Actually, the British invaded through Canada (which was still a British colony, in part… I think… War of 1812? Someone correct me if I’m wrong). But we don’t include that because they were just “getting us back” for whupping THEIR asses in the late 1700s. The War of 1812 and the Revolutionary War cancelled each other out, so we act as if neither had ever happened.
Now Mexico… THEY’ve never invaded the U.S… unless you include the huge amount of Mexican immigrants here in southern California… oh my Spam, they’re invading real slowly!!! Help!!!
(Note: The above was strictly bullshit, but AMUSING bullshit… after Unclebeer’s post, how the hell could I post anything BUT bullshit?!? Dammit, Unclebeer, let the thread get going a bit 'fore you make us all laugh our asses off!!!)
Since this is the Pit, and others have answered the pseudo-question that was pseudo-asked by the pseudo-poster, allow me to invite him to stick a Swiss Army Knife up his ass.
Thank you, and have a nice day, you neutral putz!
Yer pal,
Satan
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, one week, five days, 13 hours, 4 minutes and 3 seconds.
4141 cigarettes not smoked, saving $517.72.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 9 hours, 5 minutes.
*
Actually, guys, I think Pancho Villa did make some raids into the United States. Of course he did not have official Mexican Government backing to do so, so maybe that doesn’t count as an invasion. He did have a lot of guys with him, though. And the US treated his incursions as invasions, IIRC.
2Sense, you are so wrong. The Constitution is the bulwark of defense of the rights of the individual against the power of the State. Let me clue you to Supreme Court decisions based on the constitution :
1954 Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka–declared segregation illegal
1961 Mapp vs. Ohio–ruled that prosecutors can’t use illegally obtained evidence against you in a trial
1961 Gideon vs. Wainwright–ruled that indigent suspects are entitled to legal representation
1966 Miranda vs. Arizona–ruled that suspects must be made aware of their rights at the time of arrest
1973 Roe vs. Wade–made abortion legal
Don’t forget that under the Fifth Amendment you cannot be made to testify against yourself, under the fouth amendment, the police have to have a legal warrant before searching your house, Article Six ensures that you get a speedy trial instead of being “disappeared”, and the First Amendment allows you the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you please.
Be grateful you live in a nation where the rights of the individual are respected, instead of a country where you can be tortured by the police and where you can go to jail for attending church. Yo live in a land where you are free to write uninformed posts without fear of anything worse than getting flamed by a pissed-off patriot.
I was actually in the courtroom (here in Diego Garcia) when a US citizen, as the accused, attempted to assert his rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Man, that was good for quite a few laughs.
2Sense:
Why are you so hung up against the Constitution? It seems to me that you are constantly exercising one right guaranteed by said esteemed document: that of free speech. Yet, you hate the thing. Truly fucking amazing.
I think there is one aspect of the OP which has not been touched on yet, but it is very relevant to the question. As has been pointed out, it is possible to amend the constitution, and that has been done when the need was sufficiently perceived. So it is not sacrosanct- in theory- however, the specific issue of the right to bear arms is encoded in a part of the constitution which for all practical purposes is nearly sacrosanct.For those not familar with the US constitution- The first 10 amendments to added right after the constitution was adopted, because the debate over adoption brought to the fore areas in which the protential for tyrannical abuse existed. These 10 amendments, called the Bill of Rights, are the core of what most Americans consider their “Constitutional rights”. These have never been further amended, and any attempt to do so would be extremely controversial, since many people fear that any precedent of tampering with any part of the Bill of Rights could jeopardize the rest.
IMHO if the right to bear arms were in any other part of the constitution than the Bill of Rights there would exist much more of an effort to repeal it entirely, rather than relying on judicial interpretations to limit exercise of the right {I’m not advocating that…just expressing how I see the situation).
Thanks for the unPitlike reply. I think free speech is a great thing. For the most part, I don’t dislike the ideals set forth in the Preamble or the Bill of Rights. My objections concern some of the underlying assumptions behind the system. I think that unresolved paradoxes like “The government cannot be trusted” and “the unwashed masses cannot be trusted” lead to a system that does not fufill the ideals. I even think that the system has good, even brilliant, aspects.
This wisdom from Ben Franklin has added mightily to the greatness of America.
goboy,
Originally posted by goboy: Let me clue you to Supreme Court decisions based on the constitution
[/quote]
Exactly how do the actions of a body that I never voted on in interpreting a social compact that no living person has ever voted for uphold the traditions of democracy?