‘Shall not be infringed’ used but once in Constitution. Evidently our constitutional lecturer President either a) isn’t very up on the Constitution, or b) he’s not upholding his oath worth a crap.

Leave a Reply

12 Comments on "‘Shall not be infringed’ used but once in Constitution"

Notify of

deepthinker
Member
deepthinker
February 24, 2013 2:39 pm

I vote for all of the above. barry is the result of a quota system and out come based education.

The lack of understanding of the US Constitution by the general public is disgusting and has allowed for such liberal bull shit and bull shiters to claim its in the Constitution. That and it’s a living breathing document.

DefHarryMelon
Member
DefHarryMelon
February 23, 2013 7:59 pm

The Bill of Rights uses the turn “the right of the people” 3 times. I’ve had discussions pertaining to the individual aspect, rather than collective, as the grabbers would like to indicate the militia component demands and that since it is militaristic then obviously it is to be government controlled. Funny people, hey?

So lets spin the First Amendment with this logic. The right to peaceably assemble, well, that takes more than one, so I guess that fits. Freedom of speech? Gotta be talking to someone else, so that’s not individual and talking to oneself must have been frowned upon then, too. Redress of your grievances, requires another participant to redress your grievance to, so not individual. Freedom of the press is limited to those who have one. That leaves religion. The government wants to be free from religion and demands that you are, too. Except islam, but that’s not really a religion. That’s satanic governance, which is of course no problem.

That leaves the Fourth Amendment. 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. You gotta be kidding, right? The few threads still intact are on the way out.

What on this Earth of the Creator makes us think we can be allowed to possess anything which might remotely prohibit the representatives of the collective from imposing the collective on individuals?

sifi
Member
sifi
February 26, 2013 11:29 am

“Resistance is futile”!

?color=White&height=460&width=460

sa_rose
Member
sa_rose
February 26, 2013 5:02 am

Resistance is futile!

Progressive Hemrrhoid
Member
Progressive Hemrrhoid
February 23, 2013 6:11 pm

I’m really not sure why people seem to think that “Dear Leader” is a constitutional scholar, in actuality he’s nothing more then a disbarred race baiter, and pathological liar.

Elrond Hubbard
Member
Elrond Hubbard
February 23, 2013 6:16 pm

He’s also a nacissistic sociopath.

JustAl
Member
JustAl
February 23, 2013 5:14 pm

Here are some folks who can explain it to him:
http://s951.beta.photobucket.com/user/JustAlBlogger/library/Dallas%20223?

Sidekick
Member
Sidekick
February 23, 2013 5:08 pm

Since neither party at the federal level seems particularly interested in defending and preserving our rights, why would anyone be surprised at what is happening. If individuals lay down for this (like they are doing in New York), then they will lay down for anything.

wpDiscuz