3269
Comments (108)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
138
Wrexxis780 138 points ago +139 / -1

imagine having to pass a law to uphold the constitution

60
DahRage 60 points ago +61 / -1

It's almost like the constitution is already the law required to uphold the constitution

Odd

25
PocketPosse 25 points ago +26 / -1

The power of the constitution is not in the paper that we memorize. Its in the supreme court. The constitution is NOT a living document, but the supreme court, with the sole power to uphold it, IS. You need to fortify your rights at the local level, because if we cant win any more elections, Democrats will pick all future Judges and the constitution cannot cast its own votes. The constitution will be re-interpreted to mean nothing in our lifetime. There is no such thing as too much redundancy for our freedom.

16
liberpede 16 points ago +16 / -0

Truth

No piece of paper, even our sacred Constitution, is magic.

It only means something as long as we act like it does.

5
DeepSouthPatriot 5 points ago +5 / -0

This this this this this!

10
giantrabbit1 10 points ago +12 / -2

Antonin Scalia once said something profound. He mentioned that when asked, a lot of people would say that the Bill of Rights protects people's freedoms. He said that's wrong, and it's actually the checks & balances and what critics deride as "gridlock" that protects them. Without them, the whole Constitution is just a fancy piece of paper.

If Dems gain just 2 more Senate seats and/or if we don't gain 5+ seats in the House in 2 years, we will see this come to fruition. The filibuster will be dead and Dems will ram through every socialist's dream come true.

5
HockeyMom4Trump 5 points ago +5 / -0

We have got to secure our elections!

3
clocker23 3 points ago +3 / -0

Always upvote the judicial demigod Scalia!! Speaks truth like no other.

1
tootthebighorn 1 point ago +1 / -0

DAMN STRAIGHT!

3
Cutter 3 points ago +3 / -0

If you can stump the so-called legal experts by stating that something "depends on what is is", the constitution needs to be simplified. I mean just look at all the ways "shall not be infringed" can be interpreted!

14
Liquid_Hot_MAGA 14 points ago +14 / -0

It's just a play for political points

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
7
Deplora 7 points ago +7 / -0

A whole lotta people have guns, but I worry that the guns-to-ammo ratio is dangerously high. Look at the "Sunday Gunday" posts here. Everybody showing off their pretty guns. Nobody showing off large caches of ammo.

2
MichelesPenis 2 points ago +2 / -0

This. I have one gun, 500 rounds of ammo. That used to be a couple of months at the range. Now there's no range time.

5
PocketPosse 5 points ago +6 / -1

They wont TAKE guns. They will ban NEW guns and slowly make owning an existing gun so inconvenient, that people will GIVE them back to the government for a small piece of their own money. It is already functionally illegal to use a gun in most states. I know someone who is going to jail for stumbling on a tresspasser on his own property and pulling his gun for safety. He is going to get 20 years for assault with a deadly weapon.

4
liberpede 4 points ago +4 / -0

Not just for political points.

It also stretches the overton window.

In a good way, for once.

That's not nothing.

12
ANTI_Globalist12 12 points ago +13 / -1

Not only talk , Mobilize ! https://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/

9
Sideways 9 points ago +9 / -0

I think its more so lawyers can have more laws to point to 1 stick breaks alot easier than 100

4
ProphetOfKek 4 points ago +4 / -0

Together we are a mighty faggot!

5
jsnforce 5 points ago +5 / -0

Unfortunately it has become necessary.