Intergalactic Background Checks Case Study
Top 5 Reasons to reject Intergalactic Background Checks.
Call them what you will – enhanced, Intergalactic or whatever, they will be Universally ignored by guilty and only serve to punish the innocent.
Once again, we are seeing our rights being eroded before our very eyes. With the latest mass murder outrage caused by the Left’s cultural Marxism, it is being demanded that we compromise on that which shall not be infringed. In their unending quest to disarm the people and empower themselves, the push is being made for Intergalactic Background Checks (enhanced, Universal, etc.)
As surely as night follows day, the Liberty grabbers are in high dungeon over the people actually having the ability to defend themselves. Thus they want the next …show more content…
When they talk about the ‘Intergalactic’ version of Background Checks they are really asserting the authority to control your property, a governmental overreach that would be enrage the truly Liberal founding fathers. Property rights are the cornerstone of Liberty, so do we really want the government to control It with Intergalactic Background Checks?
The following are the Top 5 reasons to reject this gross intrusion into our private property, not to mention being a violation of a number of the amendments in the Bill of Rights
1). Intergalactic Background Checks would punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty based on a polling impossibility.
The Liberty Grabbers have a perennial favourite tactic when it comes to this issue, trotting polling data that implies 90% agreement with ‘Background Checks’. Everyone should be immediately suspect of any polling data that shows upwards of over ¾ of the populace agreeing on anything. In a the diverse electorate environment of the states, this kind of agreement is almost impossible. But to the Liberty Grabbers of the national Socialist Left, this is akin to mom and apple pie territory. …show more content…
Intergalactic Background Checks lack Constitutional Justification.
Can anyone imagine the founding fathers acquiescing to governmental control over private property?
They knew that private property was the cornerstone to Liberty, so governmental control wouldn’t of made any sense to them. Set aside the enormous infringement on a common sense human right as prohibited by the 2nd amendment while considering this possible ‘addition’ to the 4th amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” – but they will be under complete control of the government.
It could also argued that since the government asserting control over property, there would no longer be an ‘private’ property, thus part of the 5th amendment would no longer exist: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
So in a Trificta of tyranny, Intergalactic Background Checks would violate at least 3 amendments of the Bill of Rights. We could of extended the point with the those violating the 9th and 10th amendments, but the point has been
Call them what you will – enhanced, Intergalactic or whatever, they will be Universally ignored by guilty and only serve to punish the innocent.
Once again, we are seeing our rights being eroded before our very eyes. With the latest mass murder outrage caused by the Left’s cultural Marxism, it is being demanded that we compromise on that which shall not be infringed. In their unending quest to disarm the people and empower themselves, the push is being made for Intergalactic Background Checks (enhanced, Universal, etc.)
As surely as night follows day, the Liberty grabbers are in high dungeon over the people actually having the ability to defend themselves. Thus they want the next …show more content…
When they talk about the ‘Intergalactic’ version of Background Checks they are really asserting the authority to control your property, a governmental overreach that would be enrage the truly Liberal founding fathers. Property rights are the cornerstone of Liberty, so do we really want the government to control It with Intergalactic Background Checks?
The following are the Top 5 reasons to reject this gross intrusion into our private property, not to mention being a violation of a number of the amendments in the Bill of Rights
1). Intergalactic Background Checks would punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty based on a polling impossibility.
The Liberty Grabbers have a perennial favourite tactic when it comes to this issue, trotting polling data that implies 90% agreement with ‘Background Checks’. Everyone should be immediately suspect of any polling data that shows upwards of over ¾ of the populace agreeing on anything. In a the diverse electorate environment of the states, this kind of agreement is almost impossible. But to the Liberty Grabbers of the national Socialist Left, this is akin to mom and apple pie territory. …show more content…
Intergalactic Background Checks lack Constitutional Justification.
Can anyone imagine the founding fathers acquiescing to governmental control over private property?
They knew that private property was the cornerstone to Liberty, so governmental control wouldn’t of made any sense to them. Set aside the enormous infringement on a common sense human right as prohibited by the 2nd amendment while considering this possible ‘addition’ to the 4th amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” – but they will be under complete control of the government.
It could also argued that since the government asserting control over property, there would no longer be an ‘private’ property, thus part of the 5th amendment would no longer exist: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
So in a Trificta of tyranny, Intergalactic Background Checks would violate at least 3 amendments of the Bill of Rights. We could of extended the point with the those violating the 9th and 10th amendments, but the point has been