Sutter Buttes Tea Party Patriots

Ordinary Citizens Reclaiming America's Founding Principles

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government" – George Washington

Views: 85

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

A free people. I will decide when I have enough arms and ammunition to protect ME and MY FAMILY from my government, if and when the occasion manifests itself. The U.S. Constitution places restraints on Government NOT the free people.
An attorney who has sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution should know "who decides."

Good reply, honey. Let's hope our next District Attorney will know, understand, and uphold the United States Constitution.

As you are well aware, the courts make mistakes, which is why court decisions are oftentimes overturned. Without voter ID and without counting our military ballots because they allegedly arrived too late (cough-cough) and with multiple ballots marked before the voters vote, our elections are inaccurate representations of the will of the people.

According to a witness on scene when the man was murdered by the police, he never pointed his rifle at the police; and they did not give him time to put his weapon down. I was not there; and even if I was there, what people think they see is not always what happened, which is why witness testimonies oftentimes vary. I'm sure the police investigators will report it was a justifiable kill just as they did when the well-respected lady in Yuba City was killed by the police in her home in the middle of the night.

National Socialists interpret the Constitution - American Patriots read it.

U.S. sued over unarmed mom's D.C. killing
Family seeking $75 million after woman shot dead by federal agents


I gave you examples of the police murdering citizens, and you change the subject.

The fact you state our Constitution "was meant at first to only be for white male property-owning colonists, with the property including slaves" proves your ignorance of it. The fact it included slaves as property owners was a concession made to southern landowners with the belief it would later be rectified. The vast majority of Americans were too poor to own slaves. You neglected to mention women were also considered property of their fathers and husbands -- much like they still are in many Sikh communities, even though their country's laws state otherwise.

I love your idea for a debate on the Constitution. if I set up a debate between you and a Constitutional attorney, I doubt you would participate. If you are willing, however, we will try to set it up; and I'll even post your quote about what our Constitution was meant for.

Reply to Discussion


© 2017   Created by Noah Gardner.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service