Are we slowly losing our constitutional rights?

2015-05-01T15:48:37-04:00

I feel as each day passes, Americans are being slowly "conditioned" into a state where our constitutional rights are little to none.

Talk of gun control is absurd to me; it's obvious that the 2nd Amendment's original intent is to allow Americans the right to protect themselves with their own firearm without fear of repercussion. I don't understand how the argument, "Guns kill people." is legitimate to anyone because mentally unstable people kill people.. a weapon is a tool; an extension of a man's will. If the man chooses to kill someone, how can you justify punishing an entire nation by the actions of a few morons?

Just my $.02. There are a bunch of examples, but I wanted to get the input of the RP community. Am I imagining this?

Invite others to respond by typing @name

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 1 at 2015 3:55 PM

2015-05-01T15:55:32-04:00

on the contrary, IMHO we are becoming so filled with a sense of entitlement that every time the government tries to step in on an issue, some group somewhere feels their rights are being threatened.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made May 1 at 2015 3:55 PM

2015-05-01T15:55:44-04:00

Yes, various levels of government in the United States are gradually increasing infringements on our rights over time.

From minimum wage laws to soda size restrictions to gun control to civil asset forfeiture, Tyranny is a real problem in the United States, today.

Response by SGT James Murphy made May 1 at 2015 3:58 PM

2015-05-01T15:58:22-04:00

Yes we are loosing our Consitutional Rights but not slowly...Very Rapidly!

Response by TSgt Christopher D. made May 1 at 2015 3:59 PM

2015-05-01T15:59:09-04:00

Hi Patrick,

Small point of semantics, but rights are not "Constitutional." The Constitution was meant, in part, to prevent the Federal government from infringing upon natural rights, i.e. rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I agree with the intent of your question, and with the remarks you made to support your notion. There are simply too many quotes i could post from the founders that warned of precisely these things. The one that stands out right now is from Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little safety temporary security deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made May 1 at 2015 4:00 PM

2015-05-01T16:00:26-04:00

I think so. There are many examples, but here is one that caught my eye this morning . . .

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mom-lunch-shamed-school-packing-oreos-daughter/story?id=30674158

Mom Says She Was 'Lunch Shamed' by School for Packing Oreos

Leeza Pearson got a stern note from her school about her daughter's lunch.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 1 at 2015 4:02 PM

2015-05-01T16:02:21-04:00

Nope. Not at all. We've just mentally rationalized EVERYTHING we want or crave to be a right somehow. Regardless of the topic, any new law/action will inevitably have a group screaming about their rights being taken away.

Ben & Jerry's discontinuing a specific flavor? Bet your buttons the media will somehow run stories about the President burning constitutions while holding Ben and/or Jerry at gunpoint...

We've become a society of Chicken Littles...

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 1 at 2015 4:15 PM

2015-05-01T16:15:13-04:00

I have always been at odds with 2A and my feelings seem to be different than most but for what its worth if they took the guns away from everyone, including the police and added maximum, non-negotiable prison terms for simply committing a crime with a gun, then this issue could be a non-issue.

IMHO guns outside the hands of the military and law enforcement (and with recent events I'm questioning LEOS carrying) are a quick and available means to an end. Take away the guns and people will still find a way to kill one another but it won't be as quick and "easy", it would have to be more up close and intimate such as using a knife to stab or a bat to bludgeon someone with. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but should we go back to the wild west days and just allow everyone to carry with no restrictions so if you're wanting to go after someone but they're packing, you'll think twice about it? Will there be witnesses to determine if a shoot was clean or not or will we be required to all wear body cams?

If gun control is as you say, absurd, and we have police out there acting like criminals by shooting first and asking questions later then, what would be some potential solutions to stopping this cycle of gun related violence if taking away guns is off the table?

Response by SSG Everett Wilson made May 1 at 2015 4:16 PM

2015-05-01T16:16:06-04:00

I'm afraid so, seems we have fewer rights. Seems if you're a criminal, illegal, drug addict you have more and more rights.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made May 1 at 2015 4:18 PM

2015-05-01T16:18:02-04:00

The communist/socialist agenda wants to disarm us. We can't be conquered as long as we are armed.

When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.
When the government fears the people, you have liberty.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2015 4:26 PM

2015-05-01T16:26:29-04:00

Speaking on the 2nd Ammendment and gun control I would say keep the right to bear arms but for those that abuse this right i.e. killing, robbery etc... there should be more stingent laws like and eye for an eye that would make people think twice. Image if you you knew you were going to be put in front of a firing squad immediately after a trial if found guilty for murder would you think twice?

Response by SPC Carl K. made May 1 at 2015 4:34 PM

2015-05-01T16:34:07-04:00

Here is how I feel, and I hope none of you think I am crazy. Let me break it down by individual Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

1st Amendment:
Speech: Political Correctness dictates what and how we can say things without perceived (read: false) offense. Any criticism of the President means one is racist. Any criticism of Hillary means one is sexist. These are blatant violation of the Freedom of Speech.

Press: According to Senator Feinstein, any journalist not affiliated with a major newspaper or network, is not a real journalist. Any news site not affiliated with the above criteria i not a real news site. Many other people feel the same way.

Religion: Christians cannot publicly display manger scenes or any other Christian symbolism without being sued. This violates freedom to exercise religion. It seems only atheists and Muslims have any religious freedom.

Redress of Grievances and Peaceable Gathering: Marked off protest zones off the beaten path and laws against protests within a certain distance of officials who have secret service protection infringe on this. Also, selective permission for only certain groups to protest on college campuses violate this.

2nd Amendment:

Bans on types of magazines, construction of firearms, and certain types of ammunition are direct attacks on this amendment. Banning people from owning guns with no recourse for appeal, such as involuntary commitment, or being diagnosed with PTSD are blatant violations. (Convicted felons can petition for their gun rights and often can get them reinstated. Those mentioned above can't.
Also, any legislation (there are many) that limits the ability to procure, carry, or utilize certain firearms violates this.

3rd Amendment:

Contrary to popular and majority opinion and understanding, this amendment does not mean just housing soldiers in private homes, but primarily addressed the military acting as general civilian law enforcement. The militarization/nationalization of the country's police forces violates this in my opinion.

4th Amendment:

Using drones to spy on people, NSA's collection of emails, texts, and cell calls are the biggest violations of this. Laws being passed and upheld by higher courts allowing LEOs to search your car (without probable cause) during a traffic stop, and New York City's stop and frisk law are blatant violations of this. There are many more; all you have to do is a little online research.

5th Amendment:

The confiscation of personal property without due process (Just being charged, but not convicted) and it being sold, which happens in many jurisdictions violates this.

8th Amendment:

Bail amounts of astronomical amounts are being levied for minor offenses. Locally, a guy with a drunk and disorderly was levied a bail of $5000. This is more common than people think. This violates the 8th, in my opinion.

10th Amendment:

Ever since the Civil War, federalism has become less and less common. The federal government has been overruling states rights over and over again. The federal laws trump state laws, even though a separation of powers between the states and the federal government is guaranteed. The act of secession was indeed allowed under this amendment, but after the Civil War, the federal government has tried to keep all the states under its thumb.

So... are we slowly losing our rights? I believe we are indeed. Certain political figures, as well as special interest groups, who happen to be in the minority of the country's population, seem to be driving the direction of who gets what rights and when. As we move on into the future, I think this country will be so much more different than the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, even more than it is right now. If the Founding Fathers saw what was happening right now, they would not recognize this country as the same one they established.

Also, if we do not get away from this two-party political system that has all the politicians in bed with the corporations and the special interest groups, and start electing actual Constitutionalists, our rights will continue to further erode.

Response by SGT Curtis Earl made May 1 at 2015 5:09 PM

2015-05-01T17:09:34-04:00

Not to beat a dead horse, but far too many people talk about the constitution having never actually read it. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that carrying weapons was a matter reserved for militia.

**A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.**

It was Supreme Court decisions centuries later that redefined that right to include self-defense and hunting. We have the right to own guns, but it wasn't the Constitution, nor was it the correction that gave UA the right (the amendments were corrections or clarifications).

As for other rights, we aren't losing them at all. That's propaganda put out by a particular segment of America. The rest is debateable, I just wanted to clarify that point.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2015 9:51 PM

2015-05-01T21:51:12-04:00

You bet and they don't care.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2015 1:08 AM

2015-05-02T01:08:05-04:00

The second amendment had been under attack for decades. That debate truly deserves its own thread. Though there’s little doubt other rights are being trampled on.

4th- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

NSA spying, stop and frisk, sobriety checkpoints, no knock warrants, firearms seizures for suspected domestic abuse(no due process)

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2015 1:14 AM

2015-05-02T01:14:35-04:00

Good thing we don't get our rights from the constitution.

As soon as I dialed into that reality life got a whole lot easier.

Response by PO1 John Miller made May 2 at 2015 1:17 AM

2015-05-02T01:17:07-04:00

I wouldn't say we are "losing" our Constitutional rights per say but I would say that certain government organizations both local and federal are TRYING to take our rights.

Also there are people on both sides of the fence politically speaking that think some rights should be taken away in the name of "safety" or "morals" but only apply it to those things with which they disagree with.

Example: Mostly those on the left want to heavily regulate or even totally ban firearms. Those on the right want to ban things such as gay marriage.

My stance is, you want to preserve one right you must preserve them all. If it is important to even a small group of people, and it doesn't affect your life whatsoever, what's the problem?

A member of the Canadian Libertarian Party, Dan Dicks, said it best: "I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns."

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2015 1:24 AM

2015-05-02T01:24:57-04:00

It's an old law that could use another look, and there's nothing wrong with that. This isn't 1776, where a town needs to protect itself from a tyrannical government on its own; in the information age, any body besieged by tyranny would quickly find 100,000 ready volunteers to defend it. I'm fine with a requirement to register all guns and restrict sales to responsible people, because it's a responsible thing to do and I don't think it actually restricts a person's ability to defend themselves from government. For starters, who among is would follow an order to imprison a dissenter, or kill a peaceful citizen? This doesn't worry me at all. The only threat I see to civil liberties is the invasion of politics into the police force.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 2 at 2015 10:37 AM

2015-05-02T10:37:00-04:00

I woke up this morning and checked.
We were not under martial law and all my Constitutional rights were firmly in place.
The only thing that restricts my right to buy a weapon is the prices that have been jacked up by the repeated chanting that our guns are going to be taken away.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made May 2 at 2015 5:13 PM

2015-05-02T17:13:43-04:00

No actually we are not....too many people have become constitutional lawyers without knowing a damned thing. I'm not talking real attorneys here, I'm talking about those who read blogs, who listen and watch media with its own agenda.

The present administration has been in office 6 years and we still have our guns.

Let me turn the question back at you. What rights have you lost?

Response by SPC Michael Frugoli made May 2 at 2015 5:34 PM

2015-05-02T17:34:10-04:00

I have not noticed a loss of right. Background checks ensuring people getting guns aren't felons, drug users unless those are people you want to have guns and we shouldn't have any law at all regarding gun control. I don't think our forefathers anticipated this type of issue with weapons. I think there need to be some basic controls to help protect the average citizen you are an average citizen possessing a weapon and protecting it in your home I don't see a problem

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made May 4 at 2015 2:05 PM

2015-05-04T14:05:23-04:00

As regards the 2d Amendment, the state militias were converted to the NG and the USAR formed as a result of the Dick Act of 1903. There had been a colonial militia since the first muster in 1620 and the colonial militias had been mandated by the Militia Act of the crown in 1652.

Th NG by the way has both a state AND federal mission.

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Oct 27 at 2015 12:54 PM

2015-10-27T12:54:55-04:00

Hopefully "Rights" aren't being confused with License to whatever. No "right" is Absolute neither guarantee Forever. Bad things can happen that can create conditions where the so called "rights" may be suspended. These so called "Rights" can also be abused as we can see often. Absent as they are from the Constitution the "Rights" of Victims of Crimes to Hope for Justice, is no surprise to see on a Daily basis Criminals having more protections than their victims.

Response by SGT James Murphy made Nov 5 at 2015 5:32 PM

2015-11-05T17:32:12-05:00

WHEN OUR NATION’S FOUNDING FATHERS gave us documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and others, they had to lean upon a common understanding of law, government, social order, and morality. That understanding sprang from the common acceptance of what has come to be known as the Judeo-Christian Ethic, which is the system of the moral and social values that originates in the Old and New Testaments of the Word of God.
Whether each of the Founding Fathers was a Christian is not the issue. Their writings, their statements, and their votes evidence the fact that the majority of them embraced these great principles as the basis for a civilized nation.
Ladies and Gentlemen, My Wife Sue and I believe that Electing Dr. Ben Carson President is the first step to restoration as that civilized nation.

Response by SGT Joseph Schmalzel made Nov 6 at 2015 10:00 AM

2015-11-06T10:00:06-05:00

6 deployments "6" and each time I came home I would wake up looking for my firearm. We were surrounded by armed Americans doing difficult things. Firearms are tools nothing more or less. Hammers and baseball bats are used in more killings.
I raised my hand 5 times to an oath that I believe in.
I love shooting in USPSA it calms my nerves. Too bad we have so many restrictions. Suppressors is a big one following full auto. If I can't be armed the same as in combat its actually a violation of US law. Look it up. All military aged males shall posses equal arms as the military.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
The militia is the people.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2015 10:09 AM

2015-11-06T10:09:22-05:00

I think we are slowly losing them. Most of it happens without us even having a clue of what is going on. Sad really.

Response by SGT Joseph Schmalzel made Nov 6 at 2015 9:01 PM

2015-11-06T21:01:20-05:00

The fact of the matter is this. Humans are born with rights. I raised my hand 5 times for them. Go ahead and try to take one. Better come with a lot of force. I will die for them. As for the 2A. I can arm my whole street. Yes we are the militia. As per code. All males of military age.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 1:15 AM

2016-03-22T01:15:52-04:00

When the Bosnian issue broke out and like many Americans I wondered why we were there?
I heard so many comments about the conflict. Why are we there, its not our fight, etc. They were all excellent questions.
Then our unit was deployed to Bosnia.
Found out why we were there: Because the European community asked for us to aid them in the matter.
When our interpreter explained to me the importance of the weapons they received after a trainl was derailed, he said " We had weapons to fight"
Then the ding bell went off in my head about so many who question the need for the right to keep and bear arms in the US.
This interpreter was a young boy when his country broke up and he nor his family were the cause. They found their self being slaughtered by their enemies, THEIR GOVERNMENT[S] and watched their neighborhoods, home and friends systematically herded and murdered by the thousands and hundreds. " We had weapons to fight." i.e. THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS - TO PROTECT YOUR HOME AND FAMILY.

NOTE: The Zimmerman Telegraph, The Germans sent this telegraph to Mexican Government and sought Mexico to aid the Germans invasion of the US. The Mexican Government wrote back; "WE DO NOT SPEAK THEIR LANGUAGE AND THEY ALL HAVE GUNS."
This is the spirit of a world that seeks to bring America away from her governing documents and her faith, and as we have witnessed, they believe and cause many of us to believe - as Hitler and Japan did, they will win.
Fact is, they have already LOST. This is how we win.
We hold tight and do not despair, and we pray, and we uphold our faith, our document[s] they seek to and do for the most part in their mind: Destroy - did not Hitler, voted TIME MAGIZINE man of the year during the build up of his reign of HORROR?
As Hitler, they are a FAD. All FADS vanish and go away.

Response by Sgt Mike Jacobi made May 27 at 2017 9:20 AM

2017-05-27T09:20:30-04:00

"Hate speech" is another erosion, this time of our First Amendment. What used to be a matter of bad taste and ignorance is now a matter of law. And who gets to decide what is "hate speech"? The government of course, the very body that the Bill of Rights is designed to check.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2019 12:06 AM

2019-12-13T00:06:42-05:00

This is the result of people being 1 brain washed and 2 not accept the constitution for what it is