What is YOUR Interpretation of the Bill of Rights?

Perception and Interpretation are VERY POWERFUL TOOLS. These interpretations will vary from person to person. Now we all know one way to get people to willingly give up their Freedoms and Rights is to alter their perceptions and intepretations of the INTENT of those Freedoms and Rights. This is effectively HOW the MSM brainwashes people. Its a trick. A manipulation. It doesnt come from the literal wording of the Bill of Rights, but what people think the Bill of Rights was intended for. Hegalian Dialect: Problem Reaction Solution. Problem: having Rights puts people in danger. Reaction: be afraid of other people having Rights. Solution: ban Rights. Thats basically how it works.

For example, many people think that the 2nd Amendment was needed way back in the day to give people PERMISSION to hunt animals. It wasnt. That wasnt the intent. But thats what a lot of people actually think. They think that because of the IMPLIED meaning. The numerous applications of the 2nd are not all literally spelled out in the Amendment. Its stated that it is necessary, but doesnt contain a list of ALL things the 2nd is necessary for. So it wont say "necessary for hunting, self defense against home invasion, robbers, animal attacks, entertainment, and execution". This is how the perception and interpretation are implied. Its basically open ended. Some things are intended to be implied, other things are not intended. And this leads to a lot of Misinterpretations.

What I wanted to do was start a thread about what the entire Bill of Rights was intended for so we can eliminate the misinterpretations. The MSM is twisting everything in our Bill of Rights to imply that these things exist to protect Criminals. "If youre doing nothing wrong, you should not object to exchanging your Rights for Permissions" is how the MSM twists everything, but lets be more specific.

• The First Amendment was not created with the intent of enabling people to use vulgar and disparaging language.
• The Second Amendment was not created with the intent of allowing people to hunt or commit armed robberies.
• (I couldnt come up with a good possible misinterpretation for the Third Amendment, sorry... Im sure at least one exists.)
• The Fourth Amendment was not created with the intent of enabling people to commit crimes and get away with it by hiding evidence of crimes.
• The Fifth Amendment was not created with the intent of enabling people to have an alternative to lying in court.
• The Sixth Amendment was not created with the intent of allowing criminals to get back on the street as quickly as possible.
• The Seventh Amendment was not created with the intent of limiting fines of criminal activity.
• The Eighth Amendment was not created with the intent of letting one criminal help another criminal get back on the street before their day in court.
• The Ninth Amendment was not created with the intent of letting Govt pass laws that further protects criminals from prosecution.
• The Tenth Amendment was not created with the intent of empowering Cities, Counties, or States to protect criminals from being prosecuted by the Federal Government.

Yeah, thats a pretty crappy list. In fact, it flat out sucks. But that is what is being spoonfed to people by the MSM. Now to fix the list from being flat out sucky as it is, it needs to be debated and more clearly defined. Pick one, pick em all, dont care. Most of us here know that the Bill of Rights was created to protect the people against Government Abuse of Power. And that is a general interpretation of it. However, I think it is necessary to discuss the specifics of every Amendment. So both true intention and misinterpreted intention need to be addressed. Its a pretty broad range of topics to be discussed.

I'll try to start with the First, both misinterpretations and true intent. The Religion Clause of the First was not intended to only protect Christians from prosecution, but all Faiths, what ever they may be. It was intended to protect the individual from Government applications of Religion. IE, to allow a person to choose from a list of Government Approved Religions. The Speech Clause was not intended to let people say nasty things and get away with it. It was intended to enable as much communication as possible. In order to solve problems between two or more individuals, communication needs to occur. Communication can not be a one way street where Govt tells you only what you are allowed to say. It would be like trying to fix a Traffic problem, but youre not allowed to use either the word "Car" or "Street" because youre not qualified for some misguided reason. The intent of the Speech Clause could also be interpreted as protecting the Unpopular thing to say, which is going to be disapproved of by many. Such as, in general, Ron Paul. MSM wouldnt talk about him, and when they did, it was only to disparage the quality of his character, which personally I see as an abuse of the Right. I cant say that MSM should be prohibited, however, the Speech Clause was not intended to protect flat out LYING, which they did.

I know that not everyone is going to fully agree with everything I say. I dont expect you to. Keep in mind that I do throw stuff out there with the intent of having someone shoot it down, so there are things that I dont truly believe, but feel it is necessary to be shot down by someone other than myself. Its not intended to start a fight as it is the Idea that needs to be addressed. If an idea is wrong, then it is wrong. Two plus two does not equal hamburger unless we live in Bizarro world, and even then, its questionable. What throwing out bait ideas does is opens the door to meaningful debate and application of Equal Rights.

Example Bait Idea: Was the 2nd Amendment created with the intent of allowing only US Citizens the lawful ability to shoot at British Soldiers or shoot at Cops or Politicians or commit armed robberies? (hint: please attack this statement and tear it completely apart if you want. I have no emotional attachment to it and do not actually support this interpretation. Its just an example...)

What Rights do you think are Misinterpreted, and how do you interpret them differently than others might?