Freedom of speech and assembly?

Read it and weep - comrades!

Spoken like a true "Sovereign Citizen."

Still no Constitutional reference? Let us know when you find it.

Come on now LJ- your not going to go all "fukushima daiichi" on me now are you?

Still no Constitutional reference? Let us know when you find it.

Why, that would be in the 2nd Amendment - you know, the security of a Free State? If the state no longer feels that it is free then it would use its militia - the ones who are carrying the arms the federal government has no right to infringe upon the ownership of. And the 9th which clearly reserves to the people their existing natural right to alter or abolish their current government. Since, after all, it is well recognized and self evident truth that when a government engages in a long train of abuses and usurpations to reduce the citizens to living under its absolute despotism it is the right and the duty of the people to throw off such a government and provide new guards for their future security.

when did a person become a state?

Oh....maybe when the republicans made corporations people.....so in your convoluted logic, a corporation could violently overthrow the government.

Since armed overthrow of the government is NOT in the 2nd Amendment, and there is also no such provision in the 9th, perhaps you can find something better than your Sovereign Citizen wingnut websites to show us where armed rebellion is permitted by the Constitution.

Armed rebellion is a natural right since the power of governance is dependent upon the consent of the governed. Once the consent of the governed is lost, the government is no longer just and the actions undertaken by those who no longer give their consent are within their right to engage in. The right predates the Constitution and the 9th Amendment prohibits the ability of the federated government to deny or disparage rights retained by the people - one of which is the right to alter or abolish their current form of government.

You have to remember one thing folks. The Constitution establishes no rights since all the rights belong to the people already. The people are the ones who institute the government. They have the right to change it at any point in time. Clearly the majority of the people didn't support the actions of the founders. The participation level in the revolution was around 10% of the populace. The rest were either engaged in opposing the revolution or sitting back waiting to see which side won. The number that actually picked up arms to abolish their current form of government was a staggering 3% of the population. Talk about your overwhelming majorities.

I'm sure you find the founders similarly sociopathic since their small number committed violence against those who didn't share their political views.....

The usual "fascinating" irrelevant 17th/18th century, Federalist, teabagger history...

So, since armed overthrow of the government is NOT in the 2nd Amendment, and there is also no such provision in the 9th, perhaps you can find something better than your Sovereign Citizen wingnut websites to show us where armed rebellion is permitted by the Constitution.... I'm still waiting....

Of course, if you could get 2/3 of the states to pass some sort of new amendment...(not bloody likely)...THEN you might have some control. but unless you think you can pull together enough wacko militia-types to storm D.C. and take out the National Guard troops and other military units, then as usual, you're nothing but mouth.

If I may turn this one around a bit - are you saying that the founders, hip deep in revolution, did not envision a future where an overthrow of the government might be needed? I've always considered the reason for the second amendment to be giving citizens the power to overthrow their government if all else fails. Of course its not spelled out - that would give legal recourse to every whack job with a gun.