There are NO words to describe this.....seriously.....none!

[mipafox 438]

Seriously?

 

It's obviously satire or sarcasm.

 

I guess you don't fully develop your bs meter growing up in NJ unless you are within range of Philly TV stations. Kinda like how keeping your toddlers too clean compromises their immune systems later in life.

[djg0770 481]

Seriously?

 

It's obviously satire or sarcasm.

 

Exactly. Can't believe anyone would think otherwise.

[NJdiverTony 27]

+1 on this obviously being satire... That letter is so over the top in the stupidity department that it has to be satire.

[ruger9 0]

OK guys, here's a post from somebody on my town forum, read it and weep: (discussin the Bill of RIghts):

 

 

"It is obvious that history class was not your best subject. They are privileges not rights which I have said before can be taken away At any time.A great man once said rights are not rights if someone can take them away they are just privileges. And that my friend is a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! look it up. Matter of fact, the Bill of Rights initially only conferred "rights" on white, propertied males.

 

Even though they are now Rights, sure sounds like they started as a priviledge to me.

 

Now to say the fondling fathers were perfect, that these "rights" are absolute is frankly as stupid as following the initial bill of rights to begin with. Things change, and over time, generally for the better when it comes to freedoms and liberty. If you look at the founding fathers freedoms versus ours today ---- we have done them justice by correcting many egregious errors on their behalf.

 

And the best part is we could make these progressive changes because the "process" they set up, with all of it's fits n starts, it's cumbersome nature, and it's nature to allow the minority to gum up the works if they want to ----- is the best process ever invented on this planet.

 

That's the point on LCM bans; we can choose to make this difference if we all decide that the risk outweighs the benefits to all of us combined, together, and acting as one."

[ruger9 0]

it gets better:

 

 

"first of all there is no such thing as constitutional protected rights. The government may suspend your so-called rights whenever they deem it necessary. As with any so-called rights the First Amendment has limitations. As soon as you get it through your head that you have no rights they are just privileges granted to you by the government. Watching and reading the things people like you say is very disturbing. People like you want and are looking forward to a second revolution. Funny that there was never any kind of talk like that before we had a black president. God knows what you're going to do when the next one is a woman. People like you constantly scream I want my country back. Exactly where did it go your problem is the majority of this country wants to go in a certain way. And being the crybabies like you are you don't like it. You just can't face that fact"

 

 

...and keep in mind, this entire thread was about 2A and the Bill of Rights, not about Obama, the presidency, or a 2nd Revolution. These people DO exists, and I think the fact that some of YOU PEOPLE HERE refuse to believe they do (in your defense, you don't believe it literally out of disbelief ANYONE could think like that), is part of the whole problem.

 

They ARE out there. And their numbers are growing.

[BillC. 26]

Morehead City and Beaufort N.C. are near Marine Corps Station Cherry Point and Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune.

 

Having lived there, thanks to Uncle Sam, it is very safe.

[bhunted 887]

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[so_dank 0]

I hate stupid people and the fact that they have a voice... but hey the constitution they hate so much gives them one.

[Soju 153]

Classic! I always enjoy some good satire. Of course what makes it great is also what makes it so sad. That this could actually get mistaken as being true is terribly sad. I don't mean sad that someone might not pick up on it, but sad that some people wouldn't pick up on it because they agree!!!

 

I think the C-section amendment is a modest proposal actually.

[mipafox 438]

I hate stupid people and the fact that they have a voice... but hey the constitution they hate so much gives them one.

 

Fortunately for all of us, The Constitution doesn't give us any rights.

[ruger9 0]

Fortunately for all of us, The Constitution doesn't give us any rights.

 

More "satire", I take it?

[mipafox 438]

More "satire", I take it?

 

No. Deadly serious. See The Ninth Amendment for additional details. Or The Declaration of Independence.

[Soju 153]

More "satire", I take it?

 

No, that is a factual statement. The Constitution gives no rights, it is just an enumeration of rights.

[ruger9 0]

Ok, we're talking semantics here- The Bill of RIghts may not technically GIVE rights, but it lists rights that CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY by government. That's the WHOLE REASON for the bill of rights.

 

Otherwise, I don't know what any of us have been yelling about for the last month and a half. Or why any of us went to Trenton. If we are guaranteed no rights by the founding documents, this is all simply elementary- enjoy your guns before they take them away, because they surely will. Game over.

[Sonnylee 20]

"Change the Constitution" he need to change his underwear when we're done with him.. Piece of s..t!!

[mipafox 438]

Ok, we're talking semantics here- The Bill of RIghts may not technically GIVE rights, but it lists rights that CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY by government. That's the WHOLE REASON for the bill of rights.

 

Otherwise, I don't know what any of us have been yelling about for the last month and a half. Or why any of us went to Trenton. If we are guaranteed no rights by the founding documents, this is all simply elementary- enjoy your guns before they take them away, because they surely will. Game over.

 

Did you read The Ninth Amendment?

 

And, No, it's not a technicality nor a matter of semantics.  The States didn't want a Bill of Rights because they thought they would be interpreted the way you are interpreting them.  It almost sank The Constitution.  Turns out, they were right.  Evidenced by you, for example (not singling you out).

[Combat Auto 174]

Do we really want to talk about this letter - dosn't evenn deserve to be posted.

[ruger9 0]

wait, are we talking state or federal here? Because we do indeed have a Bill or Rights, which does indeed enumerate rights we HAVE and shall not be taken away by government. I don't know a thing about NJ's constitution. Or if it trumps federal, since state sovereignty is all but lost.

 

I did read the ninth. It basically says nothing. So I read some examinations of it. No one really knows what in the hell it's supposed to mean.

[Jamie6607 0]

If people in this country are truly that stupid we won't last another 10 years. What an absolute moron.

[Soju 153]

I think it is clear. It says there is a list of rights specifically mentioned, but that doesn't mean the list is absolute, and any other natural/inalienable right is still a right that cannot be taken away. Of course if even the ones specifically mentioned get denied, ones not mentioned surely can be denied with even greater ease...

 

Not to call anyone out, but I sure find it ironic the number of people who are still commenting about the article in the OP as if it isn't satire...

[ruger9 0]

And again, getting back to the "semantics" argument, as I still believe that's what it is and we are saying the same thing...

 

The Constitution (and BOR) weren't documents for the PEOPLE, they were documents for the GOVERNMENT. They weren't documents telling the people what they can and can't do, they were telling the GOVT what THEY can and can't do. They were government-limiting documents. The BOR simply spelled out some specific rights the government had no power to infringe.

[Maksim 1,504]

We really ought to think about this whole Abortion thing.... do we really need people like this around? (if this is true).

 

[ruger9 0]

Not to call anyone out, but I sure find it ironic the number of people who are still commenting about the article in the OP as if it isn't satire...

 

Because it's not, or at least it doesn't have to be- I have MET people who think this way. I have witnessed this mind-boggling display of ignorance first hand. You calling me a liar?

[Soju 153]

And again, getting back to the "semantics" argument, as I still believe that's what it is and we are saying the same thing...

 

The Constitution (and BOR) weren't documents for the PEOPLE, they were documents for the GOVERNMENT. They weren't documents telling the people what they can and can't do, they were telling the GOVT what THEY can and can't do. They were government-limiting documents. The BOR simply spelled out some specific rights the government had no power to infringe.

 

I agree it is semantics. I also wasn't arguing with you.

 

 

Because it's not, or at least it doesn't have to be- I have MET people who think this way. I have witnessed this mind-boggling display of ignorance first hand. You calling me a liar?

 

Calling you a liar? Not sure where you would get that idea. I did say the satire was so good it was sad because people do actually think this way........................................................

[mipafox 438]

I did read the ninth. It basically says nothing. So I read some examinations of it. No one really knows what in the hell it's supposed to mean.

 

Really?  Were you reading the Star Ledger?  The understanding of The Ninth Amendment is ubiquitous.  There is no confusion whatsover in any corner of knowledge.  I don't know how hard you had to search to find confusion.

 

The Ninth Amendment says, "We didn't want a Bill of Rights.  So, just to be clear, none of these rights come from the federal government, and listing a few does not in any way allow the federal government to restrict any others.  The federal government grants no rights, the federal government has no powers beyond those specifically given to them.  It is not a matter of restraint - the federal government has only the powers listed here, not every power we have not specifically restricted.  See?  That's why we didn't want a Bill of Rights.  So now we need to write a Ninth Amendment.  Ugh.  We'll follow with a Tenth as well.   No federal powers are implied and no Rights of The People or The States are restricted simply because we enumerated a few here.  See below for Tenth.  Which is also redundant on multiple levels."

[hd2000fxdl 422]

When is this going to be moved to the daily humor thread??

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ruger9 0]

I agree it is semantics. I also wasn't arguing with you.

 

 

 

 

Calling you a liar? Not sure where you would get that idea. I did say the satire was so good it was sad because people do actually think this way........................................................

 

Sorry I misunderstood... I thought you were saying anyone who thought it WASNT satire was being naive.

[djg0770 481]

The Ninth Amendment says, "We didn't want a Bill of Rights.

 

When the NJ constitution was rewritten in 1940 something they specifically did NOT list the right to keep and bear arms using the logic of the 9th amendment. Whole crap load of good that has done us here though it would be interesting to use that as a constitutional argument against ALL of NJ's gun laws as well as a whole bunch of other laws.

[ruger9 0]

Really? Were you reading the Star Ledger? The understanding of The Ninth Amendment is ubiquitous. There is no confusion whatsover in any corner of knowledge. I don't know how hard you had to search to find confusion.

 

The Ninth Amendment says, "We didn't want a Bill of Rights. So, just to be clear, none of these rights come from the federal government, and listing a few does not in any way allow the federal government to restrict any others. The federal government grants no rights, the federal government has no powers beyond those specifically given to them. It is not a matter of restraint - the federal government has only the powers listed here, not every power we have not specifically restricted. See? That's why we didn't want a Bill of Rights. So now we need to write a Ninth Amendment. Ugh. We'll follow with a Tenth as well. No federal powers are implied and no Rights of The People or The States are restricted simply because we enumerated a few here. See below for Tenth. Which is also redundant on multiple levels."

 

As I thought. We actually agree. Semantics.

 

As for the other question:

 

just one small excerpt I found:

 

The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is somewhat of an enigma. It provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named. Yet neither the language nor the history of the Ninth Amendment offers any hints as to the nature of the rights it was designed to protect.

[mipafox 438]

As I thought. We actually agree. Semantics.

 

 

You are right, you do agree.

 

Just not with me nor The Constitution.  You agree with people that think the government gives you rights, or maybe there are some semantics involved.  Fortunately for us, The Constitution still does not grant us any rights, like I originally said.  And, fortunately for us, you still are wrong   This day couldn't get any better unless you told me you'll never leave jersey.  If you can pull that off, I'll send a cake