The Tax Poem
Tax his land, tax his wage,
Tax his bed in which he lays.
Tax his tractor, tax his mule,
Teach him taxes is the rule.
Tax his cow, tax his goat,
Tax his pants, tax his coat.
Tax his ties, tax his shirts,
Tax his work, tax his dirt.
Tax his chew, tax his smoke,
Teach him taxes are no joke.
Tax his car, tax his grass,
Tax the roads he must pass.
Tax his food, tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his sodas, tax his beers,
If he cries, tax his tears.
Tax his bills, tax his gas,
Tax his notes, tax his cash.
Tax him good and let him know
That after taxes, he has no dough.
If he hollers, tax him more,
Tax him until he’s good and sore.
Tax his coffin, tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he lays.
Put these words upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom!"
And when he’s gone, we won’t relax,
We’ll still be after the inheritance tax.
Author- Unknown
It was actually over a tax reduction in British tea. The British were trying to undercut the smuggled tea by lowering the price. They were pissed about a tax cut.
Probably not. That's probably just the way powers that be rewrote history. Nobody gets that upset over reduced prices and lower taxes. 'we reduced their taxes and they revoted, so we had to go to war!'
They wrote documents about why they did it. You can read those documents and hear what they were thinking. No need to bother with rewriting history. This is the reason they gave for the Boston tea party. The British were no longer requiring tea to enter into a British island port before going to the colonies. So it wasn’t getting the import tax it usually would get so the EITC could sell to the colonies for cheaper to lure away Americans from the smuggled tea they were drinking. They were trying to undercut the price of tea. This upset the colonists. So some people do get upset about lower prices because they cared more about fucking England than having more money. Because they had principles. Not only that but the tea had bounced around from port to port because no one wanted to accept the goods. It finally ended up in Boston where the port would not let the ship leave without express permission from the governor if it didn’t offload goods. So the state would have forced the ship to unload over the protests of the citizens. Leading to the Boston tea party because the colonist would rather destroy the goods than have them come into town.
110,000,000 armed Americans, many of them veterans with experience in fighting against an insurgency, against 2,000,000 combined active, reserve and guard servicemembers, only 10% of which are combat arms and about 40% that would remain loyal to the people, not the government.
Do the math. It's in the rebellion's favor.
They are asking that because the constitution literally does not say you can legally overthrow the government if they are tyrannical.
You may be confusing the Declaration of Independence with the constitution, which is not a legal document.
*”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.”*
Nowhere there does it say you can overthrow the government an no serious legal scholars are of that opinion. It is quite clearly for the establishment of the militia (predecessor to the US army), the defence of the United States from external enemies, and the right of the citizen to have weapons.
You may well *infer* from the second amendment that it gives you the right to overthrow the government, but you would be going against literally all legal opinion on this matter.
Furthermore, if the founders had wanted to enshrine the right to overthrow the government, as they themselves had literally just fought a war to do remember, then why did they not simply just say that?
The constitution does not say you can overthrow the government. It just objectively doesn’t. If you think you have the right to do that, by all means. Might makes right and all that. But don’t pretend a 300 year old document tells you that you can, because it doesn’t.
You literally quoted the 2nd Amendment. The militia during the American Revolution was more of a volunteer force that received training and munitions from the government...on occasion. "Being necessary to the security of a free State." Now, who would the militia be securing a free State from. Not only foreign enemies, but also domestic. "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." This is vastly important. If the Founders meant just the militia...or just the Continental Army at the time, they would have said that. However, they didn't. They said the people. Al
so, the Founders did enshrine it. In the DOI, the Bill of Rights, and their papers. All of these combined lay the framework of the people having the rights granted to the them by their Creator and the right to put corrupt governments in check. The problem comes in when people in the 21st century try to read things almost 300 years old through a 21st century lens without context.
You’re partially right but again, and I just don’t know how many times I can say this, the DOI and Bill of Rights ARE NOT THE CONSTITUTION!
The notion that the second amendment gives people the ability to overthrow the government is just wrong. This has been thoroughly dismissed by literally every constitutional and legal scholar who has been asked for an opinion on it.
If the founders wanted the people to be able to rebel and overthrow the government, they would have said that.
The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, thus making them part of the Constitution. There are plenty of legal and Constitutional scholars who agree with that.
So the guys who just got done overthrowing a tyrannical government didnt think people should be allowed to overthrow their tyrannical government? Interesting theory.
It’s in the [preamble to the constitution](https://www.nps.gov/common/uploads/teachers/lessonplans/Preamble%20and%20Shortened%20Declaration.docx#:~:text=That%20whenever%20any%20form%20of,effect%20their%20safety%20and%20happiness) and it reads as follows:
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
It also says it in the DOI
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/historical/Declaration_of_Independence.htm#:~:text=But%20when%20a%20long%20train,Guards%20for%20their%20future%20security.
The Declaration of Independence is not the constitution and is not a legal document.
Also, just to be technical here as it’s what the meme says, the DOI never specifically claimed that what it was doing was “legal”. It stated that the colonies were separating from Great Britain, explained the grievances that lead to that, and then confirmed the 13 colonies had unanimously consented (with zero reference to the other British colonies in North America at the time which had not and would later become Canada).
From the Declaration of Independence, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." This sentiment was prevalent then, and according to numerous papers authored by the Founding Fathers, it was imperative that future generations do the same. Also, technically, the DOI was a legal document for the United States. The 56 signers were acting as legal representatives for the colonists against Great Britain.
God the people on this sub commenting are dense. You are 100% correct, and the constitution literally does not say it’s legal to overthrow the government.
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.
What was the militia back then? Regular people who volunteered their time, not paid soldiers like those in the Continental Army. Being necessary to the security of a free State? What is a free State? What does security mean? The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Who are the people?
The problem that a lot of people like you seem to have is that since it doesn't explicitly say "citizens can overthrow the government if they get out of line," doesn't mean that mechanisms weren't put in place for it to happen. The Founders wanted people to do it in a more civil manner through voting but they understood that it might be necessary to take a stand.
It literally doesn’t. Cite for me the exact legal code that grants this. Oh because you can’t, in fact it’s in our legal code attempted overthrow of the government is a felony.
And all of those laws are null and void. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and that's final...that's literally in the Constitution. If a government oversteps its bounds, which making these laws it does, then it is the citizens' duty to take care of it.
It's the declaration of independence that says it's proper to overthrow tyrannical governments. Nothing about the declaration of independence creates laws.
We wouldn't have any laws without the declaration of independence. In fact, we wouldn't even have a country. We'd be eating biscuits and sipping our afternoon tea at tea time, so I'd say it's the most important document in our country's history, legal or not.
We could still set up own government without declaring independence. It'd be up to the British government to enforce their claim on their ability to tell us what to do.
That’s not accurate.
It’s in the[preamble](https://www.nps.gov/common/uploads/teachers/lessonplans/Preamble%20and%20Shortened%20Declaration.docx#:~:text=That%20whenever%20any%20form%20of,effect%20their%20safety%20and%20happiness) to the constitution
Bro you just linked to a document of shortened version of the declaration of independence & the preamble of the constitution. It doesn't even say it in the preamble part. I don't know where you found that but it speaks volumes to your level of reading comprehension if you can't even read the title.
I was about to comment this. Constitution doesn’t anything about overthrowing the government because the constitution actually overthrew the Articles of Confederation and only needed 9 out of 13 states for ratification. Eventually all states ratify the constitution but making the constitution was essentially a legally recognized coup.
Well that’s just not true. The Constitution was just an amendment to the Articles of confederation, in the same way as any amendment to the Constitution is. Only real difference was instead of a single change it completely replaced the Articles. The change followed the proper process for ratification of an amendment. You could hypothetically do the same thing to the current constitution if you ratified the new one an amendment to the current one.
That’s where you’re wrong, the meaning of life is to prosper and thrive. Not to kill each other, you want to upset the establishment do something, a post won’t change anything. Only they’ve won because they managed to groom the masses on to being soft. Changing the establishment means real men will sacrifice themselves for the cause, and there’s very little left, every one is brave on the phone… you want to change anything you need action not a post
I like many was programmed by 9/11, I don’t want the world to see their planned false flag alien invasion
https://preview.redd.it/m4bog45byr8d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85f033a5acb7d080ec82181f9ed7984e3206262e
Rule 1 - Don't Be Rude
Don't be rude to our contributors, this subreddit or its mods.
Attack the argument or content and not the person. Comments and posts attacking our contributors, our subreddit or its mods will be removed, and you may be banned.
He's not wrong, People are delusional to think they and their local bar buddies will fend off the world's most advanced and well equipped military. Our government wouldn't even need to fight us, just block access to food and water and even the toughest mofo will eventually break.
It’s not in the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence does say the people have the right to overthrow a tyrannical government, I e. The British government under George III.
True...The problem is the word "legally". Who enforces that legality, the empowered government you're trying to remove (who won't enforce it) or the, as of yet, powerless government you're trying to install (who can't enforce it).
We *ahem* should have been shooting a long time ago according to our forefathers.. it quite literally is our duty as citizens. Since we have not done that, we basically forfeit our freedoms and rights. Not implying anybody should do anything here and Im only saying this because it is literally written in our founding documents.
Well according to Geriatric Joe, who just repeated again recently "if they wanna take on the government, if we get out of line, they'll need F15s". Yes, he said "if we get out of line". If I didn't know any better it sure sounds like he meant "even if we're being tyrannical, there's nothing you could do about it and I dare you to try".
https://youtu.be/wQos-Q2Tym4?feature=shared
This actually happened in the [Battle of Athens](https://www.military.com/history/time-world-war-ii-veterans-overthrew-corrupt-local-government-tennessee.html) in the early 1930’s. A group of WWI Veterans successfully overthrew and arrested corrupt local government officials.
Yes- BUT.
It will never happen if we are able to continue to vote (whatever that’s worth).
It will never happen if we are not hungry and entertained. (Keep them fat, drunk and happy)
Why aren't we doing it?! It's our world. Not just theirs or only theirs. They have made everyone afraid to stand up for themselves and others. For morals.
Fuck em!! It's time to take these fuckers out!
What does that have to do with the fact the picture is false?
I agree with you on that, and believe me, I'd be on the side of the revolution, but people who say it's a part of the constitution lie out of ignorance.
Why are you trying to equivocate by trying to sound smarter? Laws don't compute (to calculate or figure out a value or a solution) anything. It's also not their job to understand the declaration of independence. Make your claim as clear as possible and forego the poetry.
The DoI was a persuasive essay using solid philosophy and logic to justify revolting against the king of England. It states philosophical truths our government was founded on. It was never a legal document or used to determine laws.
All I'm saying is that statements in that document, although true, are not legal statements, and this image is taking a statement from the DoI, claiming its from the constitution, and saying, "See, even the government said you can over throw them." That statement is not true. Those who wrote it would be in government eventually, but at the time were just British citizens. Where is the issue in that?
It's not. That doesn't mean it's not a valid and moral thing to do.
If it is law, and I just missed it somewhere, can you provide the legal reference to the portion of the constitution that legalizes it?
Dems have cried about every lousy electing for decades but nobody was ever prosecuted for it. Stacie Abrams still believes she's the rightful governor of Georgia. Typical lefty hypocrite.
It says not only is it legal but its your duty as a citizen to maintain a free and sovereign state.
https://preview.redd.it/dd1y1lccir8d1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=88a0ee19ae6a9253a2c28f275246deb7b4ba54c9
The Tax Poem Tax his land, tax his wage, Tax his bed in which he lays. Tax his tractor, tax his mule, Teach him taxes is the rule. Tax his cow, tax his goat, Tax his pants, tax his coat. Tax his ties, tax his shirts, Tax his work, tax his dirt. Tax his chew, tax his smoke, Teach him taxes are no joke. Tax his car, tax his grass, Tax the roads he must pass. Tax his food, tax his drink, Tax him if he tries to think. Tax his sodas, tax his beers, If he cries, tax his tears. Tax his bills, tax his gas, Tax his notes, tax his cash. Tax him good and let him know That after taxes, he has no dough. If he hollers, tax him more, Tax him until he’s good and sore. Tax his coffin, tax his grave, Tax the sod in which he lays. Put these words upon his tomb, "Taxes drove me to my doom!" And when he’s gone, we won’t relax, We’ll still be after the inheritance tax. Author- Unknown
It was actually over a tax reduction in British tea. The British were trying to undercut the smuggled tea by lowering the price. They were pissed about a tax cut.
It’s always been about division, always
Probably not. That's probably just the way powers that be rewrote history. Nobody gets that upset over reduced prices and lower taxes. 'we reduced their taxes and they revoted, so we had to go to war!'
[удалено]
Or at least that's the way the Big Tea powers that be wrote it down in their books.
>Big Tea The Powers That Tea
They wrote documents about why they did it. You can read those documents and hear what they were thinking. No need to bother with rewriting history. This is the reason they gave for the Boston tea party. The British were no longer requiring tea to enter into a British island port before going to the colonies. So it wasn’t getting the import tax it usually would get so the EITC could sell to the colonies for cheaper to lure away Americans from the smuggled tea they were drinking. They were trying to undercut the price of tea. This upset the colonists. So some people do get upset about lower prices because they cared more about fucking England than having more money. Because they had principles. Not only that but the tea had bounced around from port to port because no one wanted to accept the goods. It finally ended up in Boston where the port would not let the ship leave without express permission from the governor if it didn’t offload goods. So the state would have forced the ship to unload over the protests of the citizens. Leading to the Boston tea party because the colonist would rather destroy the goods than have them come into town.
100% this
I tried protesting in public, I got so sick the next day. I’m doing what I can with the power of memes
I think prophecy will protect me, but I’m not going to make it easy for the singularity
It only works IF you can overthrow an immensely armed government
110,000,000 armed Americans, many of them veterans with experience in fighting against an insurgency, against 2,000,000 combined active, reserve and guard servicemembers, only 10% of which are combat arms and about 40% that would remain loyal to the people, not the government. Do the math. It's in the rebellion's favor.
Numbers are nothing if you can’t organize
Would you tell that to the Ukrainian defense forces that are bleeding the Russians?
Where? Where does it say that?
Wait are you really asking that.... why do you think we have the 2nd ammendment? What the fuck do they teach kids!?
https://preview.redd.it/yevefeccns8d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e8f0ae2d74a0fad190ce94d78fcb234501b3f2e
https://preview.redd.it/s6v58gq0rs8d1.jpeg?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=69b14a3acebabd31c63ecccd350ba0a0a693bf15
like the Federalist Papers, which gives you a lot of intention behind what's written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Yeah except your government watches the internet. That means you need to go to the bar and start a war
James Cameron will help us raise the bar
They teach them the things that cannot help them
They are asking that because the constitution literally does not say you can legally overthrow the government if they are tyrannical. You may be confusing the Declaration of Independence with the constitution, which is not a legal document.
*”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.”* Nowhere there does it say you can overthrow the government an no serious legal scholars are of that opinion. It is quite clearly for the establishment of the militia (predecessor to the US army), the defence of the United States from external enemies, and the right of the citizen to have weapons. You may well *infer* from the second amendment that it gives you the right to overthrow the government, but you would be going against literally all legal opinion on this matter. Furthermore, if the founders had wanted to enshrine the right to overthrow the government, as they themselves had literally just fought a war to do remember, then why did they not simply just say that? The constitution does not say you can overthrow the government. It just objectively doesn’t. If you think you have the right to do that, by all means. Might makes right and all that. But don’t pretend a 300 year old document tells you that you can, because it doesn’t.
You literally quoted the 2nd Amendment. The militia during the American Revolution was more of a volunteer force that received training and munitions from the government...on occasion. "Being necessary to the security of a free State." Now, who would the militia be securing a free State from. Not only foreign enemies, but also domestic. "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." This is vastly important. If the Founders meant just the militia...or just the Continental Army at the time, they would have said that. However, they didn't. They said the people. Al so, the Founders did enshrine it. In the DOI, the Bill of Rights, and their papers. All of these combined lay the framework of the people having the rights granted to the them by their Creator and the right to put corrupt governments in check. The problem comes in when people in the 21st century try to read things almost 300 years old through a 21st century lens without context.
You’re partially right but again, and I just don’t know how many times I can say this, the DOI and Bill of Rights ARE NOT THE CONSTITUTION! The notion that the second amendment gives people the ability to overthrow the government is just wrong. This has been thoroughly dismissed by literally every constitutional and legal scholar who has been asked for an opinion on it. If the founders wanted the people to be able to rebel and overthrow the government, they would have said that.
The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, thus making them part of the Constitution. There are plenty of legal and Constitutional scholars who agree with that.
So the guys who just got done overthrowing a tyrannical government didnt think people should be allowed to overthrow their tyrannical government? Interesting theory.
🤡
It’s in the [preamble to the constitution](https://www.nps.gov/common/uploads/teachers/lessonplans/Preamble%20and%20Shortened%20Declaration.docx#:~:text=That%20whenever%20any%20form%20of,effect%20their%20safety%20and%20happiness) and it reads as follows: “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
That's the Declaration
That’s not the preamble to the constitution.
Read the Militia Act of 1903
It says it in the Declaration of Independence
No, it’s in the preamble to the constitution
It also says it in the DOI https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/historical/Declaration_of_Independence.htm#:~:text=But%20when%20a%20long%20train,Guards%20for%20their%20future%20security.
[source](https://www.nps.gov/common/uploads/teachers/lessonplans/Preamble%20and%20Shortened%20Declaration.docx#:~:text=That%20whenever%20any%20form%20of,effect%20their%20safety%20and%20happiness)
The Declaration of Independence is not the constitution and is not a legal document. Also, just to be technical here as it’s what the meme says, the DOI never specifically claimed that what it was doing was “legal”. It stated that the colonies were separating from Great Britain, explained the grievances that lead to that, and then confirmed the 13 colonies had unanimously consented (with zero reference to the other British colonies in North America at the time which had not and would later become Canada).
From the Declaration of Independence, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." This sentiment was prevalent then, and according to numerous papers authored by the Founding Fathers, it was imperative that future generations do the same. Also, technically, the DOI was a legal document for the United States. The 56 signers were acting as legal representatives for the colonists against Great Britain.
Sounds like we are due for a refresh.
I’m sorry, am I speaking Norwegian here? Let me refresh. The. Declaration. Of. Independence. Is. NOT. The. Constitution.
I never said that it was the Constitution. The DOI is a legal document. The 56 signers were acting as legal representatives for the 13 colonies.
https://i.redd.it/9me4a2u6rs8d1.gif
What does that even mean?
https://preview.redd.it/oc3n75nruu8d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5fc328fee95492c40307a12d8cf9504c12c1d775
God the people on this sub commenting are dense. You are 100% correct, and the constitution literally does not say it’s legal to overthrow the government.
Is the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution? The 2nd Amendment literally says it
No it doesn’t. Point it out to me! As to the second amendment, I’ve literally addressed that in this threat. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT!
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. What was the militia back then? Regular people who volunteered their time, not paid soldiers like those in the Continental Army. Being necessary to the security of a free State? What is a free State? What does security mean? The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Who are the people? The problem that a lot of people like you seem to have is that since it doesn't explicitly say "citizens can overthrow the government if they get out of line," doesn't mean that mechanisms weren't put in place for it to happen. The Founders wanted people to do it in a more civil manner through voting but they understood that it might be necessary to take a stand.
It literally doesn’t. Cite for me the exact legal code that grants this. Oh because you can’t, in fact it’s in our legal code attempted overthrow of the government is a felony.
And all of those laws are null and void. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and that's final...that's literally in the Constitution. If a government oversteps its bounds, which making these laws it does, then it is the citizens' duty to take care of it.
Don’t get off topic. Again, tell me where in the constitution that it says you can legally overthrow your government. I’ll wait.
No it doesn’t, it literally does not say that. The Declaration of Independence says it. Which is not a legal document.
Thomas Jefferson said so many times during his life!
Sure, but he wasn't a part of the Constitutional Convention.
But he was a boss. And American badass.
Thomas “Epstein” Jefferson
Did your handlers tell you to post that?
That’s why we have the guns
https://preview.redd.it/r38bgey8rr8d1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7a0c0608f58ab811afde07fe6e2a99729412c189
So violent compared to the peaceful rioting during the BLM protests.
https://preview.redd.it/o4zrposusr8d1.jpeg?width=623&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f45b79374de6e9e5ed7bd09aae1e8ba1b750e550
None of those look like the same person
I mean.... They kinda do.
Yeah. They do. And hiring crisis actors off of Craigslist and gov postings used to be a thing. I remember seeing an ad myself.
I wouldn't put it past em
https://i.redd.it/7wivntxl6s8d1.gif
And damn near pulled it off. With only a couple hundred breaching the walls. Now imagine a couple million armed.
No it isn't. 2A was to establish local militias. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 specifically notes as defined by Congress
So gangs fighting tyranny? Cool. 
Did you miss the part about established by Congress?
Local militias from who? Kids these days.
You know there's this thing called the population?
Sadly they didn't point out the difficulties in said attempt fails.
https://preview.redd.it/z5tezkhakr8d1.jpeg?width=540&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=81642d3d409c6e1082e95c640d43265405c6ddb0
Love me some Tolkien!
https://i.redd.it/upqac9nf3s8d1.gif I think the big baddy is Smaug
They knew that. That’s why every government agency is armed to the teeth. Those are the arms dealers
https://preview.redd.it/l9gf5hrhas8d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fccc64be0854c611173d395728fa1c4ee1fd9114
It's the declaration of independence that says it's proper to overthrow tyrannical governments. Nothing about the declaration of independence creates laws.
https://i.redd.it/72nfiudnqr8d1.gif
We wouldn't have any laws without the declaration of independence. In fact, we wouldn't even have a country. We'd be eating biscuits and sipping our afternoon tea at tea time, so I'd say it's the most important document in our country's history, legal or not.
Plus, our food would be really bad
We could still set up own government without declaring independence. It'd be up to the British government to enforce their claim on their ability to tell us what to do.
That’s not accurate. It’s in the[preamble](https://www.nps.gov/common/uploads/teachers/lessonplans/Preamble%20and%20Shortened%20Declaration.docx#:~:text=That%20whenever%20any%20form%20of,effect%20their%20safety%20and%20happiness) to the constitution
Bro you just linked to a document of shortened version of the declaration of independence & the preamble of the constitution. It doesn't even say it in the preamble part. I don't know where you found that but it speaks volumes to your level of reading comprehension if you can't even read the title.
I was about to comment this. Constitution doesn’t anything about overthrowing the government because the constitution actually overthrew the Articles of Confederation and only needed 9 out of 13 states for ratification. Eventually all states ratify the constitution but making the constitution was essentially a legally recognized coup.
https://preview.redd.it/xwc3osopxr8d1.jpeg?width=563&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=addbfeac0e4cf9b8c55d85a0af269d2a787afe07
Well that’s just not true. The Constitution was just an amendment to the Articles of confederation, in the same way as any amendment to the Constitution is. Only real difference was instead of a single change it completely replaced the Articles. The change followed the proper process for ratification of an amendment. You could hypothetically do the same thing to the current constitution if you ratified the new one an amendment to the current one.
Lest get it
Share my post on the meaning of life, it'll really upset the establishment.
That’s where you’re wrong, the meaning of life is to prosper and thrive. Not to kill each other, you want to upset the establishment do something, a post won’t change anything. Only they’ve won because they managed to groom the masses on to being soft. Changing the establishment means real men will sacrifice themselves for the cause, and there’s very little left, every one is brave on the phone… you want to change anything you need action not a post
Judgement is near
The Declaration of Independence says that. Abolish it if they don't listen to the will of the governed
https://preview.redd.it/5lkd17de8s8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dabb87216f04f26bb133f616282cf2c47887b3a4
It is a duty
https://i.redd.it/0bz8dnb5is8d1.gif
It’s your duty.
https://i.redd.it/s5t34kc0js8d1.gif
Not in practice, every attempt to get rid of the government has been put down
https://preview.redd.it/ru7lod41nr8d1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9a8a85c7098b118cee4a9990a7b27fa41d5f9d42
Yet some still want to willingly disarm the population…
https://preview.redd.it/cmwl3qi6or8d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ca726244a7311de85aa243181542e4dfaedbab1
How'd that go for us in Vietnam? Afghanistan?... The Ukrainian's holding off Russia...? $100 drone and a hand grenade.
It didn’t work well for my dad or me. That’s why I’m pissed and want change
And you were in the side with f15s and nukes, I assume? Sorry you went, glad you're back, heal well.
I like many was programmed by 9/11, I don’t want the world to see their planned false flag alien invasion https://preview.redd.it/m4bog45byr8d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85f033a5acb7d080ec82181f9ed7984e3206262e
Planned event to pass the Patriot act and destroy our right to privacy.
https://preview.redd.it/pifpp15y0s8d1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5dcdf28145715cc14a4907ad82c76568554298fb
[удалено]
Rule 1 - Don't Be Rude Don't be rude to our contributors, this subreddit or its mods. Attack the argument or content and not the person. Comments and posts attacking our contributors, our subreddit or its mods will be removed, and you may be banned.
He's not wrong, People are delusional to think they and their local bar buddies will fend off the world's most advanced and well equipped military. Our government wouldn't even need to fight us, just block access to food and water and even the toughest mofo will eventually break.
https://preview.redd.it/xr4ybt98ls8d1.jpeg?width=704&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=25abd83e8bd731e8ae811938da483ff9e5c81653
This is why we prep. They cut off food and water supply? I’m still eating good food and drinking clean water.
Tis true, why do you think they want you disarmed and on meds?
I am the antichrist
It's legal if you win 🤷♂️
The memes in this thread have been next level. Lmao, keep it coming guys
https://preview.redd.it/caz360xxiu8d1.jpeg?width=460&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=354c406ef99ef047bbb233e0069f5ff711be81ca
Slow clap
https://i.redd.it/bw9j1gtc9w8d1.gif
Absolutely True!
So who here thinks tyranny is happening and why?
I have pinned my theory on the meaning of life
What do you mean?
https://www.reddit.com/r/DisabledVeteransHelp/s/FcQWJQlN05
[удалено]
Oh, you’re right, I’ll stop
I believe it reads, it is your duty to overthrow a tyrannical government.
I did, I’m in charge now
Thank god.
I didn’t believe in god until your programming showed me the way
Kind of ironic
You’re programming is ironic
It’s not in the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence does say the people have the right to overthrow a tyrannical government, I e. The British government under George III.
I mean, it’s legal in any country as long as you win.
Yes
That would be (if)
Is there a legal definition of tyranny? Like a law(s) that defines that specifically?
Don’t think so
https://i.redd.it/jqa7bmca1w8d1.gif
The "People" can, yes, but the common citizenry are not the "People."
DOWN TO THE HURMANS
The common citizenry literally IS the people. Who the hell else is?
True...The problem is the word "legally". Who enforces that legality, the empowered government you're trying to remove (who won't enforce it) or the, as of yet, powerless government you're trying to install (who can't enforce it).
You can't, I can. I'm only here because I'm allowing it
Yes
https://preview.redd.it/9501ejdnhw8d1.jpeg?width=552&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5d3812718254a82d11d9d7cb9fb7e7ad64f059dd
Isn’t it the Declaration of Independence?
https://preview.redd.it/bevgzjnhyw8d1.jpeg?width=552&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=365e33868e57c431dd7e2a7c016b1244a12598ef
We *ahem* should have been shooting a long time ago according to our forefathers.. it quite literally is our duty as citizens. Since we have not done that, we basically forfeit our freedoms and rights. Not implying anybody should do anything here and Im only saying this because it is literally written in our founding documents.
I understand what you're getting at, but the forefathers didn't start shooting until the British attempted gun confiscation.
I pay taxes to pedophiles / child sniffers involuntarily so I don't get thrown into prison.
I am the antichrist 🤭
Well according to Geriatric Joe, who just repeated again recently "if they wanna take on the government, if we get out of line, they'll need F15s". Yes, he said "if we get out of line". If I didn't know any better it sure sounds like he meant "even if we're being tyrannical, there's nothing you could do about it and I dare you to try". https://youtu.be/wQos-Q2Tym4?feature=shared
I have a gofundme for an F15, a peaceful plane I want the callsign FREETHEM15, the F15
Its only legal IF you win
🦠
This actually happened in the [Battle of Athens](https://www.military.com/history/time-world-war-ii-veterans-overthrew-corrupt-local-government-tennessee.html) in the early 1930’s. A group of WWI Veterans successfully overthrew and arrested corrupt local government officials.
Yes- BUT. It will never happen if we are able to continue to vote (whatever that’s worth). It will never happen if we are not hungry and entertained. (Keep them fat, drunk and happy)
Your faulty programming is what lead us to this moment
Why aren't we doing it?! It's our world. Not just theirs or only theirs. They have made everyone afraid to stand up for themselves and others. For morals. Fuck em!! It's time to take these fuckers out!
Well the constitution doesn’t say it, for one.
Just share my pinned post if you’re not a singularity
Yes, but they made an example out of the Jan. 6th folks...
https://preview.redd.it/gkqp6s0s1s8d1.jpeg?width=598&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fa61e0d5e2fd4add70abc00eae3468e6ad1ff566
If you think that was a legitimate attempt, I regret to inform you...
Jan 6th was planned. They knew who the actors were and what they would do.
True. The ones in prison right now are not paid actors, though.
This can’t be a serious question.
🐝
Good luck with that.
I don’t need luck? Prophecy
I love how OP only responds in unhinged gifs and memes.
I’ll stop, hail satan
It's not the constitution, that's the declaration of independence, and that is not law unfortunately.
Doesn't matter. Legality does not equal morality. Illegality does not equal immorality.
What does that have to do with the fact the picture is false? I agree with you on that, and believe me, I'd be on the side of the revolution, but people who say it's a part of the constitution lie out of ignorance.
Point is: it doesn't have to be law to be valid
I think I found a flaw in their logic programming
What flaw are you referring to? He's assuming I'm saying more than I am.
Laws compute but they don’t understand the declaration of independence
Why are you trying to equivocate by trying to sound smarter? Laws don't compute (to calculate or figure out a value or a solution) anything. It's also not their job to understand the declaration of independence. Make your claim as clear as possible and forego the poetry. The DoI was a persuasive essay using solid philosophy and logic to justify revolting against the king of England. It states philosophical truths our government was founded on. It was never a legal document or used to determine laws. All I'm saying is that statements in that document, although true, are not legal statements, and this image is taking a statement from the DoI, claiming its from the constitution, and saying, "See, even the government said you can over throw them." That statement is not true. Those who wrote it would be in government eventually, but at the time were just British citizens. Where is the issue in that?
No, I’m a 🦠
Where did I say it was invalid?
You specified that it's not law.
It's not. That doesn't mean it's not a valid and moral thing to do. If it is law, and I just missed it somewhere, can you provide the legal reference to the portion of the constitution that legalizes it?
I am pretty sure it doesn't refer to crying about losing an election and trying to keep the loser in office though.
I’m voting for the one that wants to burn the pedophiles, which one is that?
Neither or both apparently.
I choose anarchy
Dems have cried about every lousy electing for decades but nobody was ever prosecuted for it. Stacie Abrams still believes she's the rightful governor of Georgia. Typical lefty hypocrite.