Obama Wants 'Second Bill of Rights'

[GREEN607]

Quote-

Obama: "It's good to be the king."

 

[Steelman]

If Obama could understand and recognize the first Bill of Rights.........I'd say go for it.

 

[Survivalcookie]

So what do we do, sit and b*tch about it on a forum...or do we take to the streets with pamphlets and try to educate people, like Thomas Paine did. His pamphlet was called Common Sense...and we all know that has went by the wayside.

 

[WWalker]

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

 

[Steelman]

So what do we do, sit and b*tch about it on a forum...or do we take to the streets with pamphlets and try to educate people, like Thomas Paine did. His pamphlet was called Common Sense...and we all know that has went by the wayside.

Modern Day pamphlet = social media. Like it or not...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And I contend if, as many have suggested to be preferable-- letting the country "collapse" so that it can be resurrected and "true liberty" could be restored--The outcome would quite likely look more like this than version 1.0 (or 1.10 )

 

[Smokepole]

I think that instead of Obama's second Bill of Rights, we put up the Bill of No Rights alongside the Constitution. I think most have seen this. But I love it.

The Bill of No Rights

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of Non Rights.

• ARTICLE I -- You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any form of wealth.
  More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.​
• ARTICLE II -- You do not have the right to never be offended.
  This country is based on freedom, and that means the freedom for everyone, not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots and probably always will be.​
• ARTICLE III -- You do not have the right to be free from harm.
  If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.​
• ARTICLE IV -- You do not have the right to free food and housing.
  Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generations of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.​
• ARTICLE V -- You do not have the right to free health care.
  That would be nice but, from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in government run health care.​
• ARTICLE VI -- You do not have the right to physically harm other people.
  If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.​
• ARTICLE VII -- You do not have the right to the possessions of others.
  If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen TV or a life of leisure.​
• ARTICLE VIII -- You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience.
  We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight, if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.​
• ARTICLE IX -- You don't have the right to a job.
  All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.​
• ARTICLE X -- You do not have the right to happiness.
  Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -- which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.​

The person that came up with this was a genius.

 

[Smokepole]

Obama Wants 'Second Bill of Rights'

This is socialism.

In this piece the author is quoting Cass Sunstein. Sunstein is a giant steaming Socialist

This puke also advocates legal representation/rights for animals.

 

[Mark 1911]

So much for preserve, protect, and defend, that annoying little oath our president has to take.

Good thing even the US Pres is not above the law (even if he thinks he is).

 

[Hoosierdaddy74]

I cant believe the crap that spews out of his mouth. I saw earlier where someone was wanting to do away with the amendment that limits terms to 2. I really dont know what to think anymore....Not sure if he really wants a civil war so he could make a power grab or if he is really that ignorant.

 

[Bigtanker]

How did we get to this point... It scares me, it really does

Pretty simple. People have rejected their own responsibility. It is now "What can the gov do for me" instead of "what can I do for the gov."

 

[Mark 1911]

I cant believe the crap that spews out of his mouth. I saw earlier where someone was wanting to do away with the amendment that limits terms to 2. I really dont know what to think anymore....Not sure if he really wants a civil war so he could make a power grab or if he is really that ignorant.

Latetly I've been wondering if terms should be limited to just 1.

Or at least just enforce the current requirement that the president has to be a U.S. citizen.

 

[cobraguy]

i honsetly dont know how he still is in office

 

[Legba]

i honsetly dont know how he still is in office

Union votes

Welfare votes

Illegal votes

and a bunch of idiots and lies.

 

[88GT]

These are not rights at all. How do you define the right to a decent job? You either work and get paid, or you don't. You should not be entitled to a job by birth, as you are entitled to free speech or self defense. It makes no sense. The right to healthcare is the only one that seems to even be a possibility, short of full on communism.

You are correct; the left and ignorant often confuse "right" with "entitlement."

A 'right' is a freedom to act, of your own accord, in your own self-determined best interest, unfettered by others or the state inasmuch as you do not use force to impede someone else in his quest to do the same.

Anything else is an entitlement, which requires someone else to provide it for you--at his expense, through his efforts, and very likely in opposition to his best interest. (Which makes him a slave: the fruits of his labor are benefitting someone who did not earn it; but don't go there with the left because they get all huffy and start hyperventilating and can't stay focused.)

 

[johnny45]

Does an individual have a right to keep and bear arms?

 

[Arthur Dent]

How did we get to this point... It scares me, it really does

It got to this point because people continue to vote either republican or democrat, always for the lesser of two evils. Never voting to fix the problem. Only to oppose someone they don't like.

 

[Liberty's Teeth]

Wow, rights that are not endowed by simply existing. "Rights" that are only attained if you make a conscious effort to attain them. So, since I have the "right" to a job and a "right" to a home, what happens if I do not want to work but want a home? What constitutes a "decent home" or a "adequate protection" from old age and to medical care? Who gets to define these terms? Are they fixed?

This would be absolutely treasonous if it were attempted to be enacted.

 

[slackerisme]

There's a good reason why they rushed to ratify the 22nd Amendment following FDR's death. He is often revered as the liberal icon of the 20th century, but the reality is that many saw where his ideology was leading and didn't like it.

Unfortunately, the majority of Americans are no longer [STRIKE]willing[/STRIKE] capable to see where these policies will take us. I can see the day that the 22nd Amendment is repealed, and few will object until it's too late.

FIFY

 

[moltke]

Union votes

Welfare votes

Illegal votes

and a bunch of idiots and lies.

I think you can sum up it better with just 'urban vote'. The country is growing more and more urban and it is those environments that the liberal base grows its voters. Immigration, job markets, and any number of various reason have demographics showing that trend continuing. If the liberal/urban political thought doesn't capture a lot of people ending up there now, then it surely likely will absoarb and have their children. Case in point, Chicago and NYC Seattle deciding the fate of their entire state. The farmers and small towns in Southern Ill. are as about as different as those living in Chicago as you find in Wyoming versus San Fransico somtimes. Sadly ... that will only get worse. Us Hoosiers might as well pay attention because it will not be long before Marion county, together with Fort Wayne, Bloomington, and Gary add up to basically push the same blanket on our ability to sway much of anything stateside ... let alone nation wide.