Apr 6th, 2013 - Letter the Prez - rebut to Denver speech
rebuttal to this idiocy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=edkUY8dPK00
Obama said, "...we are the government. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained as they are constrained by a system our founders put in place."
Well, that's just a lie. The reality, if they really believed they were constrained by the Constitution then when Obama says, "commonsense", he'd be quoting from Thomas Paine and not ignoring, bypassing, abridging, amending, altering, interpreting, changing, and a million other adjectives that represent the destruction of the very document he claims to represent. The plain and simply fact is, that if I am attacked I want to be better armed than the person that is attacking me. Be that person a mugger, a gang, a town, a country, or a world. My personal existence is equal to all other existence. By forcing limitations on me, you are informing me that my self identity is not as important as your own. I am, by such a definition, a second class citizen. I might as well work in the fields picking cotton.
Also...
1. We elect individuals to represent us ACCORDING to the law of the constitution, and they are therefore limited to the wording offered by the constitution. Any actions that they take that supersedes the wording or alters the wording, means, that those individuals are no longer representing the people that elected them. Because, the elected officials have chosen instead to use their power to change people's freedoms to their own ends.
2. We, the electors, ONLY have the election to make our say. In other words, we have zero direct authority to veto laws the Congress attempts to implement, even if they are plainly unconstitutional.
3. And since the government ignores the constitution, and simply writes what ever it wants and calls it law without first making sure it is constitutional, and even asking us if we want it, we, therefore, do NOT have a government that is "for the people, by the people, and of the people", because the government officials have thrown off their oaths and followed their hearts.
Then he says, "surely, that means, we can have a debate, that your elected officials are not trying to do something to you other than [stopping another shooting]"
And this, is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. For if it really was about protecting the constitution and protecting children, then in order for us to do both, you'd arm more people whom are responsible for the children. In this way, you'd not punish the free people of this nation. Instead, that is the very reason to pass more law. As someone else said, It's not gun control, its just control.
Then he says, "{we need to look} past the rhetoric that breaks down trust..."
For this, I say the same thing I've been saying and that you've still not attempted to debate me over. The destruction of trust is the idea that someone else, other than myself, is given authority, to determine the value of my work, thus, limiting my direct access to my own Life, Liberty and Estate. There is no rhetoric there. The lies of words, come from your end of the argument, because your end is about emotionalism and the use of these emotions to steal my property and the value of my work. You're laws, affect my freedom and by doing, affect the value of my Estate and directly steal time from my life, based on the expense of that time used to earn the Estate you are stealing with you law. That is the kind of Commonsense Thomas Paine used. That is the kind of CommonSense that John Locke used. The phrase I keep hearing out the white house is a fraud. Judging from the polls, judging from the empty gun shelves, judging from the inability to purchase ammunition. I say the people are voting with their wallets, and that, sir, is the ultimate commonsense.
"We are not proposing a gun registration, but a background check for criminals..." The President says.
Um... that already exists. A person purchasing a firearm must get a background check. What are you even suggesting, then? Don't you know how your own government works? Is this more Obamacare think, where one must pass the law to even know what's in it?
Also, for clarity, people whom actually purchase firearms, know the law. They know the actions that are required to get a gun. They know the actions and hoops, and sometimes asinine thefts, that the government has infringed upon when it comes to the second amendment. By Obama's insinuation that "we [gun owners] need to get the facts" and to "not just listen to the few whom have a stake in this [perhaps the NRA??]", the President is saying that We The People don't know our own Law and more specificity that we're not smart enough to do it ourselves.... Thank god for big government then, to save us from ourselves.
The truth is, the Constitution is clear. Every single firearms law is unconstitutional. Sorry. Don't like it? Change the Constitution. And good luck with that.
Obama said, "...we are the government. They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained as they are constrained by a system our founders put in place."
Well, that's just a lie. The reality, if they really believed they were constrained by the Constitution then when Obama says, "commonsense", he'd be quoting from Thomas Paine and not ignoring, bypassing, abridging, amending, altering, interpreting, changing, and a million other adjectives that represent the destruction of the very document he claims to represent. The plain and simply fact is, that if I am attacked I want to be better armed than the person that is attacking me. Be that person a mugger, a gang, a town, a country, or a world. My personal existence is equal to all other existence. By forcing limitations on me, you are informing me that my self identity is not as important as your own. I am, by such a definition, a second class citizen. I might as well work in the fields picking cotton.
Also...
1. We elect individuals to represent us ACCORDING to the law of the constitution, and they are therefore limited to the wording offered by the constitution. Any actions that they take that supersedes the wording or alters the wording, means, that those individuals are no longer representing the people that elected them. Because, the elected officials have chosen instead to use their power to change people's freedoms to their own ends.
2. We, the electors, ONLY have the election to make our say. In other words, we have zero direct authority to veto laws the Congress attempts to implement, even if they are plainly unconstitutional.
3. And since the government ignores the constitution, and simply writes what ever it wants and calls it law without first making sure it is constitutional, and even asking us if we want it, we, therefore, do NOT have a government that is "for the people, by the people, and of the people", because the government officials have thrown off their oaths and followed their hearts.
Then he says, "surely, that means, we can have a debate, that your elected officials are not trying to do something to you other than [stopping another shooting]"
And this, is a complete misrepresentation of the truth. For if it really was about protecting the constitution and protecting children, then in order for us to do both, you'd arm more people whom are responsible for the children. In this way, you'd not punish the free people of this nation. Instead, that is the very reason to pass more law. As someone else said, It's not gun control, its just control.
Then he says, "{we need to look} past the rhetoric that breaks down trust..."
For this, I say the same thing I've been saying and that you've still not attempted to debate me over. The destruction of trust is the idea that someone else, other than myself, is given authority, to determine the value of my work, thus, limiting my direct access to my own Life, Liberty and Estate. There is no rhetoric there. The lies of words, come from your end of the argument, because your end is about emotionalism and the use of these emotions to steal my property and the value of my work. You're laws, affect my freedom and by doing, affect the value of my Estate and directly steal time from my life, based on the expense of that time used to earn the Estate you are stealing with you law. That is the kind of Commonsense Thomas Paine used. That is the kind of CommonSense that John Locke used. The phrase I keep hearing out the white house is a fraud. Judging from the polls, judging from the empty gun shelves, judging from the inability to purchase ammunition. I say the people are voting with their wallets, and that, sir, is the ultimate commonsense.
"We are not proposing a gun registration, but a background check for criminals..." The President says.
Um... that already exists. A person purchasing a firearm must get a background check. What are you even suggesting, then? Don't you know how your own government works? Is this more Obamacare think, where one must pass the law to even know what's in it?
Also, for clarity, people whom actually purchase firearms, know the law. They know the actions that are required to get a gun. They know the actions and hoops, and sometimes asinine thefts, that the government has infringed upon when it comes to the second amendment. By Obama's insinuation that "we [gun owners] need to get the facts" and to "not just listen to the few whom have a stake in this [perhaps the NRA??]", the President is saying that We The People don't know our own Law and more specificity that we're not smart enough to do it ourselves.... Thank god for big government then, to save us from ourselves.
The truth is, the Constitution is clear. Every single firearms law is unconstitutional. Sorry. Don't like it? Change the Constitution. And good luck with that.
Comments
Post a Comment