Imgflip Logo Icon

So.. Now The Entire Constitution Is On The Table

So.. Now The Entire Constitution Is On The Table |  "NO AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS ABSOLUTE.."; AND JUST LIKE THAT, BIDEN PUT SLAVERY BACK ON THE TABLE. | image tagged in memes,and just like that,slavery,biden,fascist | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
4,829 views 130 upvotes Made by _ForTheLulz 7 months ago in politics
121 Comments
[deleted]
14 ups, 7m,
1 reply
Laughing Leo Meme | AND ELIMINATED THE INCOME TAX | image tagged in memes,laughing leo | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
11 ups, 7m,
1 reply
Screaming Liberal  | "MY RIGHT TO VOTEEEE!!!!" | image tagged in screaming liberal | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
7 ups, 7m,
1 reply
Drunk Baby Meme | The Repeal on Prohibition? | image tagged in memes,drunk baby | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
16 ups, 7m,
1 reply
13 ups, 6m
11 ups, 6m,
1 reply
Biden's been following a certain historical playbook. Useful idiots will be horrified when it finally dawns on them which side they've been on all along.
0 ups, 6m,
1 reply
Well, both the right and the left have been the American Goebbels.
0 ups, 6m,
1 reply
You are Fake News™
0 ups, 6m
Aren't we all?
9 ups, 7m,
1 reply
6 ups, 7m,
1 reply
4 ups, 7m,
2 replies
The controlled substances act was passed under Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, he Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to “To regulate commerce..."

:P
5 ups, 7m,
2 replies
That is Congressional authority for a law. Not a constitutional provision. There is no constitutional right to get high.
4 ups, 7m,
1 reply
I was going for more the inverse, the right of the federal government to regulate commerce, and therefor to make substances illegal being no longer absolute....but OK, I can see your hang-up with it.
2 ups, 6m,
1 reply
They can only regulate commerce across state borders
0 ups, 6m,
1 reply
If that's the case ,then the controlled substance act is already void. I suspect the congress and senate covered that detail....
0 ups, 6m,
1 reply
Now you are getting it. Why do you think they haven't shut down dispensaries in Colarado? Because the feds can't legally do that.
0 ups, 6m,
1 reply
No, it's because the sheriff has more than any fed within the county he's elected in, and the sheriff is protecting them under state law.
0 ups, 6m
More power..... somehow I missed typing that.
1 up, 6m
3 ups, 6m
FDR screwed this country when he started tweaking the scope of the commerce clause in his effort to make the great depression last as long as he could.

Now it is used to justify micromanaging just about every facet of business. What FDR did also changed the meaning of the word "regulate". It used (and still does in some cases) mean to equalize. Now it means exert excessive controls over business. This is why, several years ago, the Feds came down hard on an Amish dairy farmer who lived near a state border. When it was found out that he had customers across state lines the Feds, nor absolutely no reason at all, came and shut the farm down. They took all of the cows and equipment and left the farmer with no means to earn a living.
8 ups, 7m
5 ups, 6m
4 ups, 6m,
1 reply
If this is true then why isn't anybody going after the press for their blatant lies, bias and failure to remain neutral?
4 ups, 6m
Pffft. Because you get unpersoned if you do that.
3 ups, 6m,
1 reply
Good One - Meme Upvoted!
3 ups, 6m
Thank you.
2 ups, 6m,
2 replies
2 ups, 6m
Not really, but I see what you are getting at.
2 ups, 6m,
2 replies
Anyone heard of the chain gang genre of music? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjun2qQb3QY
2 ups, 6m,
1 reply
White man or Democrats?

You’re assuming these were all innocent men you are depicting as “slaves”. Unfortunately for that argument, the 13th Amendment states “punishment for crime.. .. duly convicted.”

So I guess it goes without saying:

Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time.
1 up, 6m,
1 reply
And you're assuming they were all guilty of an actual crime. After slavery ended incarceration became a common way of getting free labor. Of course this was the time of lynchings and militias driving around in groups enforcing segregation and God knows what else. Back then a black person could get arrested for speaking out of turn or giving a white person back-lip.
3 ups, 6m,
2 replies
You’re not wrong. But that is a different chapter and era in American history.

But again, that doesn’t make it “slavery” per the 13th. If mass incarceration of minorities is now considered “slavery”, then Joe Biden’s crime Bill makes him one hell of a slave owner.
2 ups, 6m
0 ups, 6m
Is mass incarceration considered slavery? Not sure. I don't know what kind of work inmates are doing. What I do know is that Obama tried to ban private prisons but Drumpf undid all of that. The system needs an overhaul. That's been obvious for years. As for that crime bill from - the late 90's was it? - apparently 60% of African-Americans supported the bill due to the crime explosion that happened when crack took over.
1 up, 6m
Here's another video of a chain gang at work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1O2X890tig
2 ups, 6m
Doesn't it take 3/4 of the states to ratify or repeal an amendment to the Constitution? Sleepy Joe can talk all he wants, 2nd amendment is here to stay.
2 ups, 6m,
1 reply
So the constitutional amendment process - and the vast majority of the Constitution that was added later - are just going to be ignored by you?
5 ups, 6m,
1 reply
What’s being ignored, exactly?

We’re not talking about additions to the Constitution. Basically, by saying that “no Amendment is absolute” is an attack on every Amendment. Thus, the joke is - the thirteenth Amendment to the constitution (which was added later) is not absolute. Therefore, slavery is back on the table. Yeah?
2 ups, 6m,
3 replies
Except that slavery is explicitly forbidden whereas gun control is not.
6 ups, 6m,
1 reply
False; the only amendment that says “shall not be infringed” is the second. Yeah? So where does the 2nd amendment state it can be circumvented by gun control when it states otherwise.
2 ups, 6m,
5 replies
You do not have a constitutional right to an assault weapon.
Your constitutional right to be armed is not under threat, either from this or other gun control legislation.
8 ups, 6m,
3 replies
What is an “assault weapon”? Who determines this and what constitutes such? If illegal weapons and criminals are the issue, why impose legislation on legal gun owners? That solves nothing.

Chicago has insanely restricted gun laws for legal citizens leaving criminals with the guns. If you think gun laws work, please enlighten me on why Chicago is a shooting gallery every week.
2 ups, 6m,
2 replies
It's quite easy to look up what an assault weapon is. Google is your friend.
3 ups, 6m,
1 reply
So you want me to do your research for you? Cute.

Per Britannica:

“Assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.”

I have an AR that is semiautomatic ONLY. So it must not be an “assault rifle” - per the definition.

Right?

https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle
0 ups, 6m,
1 reply
he is actually right that assault weapons are not exactly rigorously defined. They aren't really any more deadly either, however the assault weapons ban did see a period of reduced mass shootings. go figure.
0 ups, 6m,
1 reply
The Founders said 'Arms' not 'Guns'. Technically 'Arms' is 'an object that is used with the intent to cause bodily harm or death to another person'. Arms can be anything from a Dinner Fork jammed into a neck artery to Fists for beating someone's skull in to a shooting someone in the heart with a Gun. The Founders intended for the Law-Abiding to be able to protect themselves from those that abuse The 2nd Amendment.
0 ups, 6m
The 2nd amendment was providing for an army for the new country they were creating. I mean yeah the British were tools back then so they wanted people to be able to defend themselves from their ish. But things were soooo different than they are now. I highly doubt our founding fathers would consider the kind of firepower we have available as being something "necessary" that needed to be provided for by the constitution.
1 up, 6m
"But Google is Soros MSM!"
1 up, 6m,
1 reply
The legislation would be for everyone. Anyone who breaks the law will get punished accordingly. The Chicago argument has been beaten to death. Gun control will only be effective if every state passes the same laws.
4 ups, 6m,
1 reply
False; no one wants to take on the Chicago argument because it is a blatant failure of gun laws. Criminals will get guns - period.

Maybe instead of focusing on legally owned firearms, the government should create a task force (oh I don’t know.. like the ATF) to counter black market sales to criminals.

To pass strict gun laws like Chicago to every state leaves us all at the mercy of criminals - who unfortunately don’t really give a shit about gun laws or your feelings about them.

Either way, I will always carry - even if my state claims I don’t have that right. Again, we are allowed three specific rights:

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I won’t risk the “life” or “liberty” rights because you crybabies don’t want to acknowledge radical Islamist terrorists in fear of “islamophobia” or some shit.

If more people carried - less gun violence would occur. Fact.
0 ups, 6m,
3 replies
Except it worked in NYC.

Until, that is, the idiots let the criminals out last year because of Covid plus that new bail law.

Weird, isn't it, unrestricted things manage to do things they can't when restricted.

Oh, and check out how Chicago ranks when compared to other places in ratio to population.
2 ups, 6m,
1 reply
The only two things those gun laws prove is that it is now nearly impossible for a legal gun owner to purchase or conceal a weapon in the State of New York. Weird, that "weapons" are the problem and not mental health.

I can't wait until they take away all of our guns and we are getting hacked away with machetes like in Europe.

If someone wants to kill people, the lack of a gun won't make a difference in the case - it will make self-defense near impossible though.

Also weird that the gun-grabbing Dems also do not hesitate to have private ARMED security, right? I unfortunately cannot afford that luxury.
0 ups, 6m
You forgot the "Safest big city in America" part.

The rest you posted is irrational gibberish which is even sillier than the other Silly Billy's nonsense I had to look at. So, like his, I didn't look at it.
[deleted]
0 ups, 6m,
1 reply
0 ups, 6m
Screenshots. How special.

Is this where you run to Gab for one of your followers that isn't your alt?
0 ups, 6m
0 ups, 6m,
1 reply
Does the constitution specifically give you the right to own this type of weapon? NOPE. It says arms, nothing specific. Our forefathers would probably be mortified by the firepower available today.
1 up, 6m
So because they only had muskets, that’s the only arms secured under the second amendment? That’s some real progressive thinking.

It says “arms” which secures most small arms within the 2A. Doesn’t matter what YOU THINK our forefathers would think about our advancement in firepower.

Do you think 2A has to specifically say something to mean it? So it has to say “the right to bear an AR-15..” etc?
4 ups, 6m,
1 reply
"You do not have a constitutional right to an assault weapon."

It's funny listening to people grossly ignorant of history bloviate about things they know nothing about.
0 ups, 6m,
1 reply
Like you?
3 ups, 6m,
1 reply
You know what one of the founders explicitly said was covered under the Second Amendment? Cannons. They explicitly said, Yes, your right to own cannons is protected by the Bill of Rights.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just an NPC repeating your programming.
1 up, 6m,
2 replies
You still have no constitutional right to an AR-15.
3 ups, 6m,
1 reply
One of the people RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DOCUMENT, said cannons, yes, and you still say AR-15, no.

You're an ignorant moron.

Why is an AR-15 so different? What feature makes it so dangerous? Be specific please.
1 up, 6m
I'm sorry, I thought you knew guns.
3 ups, 6m
"I'm sorry, I thought you knew guns."

I notice you failed to answer the question.
4 ups, 6m,
3 replies
Everyone should have the right to own the same firearms as the military. 2A was created to stop tyrannical government.
1 up, 6m,
2 replies
Definitely not.
And 2A clearly says it's talking about a militia.
[deleted]
2 ups, 6m
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, January 25, 1788
1 up, 6m
The thing that most leftists get wrong about this is that while the first part and second part are somewhat related, the semi-colon means that they are not dependent upon each other. This means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn’t restricted to the times they are part of a militia. They can have any firearm, whether they are part of a militia or not.
1 up, 6m
Especially the communists. They actually need guns.
1 up, 6m,
3 replies
Everyone has the right to SUPPLY their own firearms as a recruited volunteer to the military when needed.
The 2A was created because the fledgling government neither had nor could afford a professional standing army.
[deleted]
3 ups, 6m,
1 reply
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, January 25, 1788
0 ups, 6m
Exactly, although that comment might have better served the raging myopics.
[deleted]
2 ups, 6m,
1 reply
0 ups, 6m,
1 reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 6m,
1 reply
0 ups, 6m
aww, don't worry, you'll probably survive.
2 ups, 6m,
1 reply
The thing that most leftists get wrong about this is that while the first part and second part are somewhat related, the semi-colon means that they are not dependent upon each other. This means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn’t restricted to the times they are part of a militia. They can have any firearm, whether they are part of a militia or not.
0 ups, 6m,
2 replies
That is just silliness.
[deleted]
2 ups, 6m,
1 reply
0 ups, 6m
Posted it already, right up above. Have a looksie.

Up late for someone who retires at 4pm, aren't you?
2 ups, 6m,
1 reply
Explain where I’m wrong. Dismissing it as silly without a reasonable excuse is not good enough. I showed the reason why they are separate ideas while still being similar. The least you can do is say why you think it’s silly.
0 ups, 6m
Stop being silly.
2 ups, 6m,
1 reply
Then why is Pedo Joe trying to amend the constitution to eliminate 'ugly black guns'?
1 up, 6m
He's not.
0 ups, 6m
You do
1 up, 6m
Slavery is actually not explicitly forbidden. Prison slavery is still totally legal. Should be illegal, but it's not.
3 ups, 6m,
1 reply
Which part of "shall not be infringed" do you fail to understand?
1 up, 6m,
1 reply
It's not being infringed.
2 ups, 6m,
2 replies
"Gun control" is infringing on the right of the American people to keep and bear arms, and is expressly forbidden by the Second Amendment
2 ups, 6m
No, it regulates the distribution of arms. There is nothing in this or other laws preventing a law abiding citizen from getting a gun.
0 ups, 6m,
1 reply
There's nothing in "gun control" preventing you from getting drafted into military service for free as the 2nd Amendment provides.
2 ups, 6m,
1 reply
The Second Amendment is not about the draft. That is the statement of an imbecile.
1 up, 6m
Agreed, what you said is.
Show More Comments
Flip Settings
Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator
EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 1
  • BIden-5-1200x800.jpg
  • And Just Like That
  • IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
    "NO AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS ABSOLUTE.."; AND JUST LIKE THAT, BIDEN PUT SLAVERY BACK ON THE TABLE.
    hotkeys: D = random, W = upvote, S = downvote, A = back
    Feedback