2 Hours of Sovereign Citizens Getting Their Window Busted Out & Tased

[BrAinPaiNt]

There are plenty, too many, citizens and politicians that do not understand what any of these amendments mean or why they even exist. People pull them out when it suits them while at the same time wanting to deny them to others. I am especially irked by the media's insistence that the first amendment is unlimited when it comes to freedom of the press, while also arguing that freedom of speech is limited. It would have been fun to read the social media posts of the founding fathers if they had such a thing in their day. But I suppose the federalist papers were their way of explaining what they were thinking.

I don't know how they teach the constitution in schools these days but when I grew up teachers were big on the "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it" explanation of freedom of speech.

The same goes for the fundamental concept of liberty. Understanding what it meant to the founding fathers would go a long way to explaining what the bill of rights is all about.

No they do not teach enough about the constitution or the bill of rights. Sad.

Also keep in mind that the first does not include fighting words/threats and inciting a riot.
You have freedom of speech but you can not threaten someone. There is freedom of the press but they can also be sued for Libel or Slander.

People need to stop and remember why there are those rights granted in the constitution by the founding fathers.

They did not want to be under yet another tyranny. They did not want someone to be punished or killed because they disagreed with a leader or a punishment. They did not want to be under the whim of a King who decided what religion was ok and you would be burned if you practiced another. They wanted a system where the press could be critical of a government. They wanted a government that had checks and balances and did not have one section to be able to rule out the other two. They wanted a system where states could have their laws and rights but not if it over ruled the constitution.

 

[zrinkill]

I am pro Constitution pro rights of American.

This

Anyone who has been in the military knows citizens would never want to be under Martial Law if they knew what that entails.

 

[Creeper]

No they do not teach enough about the constitution or the bill of rights. Sad.

Also keep in mind that the first does not include fighting words/threats and inciting a riot.
You have freedom of speech but you can not threaten someone. There is freedom of the press but they can also be sued for Libel or Slander.

People need to stop and remember why there are those rights granted in the constitution by the founding fathers.

They did not want to be under yet another tyranny. They did not want someone to be punished or killed because they disagreed with a leader or a punishment. They did not want to be under the whim of a King who decided what religion was ok and you would be burned if you practiced another. They wanted a system where the press could be critical of a government. They wanted a government that had checks and balances and did not have one section to be able to rule out the other two. They wanted a system where states could have their laws and rights but not if it over ruled the constitution.

The rule of thumb is your rights end where someone else's begin. So yes, libel, threats, etc. are not acceptable even under the first amendment. But we can see many examples of speech being curbed not because of threats or libel, but because of disagreement. Plus, some have concluded that you have a right not to be offended by what someone else says or thinks. If we accept that, where does it take us?

When people use the argument, "you can't scream 'fire!' in a crowded movie theater, the part they leave out is, yes you can, if you have reason to believe the theater actually is on fire. What you cannot do is scream "fire!" knowing there is no fire, but you just want to see everyone panic or create mayhem.

btw, I think you know this, but the founding fathers did not grant us our rights. They simply articulated the rights endowed upon us by our creator. The fact is, they debated whether or not to include any of the bill of rights in the constitution. Some of them felt that doing so would imply our rights were limited to those they enumerate. They were right about that. People do believe our rights are limited to what is in the constitution. But the 9th amendment was supposed to clarify that, but who quotes the 9th amendment ever?