Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

So many amendments.

Is nothing sacred!

On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state Legislatures twelve proposed amendments to the Constitution. Numbers three through twelve were adopted by the states to become the United States (U.S.) Bill of Rights, effective December 15, 1791.

James Madison proposed the U.S. Bill of Rights. It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty. The U.S. Bill of Rights was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as the Magna Carta (1215).

Two additional articles were proposed to the States; only the final ten articles were ratified quickly and correspond to the First through Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. The first Article, dealing with the number and apportionment of U.S. Representatives, never became part of the Constitution. The second Article, limiting the ability of Congress to increase the salaries of its members, was ratified two centuries later as the 27th Amendment. Though they are incorporated into the document known as the "Bill of Rights", neither article establishes a right as that term is used today. For that reason, and also because the term had been applied to the first ten amendments long before the 27th Amendment was ratified, the term "Bill of Rights" in modern U.S. usage means only the ten amendments ratified in 1791.

The United States Bill of Rights plays a central role in American law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation. One of the original fourteen copies of the U.S. Bill of Rights is on public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Amendment I (1): Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II (2): Right to bear arms
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.

Amendment III (3): Housing of soldiers
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV (4): Search and arrest warrants
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.

Amendment V (5): Rights in criminal cases
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment VI (6): Rights to a fair trial
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII (7): Rights in civil cases
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII ( 8 ): Bails, fines, and punishments
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX (9): Rights retained by the people
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X (10): Powers retained by the states and the people
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.

I suggest you keep your simple=minded psycho analysis to yourself, plus your insults and try to bottle up your nasty streak.

The Amendments (the first 10 anyway) make the United States Constitution  [glow=blue,2,300]"SACRED" [/glow] to the American People.

You see, unlike 90+% of all other governments worldwide, governments that rule over their citizens, the United States Government is [glow=green,2,300]"of the People, by the People, & for the People". [/glow]

The Amendments (the first 10 anyway) make the United States Constitution  [glow=blue,2,300]"SACRED" [/glow] to the American People.

Quote from: string on 2015-05-14, 08:42:27

I suggest you keep your simple=minded psycho analysis to yourself, plus your insults and try to bottle up your nasty streak.

You don't have a clue about 'nasty' either.  But that's okay, most people don't...thank goodness.    

The latest dispatch from the United Kingdom’s ongoing campaign to eliminate all forms of armed self-defense seems too incredible to be true. Unfortunately, after tracking down the origin of a publicly distributed statement regarding self-defense products on the country’s “Ask the Police” website, we can confirm that British subjects continue to live at the mercy of their potential attackers.  Even to the point of baffling absurdity.

The statement appears in the Frequently Asked Questions section of www.askthe.police.uk – a site that is operated by the Police National Legal Database.   Information provided by the PNLD and its site are used by local police constabularies to help inform the public.

The question at issue asks, “Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?” Succinctly epitomizing the sad state of natural rights in Great Britain, the first sentence states, “The only fully legal self defence product at the moment is a rape alarm.”

And to add even more insult to human dignity, the statement cautions subjects against the use of nearly any other type of defense product, and reads like an appeal for victims to graciously suffer criminal violence. The answer makes clear “You must not get a product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury. Possession of such a product in public (and in private in specific circumstances) is against the law.”  So even in the sanctity of one’s home, the statement seems to suggest that care for violent offenders outweighs the rights of potential victims to be safe and secure against attack.

The statement then addresses the legality of inert dye sprays that merely mark one’s attacker for later identification; in contrast to self-defense sprays like mace or pepper spray that inflict pain in order to halt an attack. The site is so concerned with the well-being of violent criminals, that in the context of dye sprays, it states,“be aware that even a seemingly safe product, deliberately aimed and sprayed in someone's eyes, would become an offensive weapon because it would be used in a way that was intended to cause injury.”

Whether it’s this detestable advice, police warning a woman not to display a knife in order to ward off intruders, warrantless firearm storage inspections, or desperate subjects being forced to defend their lives and property with cricket and baseball bats during riots, the UK government appears intent on wiping out any remaining vestiges of the traditional right to self-defense. We’d like to say that we won’t allow ourselves to be shocked by the next ludicrous episode from across the pond, but history shows they’ll somehow manage to astound.

OF course, it may be that the UK has "bobbies" on every street corner . . .

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-06-01, 19:01:45

OF course, it may be that the UK has "bobbies" on every street corner . . .

Actually, it's more like we don't have armed rapists on every corner. 

Actually, it's more like we don't have armed rapists on every corner.  

Of course knives can be dangerous. I'll let you decide, Mjmsprt. Me? I'm going with the AK47.
vs.