MNGunTalk.com

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2014 4:50 pm**

This is what the liberals want to do to our constitution. This professor is serious.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/1 ... nstitution

Interestingly enough, he thinks the 2nd amendment is the "third rail", lol. When in essence, that will be the amendment that may have to save the country from folks like this.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2014 4:57 pm**

Liberals see the US Constitution as an obstacle. Nancy Pelosi once referred to the Bill of Rights as a document of negative liberties because it outlines what the government cannot do to the citizenry.

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:40 pm**

It's not much of an obstacle when the vast majority of the Federal budget is consumed exercising powers that violate the Tenth Amendment.

"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."

Posted: **Sat Sep 13, 2014 10:17 pm**

LePetomane wrote:Liberals see the US Constitution as an obstacle. Nancy Pelosi once referred to the Bill of Rights as a document of negative liberties because it outlines what the government cannot do to the citizenry.

I'm not sure she said that, but if she did, she's right.

A "negative liberty" in a philosophical/political context simply means an absence of constraints. Since the bill of rights outlines things which the government may not do, constraints which it may not impose, "a document of negative liberties" is exactly what it is.

Do you want to buy a gun? Well, you need your positive liberty (all those things which make you capable of buying a gun) as well as the negative liberty (absence of restrictions) of the 2nd Amendment in order to do so. So three cheers for negative liberties!

"Negative" in this context doesn't mean "bad" or "unwanted" any more than "well regulated" means "restricted". You don't want to sound like one of those folks, do you?

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2014 12:11 am**

I gotta be honest here. But some of these, at least on paper, don't seem too bad. The others are just plain retarded. 1 & 2 are appealing to me. I also think case could be made for 6, BUT drastic spending cuts NEED to be made in many other areas (e.g,. close the DEA, ATF, Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, Dept of Homeland Security, TSA, etc). I'm ALL for 16. We could spend half of what we spend currently on our military and still out spend any other developed nation on this planet. No sovereign nation is going to invade us when there are 80-100 million gun owners (A.K.A. insurgents) to contend with. If we're really worried about terrorist attacks; we need a well developed intelligence and covert operations network to neutralize those kind of threats. Every time we bomb and invade another country, we create future terrorists.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:41 am**

Eric,
Agree on all your dept cuts and would add many more. Disagree on military spending. We spend much more yes, but almost all other western developed countries have abandoned having effective military forces in favor of the welfare state. Look up how many ships and tanks Britain has functioning and be shocked. There is no one left except us to oppose Islam, the Chinese or Russians. Almost the entire function of government is to protect it's citizens. Armed citizens making occupation impossible is laughable. Sure it is a counter against our own oppresive rulers, but a foreign invader without our scruples against genocide would have no problem clearing the land of civilians without a robust military counter.

Your last statement just plays into the Islamist's propaganda that we cause terrorism. Islamists want to kill us for what we are, not for what we do. ISIS vividly illustrates the only result acceptable to them: Convert, pay tribute, or be killed.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:43 am**

Uffdaphil, I agree that there's a "chicken and egg" argument where our dealings with radical Islam is concerned. However, think about, really think about it. This enemy is a highly ideological one. They are not a sovereign state with a standing army to whom we can declare war against and openly engage militarily. We generate too much collateral loss of life with bombings, drone strikes, or missile attacks. That doesn't help the wining of hearts and minds. Secondly, at no point did I state "occupation would be impossible." I think our armed citizenry makes it a consideration an enemy nation would have to take into account, therefore making it improbable. If I recall my history correctly, a Japanese General or Admiral said something to that effect when the strategy of invading mainland America was discussed, "behind every blade of grass would be an American with a rifle."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:07 am**

While there might be an interesting thought or two hiding amongst the falderal , nothing there should blemish the Constitution.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:27 am**

xd ED wrote:While there might be an interesting thought or two hiding amongst the falderal , nothing there should blemish the Constitution.

With the exception of the blood of those looking to defile it.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:36 am**

mrp wrote:
LePetomane wrote:Liberals see the US Constitution as an obstacle. Nancy Pelosi once referred to the Bill of Rights as a document of negative liberties because it outlines what the government cannot do to the citizenry.

I'm not sure she said that, but if she did, she's right.

A "negative liberty" in a philosophical/political context simply means an absence of constraints. Since the bill of rights outlines things which the government may not do, constraints which it may not impose, "a document of negative liberties" is exactly what it is.

Do you want to buy a gun? Well, you need your positive liberty (all those things which make you capable of buying a gun) as well as the negative liberty (absence of restrictions) of the 2nd Amendment in order to do so. So three cheers for negative liberties!

"Negative" in this context doesn't mean "bad" or "unwanted" any more than "well regulated" means "restricted". You don't want to sound like one of those folks, do you?

Obama has been on record re negative liberties and the Constitution. Perhaps Pelosi has been as well.
And while the terminology might well be correctly applied, what should be distressing is the disappointment noted and the context that the Constitution is a barrier to further encroachments rather than a document protecting human rights.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:49 am**

^THIS.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:13 pm**

mrp wrote:I'm not sure she said that, but if she did, she's right.

mrp, she did say it but not in the context you are alluding to. This woman has utter contempt for the American people. She thinks we cannot be trusted to think on our own and need the liberals in congress to do it for us. She is no different than the DFL in this state.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2014 5:26 pm**

xd ED wrote:Obama has been on record re negative liberties and the Constitution. Perhaps Pelosi has been as well.

Anyone who discusses the constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, in any academic or professional setting will "be on record re negative liberties". Implying that there's something nefarious going on because you're caught talking about or referring to negative liberties is absurd.

xd ED wrote:And while the terminology might well be correctly applied

It absolutely is. There's no maybe about it, and there's no negative connotation to the term "negative liberties". It's simply a philosophical/political term which distinguishes between the two types of liberties. Your HVAC guy has been on record re negative pressure. Your lab tech has been on record re negative test results. Your third grader teacher is on record re negative numbers.

xd ED wrote:what should be distressing is the disappointment noted and the context that the Constitution is a barrier to further encroachments rather than a document protecting human rights.

I don't get that from his comments. He's saying that the civil rights movement made a mistake by focusing on the courts, because the courts were not a place where all of the movement's goals could be realized, despite how radical some people think the Warren court was.

Read it yourself:

I mean, I think that, you know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order in, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And, to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And one of the -- I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:37 pm**

I think that the worst thing that came out of the civil rights movement was the idea that if a substantial number of americans oppose reform, then the answer is to say "to Hell with the troglodytes" and ram reform down their throats.

Posted: **Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:39 pm**

When reform is contrary to the letter or the spirit of the constitution, it's illegal and those that support it are traitors. Unfortunately some of the largest traitors our country has suffered have in fact been the very people elected to protect it by a naïve and selfish population.

MNGunTalk.com

Liberals and the constitution.

Liberals and the constitution.

Re: Liberals and the constitution.

Re: Liberals and the constitution.

Re: Liberals and the constitution.

Re: Liberals and the constitution.

Re: Liberals and the constitution.

Liberals and the constitution.

Re: Liberals and the constitution.

Re: Liberals and the constitution.

Re: Liberals and the constitution.

Re: Liberals and the constitution.

Re: Liberals and the constitution.

Re: Liberals and the constitution.

Re: Liberals and the constitution.

Liberals and the constitution.