Tags for this video have been changed from 'Bill of Rights, threats, abuse, douchebag or giant turd' to 'Saratoga, New York, Deputy, Sheriff, Shawn Glans, Colin Fitch, police, abuse, warrant' - edited by burdturgler

At what point will 'white privilege' be considered over? How many years / decades / centuries must pass? How many affirmative action programs / laws must be enacted to consider all races/ women on equal footing?
When sentencing certain individuals in our Canadian courts here, judges here are required to take their ancestry into consideration.
Here in Canada, there's also a big move afoot for governments to apologize for historical injustices -- Japanese, Chinese, Sikhs, natives, Jews, etc.
My problem is that we are looking at history through a modern lens which is crazy. How far back are we going to go? 50 years? 100 years? A millennia? Should Christians today should apologize for the Crusades?
PS. Before somebody accuses me of a hidden agenda, I have no axe to grind. I am part native but don't make a big deal of it. I certainly don't look at a white guy and think, "Hey that guy owes ME something because of what his great-great-great-grandfather did."
I think Bill is right... at some point people have to stop leaning on laws and affirmative action movements as a crutch/excuse and get on with working things out for themselves.

Sadly, while Bill is right, you can't ignore the facts forever, it's already been shown that they can ignore the facts long enough to make solving the problems nearly impossible.

Cross posted from my other video: "If the majority of Americans were anti-gun ownership, then the 2nd amendment would have already been disposed of (as has happened with most of the other amendments on the Bill of Rights).

So folks here can complain all they want, but there's never going to be any progress on the (out-of-touch) anti-gun effort in the United States. That's where most Americans seem to draw the line: "The state can do whatever (e.g., surveil its people, drone foreigners indiscriminately, devastate the dollar, etc.), but don't touch the guns." In this, it's the anti-gun contingency that remains in the minority in the U.S. Even Joe Biden campaigned on his gun ownership.

Alas, most of the (conservative, rural state and Southern state liberals, inner city minorities, or NRA-supporting, and anti-NRA) gun-owners are not among the "progressive" (pseudo-)intellectuals on Videosift."

If the majority of Americans were anti-gun ownership, then the 2nd amendment would have already been disposed of (as has happened with most of the other amendments on the Bill of Rights).

So folks here can complain all they want, but there's never going to be any progress on the (out-of-touch) anti-gun effort in the United States. That's where most Americans seem to draw the line: "The state can do whatever (e.g., surveil its people, drone foreigners indiscriminately, devastate the dollar, etc.), but don't touch the guns." In this, it's the anti-gun contingency that remains in the minority in the U.S. Even Joe Biden campaigned on his gun ownership.

Alas, most of the (conservative, rural state and Southern state liberals, inner city minorities, or NRA-supporting, and anti-NRA) gun-owners are not among the "progressive" (pseudo-)intellectuals on Videosift.

theo47 says..

Smart and tolerant include, vandalizing peoples homes because they want Obama out of office? Teachers attacking students because their not Democratic? People making threats of rape to women and their children because they want to get some one in office who don't tax the shit out of honest small and middle class businesses who really want to get people working again? Oh yeah I guess it is, because you all follow the man who's best friends are the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda. And their idea of tolerance is like all Libtards, If you want it a cerian way you'll tolerate those who also want it and if some one wants some thing else you'll tolerate the rape and murder that happens to them for disagreeing.

I bet you Libtards are real pissed now that our own Military that Obama claims to be his Military are standing up saying they didn't join to work on the side of Al-Qae4da.

You Liberals constantly make claims that are so fucking bogus then you watch a video like this and say how it's all the right but during the whole administration you people have been rioting, murdering, vandalizing, talking way more hate then anyone you have blamed for it, shit now you want to run to the Obamaman because you don't like who's playing Batman, you're idea of tolerance is such bullshit you make the real world want to puke. Fuck a liberal, you're all worthless and as far as I'm concerned and really as far as the Bill of Rights and Constitution is concerned you're all traitorous Communist, Marxist, and socialist garbage. There is nothing to be tolerant about you pieces of shit. Oh and in real life I guess you stupid Nazis never have watched Top Gear because I see you're defending their safety using this episode to blame the right (which by the way The real right finds the people on this video as inbread wastes of life as well, almost as much as they find you) and Top Gear UK is always talking about the Democrats and the Liberals getting in they way of every ones lives, just as you do here as well.

If you're a Liberal fuck you and have a nice day you intolerant communist fucking nut cases.

I think the fundamental difference is how politicians in the USpander to religion, even the ones who aren't actively religious. I mean c'mon, we have presidents swearing on the bible and ending speeches with god bless even though it's never required in the constitution and we have a freaking establishment clause right there in the bill of rights.

It certainly wasn't what the founders intended, they were very wary of religion. But hey, thanks to paranoid Joe McCarthy, it's on our money, it replaced our motto, it's everywhere.

we have a ton of politicians who are proud of the idea that they think evolution and climate change are hoaxes

It's starting to change. People who are claiming no religion or atheist/agnostic in America is on the rise, but again We've still got a ways to go before we can make a real push to separate god from gov't.

In Soviet USA, police threatening to arrest tourists for watching a protest means the tourists didn't know their Bill of Rights. Got it. Fee fi foe fist...

The title of this video is a joke, right?

These people don't really understand the Bill of Rights and First Amendment or what their right of assembly really means. It does not mean nor has it ever meant that you can show up on any public property and do whatever you want.

Some good articles on the subject:

Curfews, loitering & freedom of association
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/curfews-loitering-freedom-of-association

Assembly Explained
http://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/assembly

A Brief Lesson Plan on Assembly:
http://documents.mccormickfoundation.org/Civics/programs/files/pdf/FASI-Sum2011/AssemblyLesson.pdf

Many of the illegal "protesters" here are just standing their silently, but guess what.. that isn't protected.

If the police politely ask you to move along at a crime scene - you do so.

The kind of behavior this group is indulging in is comical to me. What was their message? I missed that. Furthermore, they purposely set up a situation where they are going to have problems with police and then pretend to be surprised when they are asked to disperse.

I second @JustSaying here -- what exactly does it tell you? (Snowden seeking refuge in countries with abysmal human rights records)

What it tells me is that it is pretty pathetic that Snowden's best chances for freedom and a life outside of a concrete cell in Gitmo come from someplace like Venezuela, Ecuador, or Russia as compared to his home, the "land of the free" USA. I think it says much more about the current government and political environment in the US than it does about Snowden.

Given my take on it, I think it is laughable to accuse Snowden of hypocrisy. Aim that word at an entity that deserves it -- the country and government that labels itself:

*the "land of the free" (except for those that we lock up in indefinite detention without trial, those guilty of thoughtcrime, anyone trying to travel freely outside of the country or even from state to state, etc.),

*"home of the brave" (except for any vague threat of 'terrorists', in which case we ask everyone to panic and allow a friendly TSA officer to treat you like a sock puppet, in spite of the fact that you're 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist),

*originator of the bill of rights (unless the government has some tenuous and self serving reason to revoke any/all of your rights: Free speech? Hah! Free press? Hah! Unreasonable search and seizure? No such thing! Due process? Hah! Speedy and public trial? Hah! By a jury? Hah! Cruel and unusual punishments? Waterboarding and other 'enhanced interrogation techniques' don't count! The government laughs at the bill of rights and pisses on their grave.),

*bastion of democracy (except I don't remember voting on ANY of the shit that Snowden brought to our attention, and it seems that neither do any/most of our elected 'representatives' -Hah!), and

*home of the American dream (as long as your dream doesn't involve freedom from any of the myriad transgressions listed above).

Oh how my once proud nation has fallen.

Your video, U.S. Citizens Sign Petition to Repeal U.S. Bill of Rights, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 3 Badge!

I'm sorry, this does show how stupid these people are. For either reason being presented here:

1) They are too stupid to realize what the bill of rights is
2) They are too stupid to say: "Fuck off, I don't want you to bother me". What kind of retard is so gutless they can't tell someone "no?" How is it easier to sign - that takes more effort.

So, let's say you're right, they just want the guy to go away. They are STILL stupid for blindly signing a piece of paper without question. That makes them SHEEP.

To pick nits ... the bill of rights was the first set of amendments to the original constitution. A very good addition through amendments, but it is still somewhat sad that it required amending to get those freedoms spelled out and nailed down as opposed to being in the original document. I guess hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

Shit like the patriot act, citizens united, etc. aren't amendments -- they are legislation passed into federal laws. I'd fully agree with any argument that they are "breaking the actual constitution"; such an argument seems quite clear cut to me. Unfortunately the judicial branch is the entity designated as having the checks and balances on the legislative branch, and they have failed to strike down such nonsense as unconstitutional when given the opportunity.

This is why I am feeling rather betrayed by the whole goddamn system. Bush the younger (executive) fed the patriot act to congress (legislative) who made it law, and the law was help up by the supreme court (judicial) with minor challenges. Later congresses (legislative) voted to renew expiring parts of the act. Obama (executive) could have vetoed that OR eliminated, cut back/pared down, or instructed the offices that actually implement the patriot act busywork (Dept. of Homeland Security, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.) to kill or reduce the scope of the program.

At any single stage of that, any one of those governmental branches could have grown a pair and said enough was enough. But that didn't happen, and here we are. I have absolutely no faith in any branch or office of my federal government anymore. I hope Snowden evades capture and gets somewhere that won't bend to extradition pressure (which there will be a shitload of).

So keeping a promise is more important than preventing war crimes; preventing the corruption of a government; upholding the freedom and morality of an entire civilisation; habeus corpus; magna carta (which is now been successfully rendered obselete in the US and many other countries); the bill of rights; and the US constitution?

More important than preventing the deaths of thousands of innocent people; allowing you to avoid an ignorant election of despots; preventing one government from unjustly interfering with the political process of another; more important than allowing a man to speak the truth?

And so I'm going to push this button; even when I have learned that it will destroy the Earth and everything on it, for I made a promise.

Oh, ffs. Do you have a 2nd Amendment right to own a tank (with ordnance)? A TOW missile? A nuclear device? Claymores? Don't these arms fall under your "you may not own this item"? And are you really trying to equate words that people know with guns that people can buy? Do you think that Congress has the power to limit hate speech by striking the words "nigger", "fag", and "spic" from the minds of 300 million people? So, yeah... different. Just not in the way you are trying to spin it. One doesn't simply purchase words and sentences in a store. Your argument is compositional fallacy.

It's likely my definition and your definition of "reasonable" are different, and by no means do restrictions on the 2nd amendment have to be considered reasonable by every person. I'm one person who happens to think an assault weapons ban IS a reasonable restriction. The Bill of Rights is for all Americans, not just gun nuts.

You can spin it any way you like that gets you through your day, but the Constitution is subject to amending, and Amendments are subject to definition by Congress and the courts. An assault weapons ban may piss you off, but it's not outside the purview of Congress, and it isn't a denial of your 2nd Amendment rights.