The Fifth Amendment - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Advertise Here
View Poll Results: Eliminate The 5th Amendment?
NOT Okay for Obama But Okay For Trump 1 2.70%
NOT Okay -- Period!! 35 94.59%
Other 1 2.70%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-31-2019, 10:08 AM
ActionJackson's Avatar
ActionJackson ActionJackson is offline
Gun Clinging "Deplorable"
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Denver, Libtardrado
Age: 58
Posts: 27,580
Thanks: 41,540
Thanked 48,914 Times in 17,212 Posts
Awards Showcase
Top Poster Top Poster 
Total Awards: 2
Default The Fifth Amendment



Advertise Here

Do America's political leaders have the power to overturn the 5th Amendment?

5th Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

If Obama was to declare: "We are fundamentally changing" the way our Constitution works by taking a man's guns before due process ... would you be fired up and fighting mad?

What if Trump was to make the above declaration? Is it okee dokee with you?
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ActionJackson For This Useful Post:
Old 05-31-2019, 10:35 AM
~Black.Dog~ ~Black.Dog~ is online now
Hunter
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,158
Thanks: 787
Thanked 2,440 Times in 818 Posts
Default

Nice troll post. Do you get paid for this stuff?

Yes, Trump made an offhand comment at a meeting about this before he really understood what it meant. He has not and almost certainly will not issue an EO or take any other action along these lines or encourage it.
Yet, you and a few others constantly harp on it.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ~Black.Dog~ For This Useful Post:
Old 05-31-2019, 01:16 PM
ActionJackson's Avatar
ActionJackson ActionJackson is offline
Gun Clinging "Deplorable"
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Denver, Libtardrado
Age: 58
Posts: 27,580
Thanks: 41,540
Thanked 48,914 Times in 17,212 Posts
Awards Showcase
Top Poster Top Poster 
Total Awards: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Black.Dog~ View Post
Nice troll post. Do you get paid for this stuff?

Yes, Trump made an offhand comment at a meeting about this before he really understood what it meant. He has not and almost certainly will not issue an EO or take any other action along these lines or encourage it.
Yet, you and a few others constantly harp on it.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
So you're saying that if Obama had said it "offhand" but didn't really mean it then you would have been okee dokee with it?

Trump has said similar things in his past. He also stated that we should raise the buying age to 21. A man is either considered an adult at 18 or he isn't. If an 18 year old can be sent to war and drive a car at 16 then he should be mature enough to buy a gun at 18.

Isn't it Trump who unilaterally banned bump stocks thus making 10s of thousands of good citizens felons with the stroke of a pen? Is that not an infringement on our 2A rights? Is his logic satisfactory with you? I mean ... isn't that the argument Dems use all the time? When a bad person commits a crime with an "assault weapon," shouldn't we ban all assault weapons?

No ... it wasn't a slip of the tongue. He meant what he said and he said it on national TV and he's never retracted it. He also set a precedence for future Presidents with his bump stock ban. Any future President can simply ban any piece of plastic or metal he (or she) deems dangerous.

By the way ... how many States have passed "red flag laws" shortly after Trump's infamous statement? He set the pace!

And I wish I did "get paid" for telling the truth but it ain't likely to happen.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2019, 01:30 PM
TRyan's Avatar
TRyan TRyan is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: California
Posts: 7,806
Thanks: 5,977
Thanked 26,231 Times in 6,276 Posts
Default

Quick question...is this thread about the 5th Amendment or about Trump?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to TRyan For This Useful Post:
Old 05-31-2019, 01:34 PM
ActionJackson's Avatar
ActionJackson ActionJackson is offline
Gun Clinging "Deplorable"
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Denver, Libtardrado
Age: 58
Posts: 27,580
Thanks: 41,540
Thanked 48,914 Times in 17,212 Posts
Awards Showcase
Top Poster Top Poster 
Total Awards: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRyan View Post
Quick question...is this thread about the 5th Amendment or about Trump?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Both but primarily the 5th Amendment. You will notice that I mentioned "any political leaders." So far, I've mentioned Obama and Trump.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-01-2019, 07:59 AM
SBK SBK is offline
Free-ish Man
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 1,765
Thanks: 1,716
Thanked 1,816 Times in 905 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Black.Dog~ View Post
Yes, Trump made an offhand comment
Offhand, unscripted comments are often the best ones to pay attention to when evaluating someone's true colors. They can give a little glimpse into the person's true beliefs and motives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Black.Dog~ View Post
at a meeting about this before he really understood what it meant.
When someone takes a solemn oath as the leader of the greatest nation on earth, he/she should "understand" the basics of a free society, like due process, prior to taking that oath. It's not something that should be learned on the fly after the fact.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SBK For This Useful Post:
Old 06-01-2019, 10:17 AM
eyepal eyepal is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 747
Thanks: 138
Thanked 831 Times in 395 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBK View Post
Offhand, unscripted comments are often the best ones to pay attention to when evaluating someone's true colors. They can give a little glimpse into the person's true beliefs and motives.
I couldn't have said this better myself .
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to eyepal For This Useful Post:
Old 06-01-2019, 02:31 PM
leadcounsel's Avatar
leadcounsel leadcounsel is online now
Comic, not your lawyer!
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,928
Thanks: 22,917
Thanked 30,557 Times in 7,400 Posts
Default

I admit I was concerned about Trump's statement. But he says an enormous amount of unscripted stuff and some of it is dumb or misunderstood. I don't think he believes that.

We rarely got to see Obama unscripted. He was very closely handled. Very careful in speaches. But when we saw him unscripted he was really dumb and pretty evil. I do believe he would be an oppressive overlord if able.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to leadcounsel For This Useful Post:
Old 06-01-2019, 02:38 PM
TRyan's Avatar
TRyan TRyan is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: California
Posts: 7,806
Thanks: 5,977
Thanked 26,231 Times in 6,276 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
So you're saying that if Obama had said it "offhand" but didn't really mean it then you would have been okee dokee with it?
For the record Obama DID say a bunch of stupid **** off hand and nothing much came of any of it.

Politicians say stupid **** to stupid people. I try not to get my panties in a bunch until they need to be.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TRyan For This Useful Post:
Old 06-01-2019, 02:48 PM
charliemeyer007's Avatar
charliemeyer007 charliemeyer007 is offline
reluctant sinner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 12,840
Thanks: 33
Thanked 21,039 Times in 7,972 Posts
Default

There are rules for changing the Constitution. We outlawed alcohol, then figured out the crooks like Capone and Kennedy were making fortunes, so we changed it back. Too bad it is taking so long to deal with drugs.

The founders were a lot smarter than the scum politicians these days - what is the meaning of is?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to charliemeyer007 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-01-2019, 03:02 PM
jetgraphics's Avatar
jetgraphics jetgraphics is offline
Gumpherhooberpelt
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: near Atlanta, GA
Age: 64
Posts: 3,724
Thanks: 290
Thanked 7,456 Times in 2,504 Posts
Default

The fifth amendment has no applicability to people / sovereigns with their endowed rights intact.

DoI: all men have endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure. . . and only those who consent to be governed are denied those endowed rights.
"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

“a sovereign is not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192
Who are the sovereigns?
Ans: the people.

“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z

Who are NOT sovereigns, and have waived / surrendered their endowed rights?
Ans: Subject citizens / persons

CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY
“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944
https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
IN short, the people who have endowed rights are served by government. The persons who have consented to be governed, surrendered their endowment to their sovereign government. They're the ones in need of reassurance that government won't trespass upon them.

FYI : citizens surrendered their right to absolutely own, since government can take a portion, for support .

Geo.Wash. Sums it up nicely in 1783
. . .
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (real estate) (via taxes, etc). .. by his consent to be governed.
Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.

However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the sovereign American people (noncitizens / free inhabitants) who did not consent to be governed.
. . .
Changes the whole nature of the "Bill of Rights!"
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jetgraphics For This Useful Post:
Old 06-01-2019, 03:27 PM
Truck Vet's Avatar
Truck Vet Truck Vet is offline
Let the Debate begin
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,032
Thanks: 8,260
Thanked 8,541 Times in 3,129 Posts
Default

Until Trump makes an executive order, destroying the 5th
amendment, or signs a bill into law- all the OP is doing is
Trying to deny Trumps right to the 1st Amendment, our right
to say stupid things, in the heat of the moment.

If your a LEO, and get called to a construction site, because a
Meth head is using a porta potty as a hot tub, do you take the
Meth head's, gun from his holster if you can safely do it?

Or do you wait until the Meth head breaks a law?

My point is: we can imagine all kinds of scenes where people
should not be armed, and are a hazard to the general public.


On the other hand if the LEO does not witness some kind of mental
illness HIMSELF, he should not disarm some one based totally on
hearsay.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Truck Vet For This Useful Post:
Old 06-05-2019, 01:45 PM
Mr. Sockpuppet Mr. Sockpuppet is offline
✝️🗽🏹🗡️🔥🥓💰🛠️💉📻
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 11,471
Thanks: 3,738
Thanked 27,403 Times in 7,983 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truck Vet View Post
...On the other hand if the LEO does not witness some kind of mental illness HIMSELF, he should not disarm some one based totally on hearsay.
LE does, or should, investigate, make a determination, and act if so necessary after receiving information...regardless of the source...that affects those issues that fall under their purview.

In the interim, it is perfectly acceptable to temporarily to relieve someone of the means to harm themselves or others, escape, destroy evidence, etc, until the determination formally mentioned is made.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr. Sockpuppet For This Useful Post:
Old 06-07-2019, 10:02 AM
DTAG1307 DTAG1307 is online now
Hunter
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,473
Thanks: 1,500
Thanked 2,472 Times in 956 Posts
Default

Did it occur to you to give an "okay" option in the survey?
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2019, 01:18 PM
ActionJackson's Avatar
ActionJackson ActionJackson is offline
Gun Clinging "Deplorable"
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Denver, Libtardrado
Age: 58
Posts: 27,580
Thanks: 41,540
Thanked 48,914 Times in 17,212 Posts
Awards Showcase
Top Poster Top Poster 
Total Awards: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DTAG1307 View Post
Did it occur to you to give an "okay" option in the survey?
No.

That would fall under "other."
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-07-2019, 09:36 PM
DTAG1307 DTAG1307 is online now
Hunter
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,473
Thanks: 1,500
Thanked 2,472 Times in 956 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
No.

That would fall under "other."
lol.

So a yes/no question turns into a yes/other.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-10-2019, 02:48 PM
ActionJackson's Avatar
ActionJackson ActionJackson is offline
Gun Clinging "Deplorable"
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Denver, Libtardrado
Age: 58
Posts: 27,580
Thanks: 41,540
Thanked 48,914 Times in 17,212 Posts
Awards Showcase
Top Poster Top Poster 
Total Awards: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DTAG1307 View Post
lol.

So a yes/no question turns into a yes/other.
In this case ... yes. "Other" could include "NO" or some other hybrid answer.

Do you agree? Following are your possible answers:

Yes
Other

Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to ActionJackson For This Useful Post:
Old 06-10-2019, 03:46 PM
HomeDefense's Avatar
HomeDefense HomeDefense is offline
Bad Dog
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hellfire, Arizona
Posts: 3,253
Thanks: 1,884
Thanked 13,222 Times in 2,788 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truck Vet View Post
My point is: we can imagine all kinds of scenes where people should not be armed, and are a hazard to the general public.

On the other hand if the LEO does not witness some kind of mental
illness HIMSELF, he should not disarm some one based totally on
hearsay.
Exactly. That's what due process and judges are for. I can see many situations where a nutcase should be disarmed before he or she harms someone, but it should not be on the whim of some anti-gun wackjob.

Doing this is in the best interest of sane gun owners. Every school shooting or other mass shooting inches us closer and closer to Australian style gun reform.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to HomeDefense For This Useful Post:
Old 06-10-2019, 05:02 PM
sarco2000's Avatar
sarco2000 sarco2000 is offline
If I had a voice I'd sing
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Beyond the Grid, in Montana
Age: 53
Posts: 7,112
Thanks: 14,499
Thanked 22,313 Times in 5,562 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
So you're saying that if Obama had said it "offhand" but didn't really mean it then you would have been okee dokee with it?
Obama said all kinds of stuff. Talk is cheap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truck Vet View Post
If your a LEO, and get called to a construction site, because a
Meth head is using a porta potty as a hot tub, do you take the
Meth head's, gun from his holster if you can safely do it?

Or do you wait until the Meth head breaks a law?
The meth head is breaking the law by being a public nuisance, stoned on meth, with a gun.

.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-10-2019, 05:21 PM
ActionJackson's Avatar
ActionJackson ActionJackson is offline
Gun Clinging "Deplorable"
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Denver, Libtardrado
Age: 58
Posts: 27,580
Thanks: 41,540
Thanked 48,914 Times in 17,212 Posts
Awards Showcase
Top Poster Top Poster 
Total Awards: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truck Vet View Post
Until Trump makes an executive order, destroying the 5th
amendment, or signs a bill into law- all the OP is doing is
Trying to deny Trumps right to the 1st Amendment, our right
to say stupid things, in the heat of the moment.

If your a LEO, and get called to a construction site, because a
Meth head is using a porta potty as a hot tub, do you take the
Meth head's, gun from his holster if you can safely do it?

Or do you wait until the Meth head breaks a law?

My point is: we can imagine all kinds of scenes where people
should not be armed, and are a hazard to the general public.


On the other hand if the LEO does not witness some kind of mental
illness HIMSELF, he should not disarm some one based totally on
hearsay.

If the Meth Head is high on meth ... then he already broke the law and taking his gun is an appropriate action to take. Taking a bumpstock from a person who hasn't broken the law is NOT an appropriate action to take.
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net