Time travelers

[AAA]

I do NOT want to be part or party to any deceptions that violate the Bill of Rights!

The Bill of Rights is a framework for systematic violation of rights. How do you protect rights by violating them?

It is, in my opinion, nothing but statist garbage best suited for eagle cage liner.

 

[walt willis]

You may wish to better explain your statement as to your understanding of that document and why you feel that way as well.

Also, how or what would you do to improve the way we live in this nation?

Don't be shy, just tell us how you really feel...

 

[AAA]

You may wish to better explain your statement as to your understanding of that document and why you feel that way as well.

Also, how or what would you do to improve the way we live in this nation?

Don't be shy, just tell us how you really feel...

Sorry Walt, it is difficult to resist a good conversation about political science.

The default reason is that; The U.S. Constitution is another framework for government, which is based on coercion and violence and violating rights, and therefore evil.

But it goes deeper than that. We are sold the idea that The Constitution protects rights, but upon further careful examination , we see that it indeed does not. It is more about violating and/or managing rights for convenience of the state.

First define what inalienable rights are, then compare them to the parameters of the constitution. It either omits consideration of rights, allows for provisions to violate rights, or is about something altogether different.

The 4th amendment is a favorite example(although there are many others);

You have a right to property and privacy. The 4th recognizes this but lays out provisions for government to violate said rights with the condition of a man in funny clothes who says magic special words to describe things on paper. All it is doing is providing a legalized violation of rights. It isn't protecting anything.

The 2nd is another good example. It is permitting limited property ownership to facilitate militias to protect the state. It isn't really about the right to defense or protecting property. It is just another way to manage rights for the state and violate property rights by limiting them.

If it were about the inalienable right to defense, it would not be limited to specific property such as guns/arms or be about the state.It would actually be about people's rights. It would recognize the individual right to defense and that it is not limited to anything, that it includes any and all means necessary or available to protect yourself, family, friends, neighbors, property, etc.

The whole Bill of Rights, and statism in general, is like that. It is all framed around a false reality on paper that is not conducive to the real natural universe.

To answer your question of what I would do to fix it; the list is huge. We live in a great big mess. I am not sure where to start, or if I even care anymore.