches.

The Right comes from the DOI which the Constitution puts into force for Americans.

Another example that proves this is Trump’s claim that his free speech rights, and that of many other Americans, were deprived of them by big tech censorship. Furthermore, he seeks government intervention to enforce his supposed rights because he doesn’t have the ability to secure his supposed rights by himself.

Protecting our Rights from those bigger than us, is a legitimate use of government.

Furthermore, a simple example of taking away free speech would be a judge issuing a gag order. Such an order can take away someone’s right to speech on any topic and it in no way violates their rights.

A gag order, when used to stop the illegal influencing of a jury, is justifiable.

Using a gag order merely to silence criticism, as in Trump's case, should not be.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Only those who are against it, think that way.


The Right comes from the DOI which the Constitution puts into force for Americans.


Protecting our Rights from those bigger than us, is a legitimate use of government.


A gag order, when used to stop the illegal influencing of a jury, is justifiable.

Using a gag order merely to silence criticism, as in Trump's case, should not be.

If you want to have a serious conversation I’m down but we both know The DOI created no rights. I’m not going to waste my time engaged with someone spreading known falsehoods.

Furthermore, acknowledging that there is no consensus in society for what free speech means doesn’t make someone against it. You know that but now you’re just being coy because you don’t have any fact based points to make.

Lastly, the Trump gag order is extremely justified and standard practice for any defendant that has done what Trump has done. If it wasn’t legal it would have already been overturned but just like Chauvins failed appeals you’d rather gaslight everyone by suggesting something nefarious is afoot instead of standard judicial practice.

 

[TheResister]

Of course free speech cannot survive in a society populated by modern scum. My problem with Alex Jones is that he fails to understand that the American people are worthless moronic scum.

Alex married a Jew, had a baby by her and is apparently oblivious how Jews believe. If the mother is a Jew, the baby is a Jew. Alex tries to profit off those who don't buy into the Jews are God's chosen people stuff.

 

[TheResister]

Only those who are against it, think that way.


The Right comes from the DOI which the Constitution puts into force for Americans.


Protecting our Rights from those bigger than us, is a legitimate use of government.


A gag order, when used to stop the illegal influencing of a jury, is justifiable.

Using a gag order merely to silence criticism, as in Trump's case, should not be.

Joe, we went over this in another thread. The Declaration of Independence presupposes that we have unalienable Rights, given by a Creator.

The unalienable Rights were codified in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees unalienable Rights and limits the power of government.

The illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment nullified the Bill of Rights by asserting that the government grants privileges and immunities and your Second Amendment "rights" were incorporated into the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment.



“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

 

[weaponoffreedom]

We need to recognize that our rights come from The People and not from “God” or some other source. There is no such thing as inalienable / unalienable rights.

We know this as a fact because people wouldn’t need government to enforce those rights if they were inalienable/ unalienable.

Do you believe in God?

 

[Rebarcock.]

Of course free speech cannot survive in a society populated by modern scum. My problem with Alex Jones is that he fails to understand that the American people are worthless moronic scum.

I also have a mangina

 

[Rebarcock.]

Do you believe in God?

Dude they are in to possession. They love being being plugged and not decent. I grew up callings the perverts dykes and dukes. Bit not Duke's Mayo. That is the best part of any Sammywhich

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Do you believe in God?

It depends in what way you’re asking the question.

I believe there is a divine entity. Whether that entity is called “God” or “Buddha” doesn’t really matter to me.

When it comes to a god giving rights it’s logically impossible because not all people believe in the same god or even in a god. Nevertheless, those people still have rights if they are Americans and if they aren’t then they don’t have rights.

It makes it pretty clear that rights come from government which in our case means The People. Christians in China or Muslims in Gaza have no rights. There gods don’t give them any and certainly don’t enforce any for them.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Dude they are in to possession. They love being being plugged and not decent. I grew up callings the perverts dykes and dukes. Bit not Duke's Mayo. That is the best part of any Sammywhich

Dukes is foul so I’m not surprised you like it.

Hellmann’s or nothing.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

The Bill of Rights guarantees unalienable Rights and limits the power of government.

10000000% correct

But that is not the opposing argument i Think..................just like we have the "right" to do whatever we want, and long a the guys with bigger guns does not think otherwise.

I think it could be said better if the comparison was....."the right" as opposed to "the ability to exercise the right"

 

[hmt5000]

I don't understand why Jake Bro Stain doesn't leave the US if free speech and guns scare him. Why not go somewhere like Australia where you can sit in your home and not say anything and hope no one assaults you... I get being a huge pussy and not wanting to face being a huge pussy but got dayum man. either shit or get off the pot. Quit tugging at the belt of your betters.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

I don't understand why Jake Bro Stain doesn't leave the US if free speech and guns scare him. Why not go somewhere like Australia where you can sit in your home and not say anything and hope no one assaults you... I get being a huge pussy and not wanting to face being a huge pussy but got dayum man. either shit or get off the pot. Quit tugging at the belt of your betters.

I love guns and I love free speech!

Pointing out that the rights to those things come from government doesn’t mean that somebody doesn’t like them.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

10000000% correct

But that is not the opposing argument i Think..................just like we have the "right" to do whatever we want, and long a the guys with bigger guns does not think otherwise.

I think it could be said better if the comparison was....."the right" as opposed to "the ability to exercise the right"

You have the right to bear arms and free speech because The People say so.

If The People ratified an amendment that eliminated either right then you wouldn’t have those rights.

That’s why people try to spin this situation into them being “God given”. They are laying the ground work for breaking the law and rebellion later on if things change under the guise of “unalienable rights”.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

If The People ratified an amendment that eliminated either right then you wouldn’t have those rights.

No the right would exist, but the ability to exercise it would change

You have the right to bear arms and free speech because The People say so.

no, the right to self defense is inherent to all thing, both animals and people

That’s why people try to spin this situation into them being “God given”. They are laying the ground work for breaking the law and rebellion later on if things change under the guise of “unalienable rights”.

No, the spin is on the flip side. The basics are God given.....such as self defense, or the preservation of life.

Again, I understand and semi agree with your point, but when it comes to the basics, the rights are inherent to nature (see the DofA ), and therefore given by our creator.

If the lion attacks the water buffalo, does the water buffalo not have the right to damage or kill the lion in defense of itself? No law was passed by man to make that so.

Your argument takes us down a road that goes against God, the lawmaker, and human altruism which is wrong. Humans are not altruistic.

 

[Joe Kings]

I appreciate you agreeing with me after consideration.

The only thing that creates and preserves rights is We The People and our government (The Constitution).

Youre a perfect example.

 

[TheResister]

I love guns and I love free speech!

Pointing out that the rights to those things come from government doesn’t mean that somebody doesn’t like them.

There you go. Your opinion is indicative of a lack of knowledge about the origin of Rights as presupposed by the founders and framers of the Constitution.

 

[TheResister]

You have the right to bear arms and free speech because The People say so.

If The People ratified an amendment that eliminated either right then you wouldn’t have those rights.

That’s why people try to spin this situation into them being “God given”. They are laying the ground work for breaking the law and rebellion later on if things change under the guise of “unalienable rights”.

Your basic argument seems to be that the only rights are those rights that come by force. That is inconsistent with American jurisprudence. Didn't you claim to be a lawyer? Here is the holding of an American court:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.:
.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

How is it the holding of the United States Supreme Court is diametrically opposed to what you are saying? Yeah, they "can" rescind the Second Amendment - just as they did in claiming that your Rights were incorporated into the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. And when they try to confiscate the weapons, the people have a legal and moral obligation and duty... not to mention the Right to overthrowing the men (and women) that try to institute tyrannical actions. And HELL NO, that is not an advocacy for overthrow the government.

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln
This is not some grandiose idea that I dreamed up. It has been understood throughout our history:

"The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the constitutions of the several states, and the organic laws of the territories all alike propose to protect the people in the exercise of their God-given rights. Not one of them pretends to bestow rights." - Susan B. Anthony

 

[TheResister]

10000000% correct

But that is not the opposing argument i Think..................just like we have the "right" to do whatever we want, and long a the guys with bigger guns does not think otherwise.

I think it could be said better if the comparison was....."the right" as opposed to "the ability to exercise the right"

My default is that your Rights end where my nose begins. You can do anything you like to the extent that it doesn't interfere with my Rights. The primary function of government in that context is to be like a referee to insure that neither of us misuses his / her Rights to the detriment of his fellow man.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Your basic argument seems to be that the only rights are those rights that come by force. That is inconsistent with American jurisprudence. Didn't you claim to be a lawyer? Here is the holding of an American court:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.:
.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

How is it the holding of the United States Supreme Court is diametrically opposed to what you are saying? Yeah, they "can" rescind the Second Amendment - just as they did in claiming that your Rights were incorporated into the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment. And when they try to confiscate the weapons, the people have a legal and moral obligation and duty... not to mention the Right to overthrowing the men (and women) that try to institute tyrannical actions. And HELL NO, that is not an advocacy for overthrow the government.

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln
This is not some grandiose idea that I dreamed up. It has been understood throughout our history:

"The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the constitutions of the several states, and the organic laws of the territories all alike propose to protect the people in the exercise of their God-given rights. Not one of them pretends to bestow rights." - Susan B. Anthony

Your quote from Lincoln says it perfectly.

We The People are the masters of government and rights. Not some religious figure.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document in regards to our current government. Posting it as proof of anything is the most low IQ shit someone can do.

Lastly, the Supreme Court / a single justice can say whatever they want but you have to remember their interpretations change over time. More to the point they would have no choice but to enforce and amendment that eliminated a right to “keep and bear arms” or “free speech”.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

My default is that your Rights end where my nose begins. You can do anything you like to the extent that it doesn't interfere with my Rights. The primary function of government in that context is to be like a referee to insure that neither of us misuses his / her Rights to the detriment of his fellow man.

The primary function of government is: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

 

[TheResister]

Your quote from Lincoln says it perfectly.

We The People are the masters of government and rights. Not some religious figure.

The Declaration of Independence isn’t not a legal document in regards to our current government. Posting it as proof of anything is the most low IQ shit someone can do.

Lastly, the Supreme Court / a single justice can say whatever they want but you have to remember their interpretations change over time. More to the point they would have no choice but to enforce and amendment that eliminated a right to “keep and bear arms” or “free speech”.

Your ignorance of the law and our system is amazing.

You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe. John Adams, second President of the United States

The fact that you choose not to correct that thinking is scary. We, the people, are masters of government; your Creator (whomever you deem that to be) bestows upon you your Rights and no man has the authority to jeopardize said Rights... not even under color of law.

 

[TheResister]

The primary function of government is: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

And all of that is by playing referee between individuals. The government secures the blessings of Liberty and your Creator bestows upon you unalienable Rights... and that is the whole equation.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Your ignorance of the law and our system is amazing.

​

The fact that you choose not to correct that thinking is scary. We, the people, are masters of government; your Creator (whomever you deem that to be) bestows upon you your Rights and no man has the authority to jeopardize said Rights... not even under color of law.

You seem to confuse quotes and opinions from individual for the law.

I know just well what The Constitution and law says. It’s exactly as I’ve laid out and it’s some of the most basic principles of law.

The Constitution makes clear your rights come from The People. It says so right in the preamble. If The Founding Fathers wanted your rights to come from a god then that is what they would have written into the Constitution & ratified (but they didn’t).

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

And all of that is by playing referee between individuals. The government secures the blessings of Liberty and your Creator bestows upon you unalienable Rights... and that is the whole equation.

You can believe that if you want but it’s wrong. The Constitution does not say that.

 

[TheResister]

10000000% correct

But that is not the opposing argument i Think..................just like we have the "right" to do whatever we want, and long a the guys with bigger guns does not think otherwise.

I think it could be said better if the comparison was....."the right" as opposed to "the ability to exercise the right"

I've tried to understand your position; I simply cannot. Sorry. I'm stuck with this country's birth certificate aka the Declaration of Independence. A few excerpts come to mind:

" But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
...The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny...
... A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

Now, contrast that with what George Washington stated:

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
-George Washington, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788

The government has no de jure authority to take away something they didn't give you in the first place. You cannot legitimately amend the Constitution to infringe upon unalienable Rights. That is the whole reason you have a Second Amendment.

 

[TheResister]

You seem to confuse quotes and opinions from individual for the law.

I know just well what The Constitution and law says. It’s exactly as I’ve laid out and it’s some of the most basic principles of law.

The Constitution makes clear your rights come from The People. It says so right in the preamble. If The Founding Fathers wanted your rights to come from a god then that is what they would have written into the Constitution & ratified (but they didn’t).

You, sir, are a LIAR. A United States Supreme Court HOLDING is the law of the land. It doesn't matter what you think, I think or the man in the moon thinks. The buck stops here once they've ruled. Period. I quoted them on their interpretation as to the origin of the Right. The United States Supreme Court HELD in their first ruling on this issue that the government did not grant the Right and "neither is it (the Right) dependent upon that instrument (the Constitution) for its existence."

You can argue until Hell freezes over. What you cannot do is to reinvent the wheel. It's already been invented. I'm quoting people that worked on the documents that created the government - the authors and participants in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. How did they intend for us to interpret those documents? What did they say the pitfalls were of change by usurpation (what you clearly and unequivocally advocate)?

Not only am I quoting them, but I quote from other learned sources to show that many (probably most) people used to understand the correct interpretation. For whatever reason, you don't seem to be able to comprehend it. None of the founders and none of the framers agree with your position. You've failed to quote anything to the contrary. The question before the people reading this is whether they accept your view as to what the law means OR what the founders and framers said it was. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

You, sir, are a LIAR. A United States Supreme Court HOLDING is the law of the land. It doesn't matter what you think, I think or the man in the moon thinks. The buck stops here once they've ruled. Period. I quoted them on their interpretation as to the origin of the Right. The United States Supreme Court HELD in their first ruling on this issue that the government did not grant the Right and "neither is it (the Right) dependent upon that instrument (the Constitution) for its existence."

You can argue until Hell freezes over. What you cannot do is to reinvent the wheel. It's already been invented. I'm quoting people that worked on the documents that created the government - the authors and participants in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. How did they intend for us to interpret those documents? What did they say the pitfalls were of change by usurpation (what you clearly and unequivocally advocate)?

Not only am I quoting them, but I quote from other learned sources to show that many (probably most) people used to understand the correct interpretation. For whatever reason, you don't seem to be able to comprehend it. None of the founders and none of the framers agree with your position. You've failed to quote anything to the contrary. The question before the people reading this is whether they accept your view as to what the law means OR what the founders and framers said it was. Nothing more and nothing less.

That’s exactly the point.

How the Supreme Court interprets the law as it is written changes over time. There is nothing written into law that says that your rights come from any god. They might hold that for a time but that will change over time as we move towards interpreting The Constitution as it is written.

Furthermore, an amendment that eliminated rights would Trump a Supreme Court ruling or past interpretations but you don’t know that just like you don’t know anything else about civics or the law.

 

[TheResister]

That’s exactly the point.

How the Supreme Court interprets the law as it is written changes over time. There is nothing written into law that says that your rights come from any god. They might hold that for a time but that will change over time as we move towards interpreting The Constitution as it is written.

Furthermore, an amendment that eliminated rights would Trump a Supreme Court ruling or past interpretations but you don’t know that just like you don’t know anything else about civics or the law.

Again, you are a pathological liar, preferring that people accept your opinion as contrasted by what the intent of the law is and how is it was supposed to be interpreted. Put into an analogy that a real lawyer could understand:

If you lived in an HOA and they drafted a rule along with the reasons thereof, you would demand that it be enforced as per that rule. And if a property could not be sold and that was supposedly a permanent covenant, you would demand that they honor it. But, you wouldn't do that with the Constitution. Again, we were warned about treating the Constitution as you do by the people who founded this country:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington, Farewell Address

It is not up to the courts to change the law just because peoples minds change. Neither is it legal or moral to pass laws on false pretexts and / or not in accordance with the rules. Sure, they have the power, but they do not have the authority. You tend to conflate the two as many times as you conflate the idea that government creates "rights" when, by their own rulings they do NOT create unalienable Rights.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

I've tried to understand your position; I simply cannot. Sorry. I'm stuck with this country's birth certificate aka the Declaration of Independence. A few excerpts come to mind:

" But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
...The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny...
... A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

Now, contrast that with what George Washington stated:

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
-George Washington, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788

The government has no de jure authority to take away something they didn't give you in the first place. You cannot legitimately amend the Constitution to infringe upon unalienable Rights. That is the whole reason you have a Second Amendment.

Right, I agree 10000%. That is how it should be and ought to be and as long as i am able, it will be at least at my house.......

But would you agree that the US Constitution can be amended up to and including ANY amendment? A simple yes or no would suffice for this portion, to not dilute.....

 

[Jake Broe Stan]

Right, I agree 10000%. That is how it should be and ought to be and as long as i am able, it will be at least at my house.......

But would you agree that the US Constitution can be amended up to and including ANY amendment? A simple yes or no would suffice for this portion, to not dilute.....

Any amendment and their respective rights granted can be repealed with a new amendment. It’s an objective fact you tard.

We already proved this with the repeal of the 18th amendment.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

The primary function of government is: to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Right, and how well do they do that?

 

[weaponoffreedom]

Any amendment and their respective rights granted can be repealed with a new amendment. It’s an objective fact you tard.

We already proved this with the repeal of the 18th amendment.

That question was not to you. Shut the fuck up for a sec, damn.