"Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country"

[Harve Curry]

No this is not a typing exercise.
Or should I write:
"When is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights is being attacked from within, and our elected officials tell us no it isn't. Same as the anti gunners when they tell us the Constitution is a "flexible framework" , like a living trust you can "work within". That is a lie more akin to the old expession don't pea down my back and tell me it's raining.
America should use it's citizens to house keep America.
Instead our goverment is of taking away and violating rights, is militarizing police and making up all sorts of other paramilitary/LEO's departments.
The People should be the ones traveling armed, aware, ready to backup and support the police if that's what it takes.

Jeff Cooper's "Condition White, Yellow, Orange, and Red" should be taught to all Americans, hunters, shooters, and in the schools.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

 

[GRB]

The United States Constitution is definitely a framework or base, it is also living and changeable - if you disagree with that you do not understand the Constitution at all. The thing is though that the left, almost every leftist I have heard including left wing republicans like George Bush (the current one) believe they can change this and that by tweaking laws or doing it as they see fit. The truth of the matter is that the Constitution needs to be amended in order to be changed as it was with the Bill of Rights and later amendments. This takes quite a good deal of work, and quite a good deal of votes and is a politically dangerous thing to do. So instead you get people like george Bush, Charles Schummer, Feninstein and the like trying to change thjings their own way because they would never be able to garner enough support to do it the right way. Yes we are being attacked and we are our own worst enemy - at least those of us who want to cut liberties and stifle our rights by cutting corners.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

If you are asking about revolt...

I heard a great explenation here.

If you think it might be time, run inside your home, unlock your rifle, load it, then bring it with you when you stand on your lawn.

If your neighbors call the police, it is not time. If they get theirs it is.

 

[longeyes]

I prefer:

"The quick brown Fox jumped over the lazy, sleeping Bush."

 

[Biker]

I heard a great explenation here.

If you think it might be time, run inside your home, unlock your rifle, load it, then bring it with you when you stand on your lawn.

If your neighbors call the police, it is not time. If they get theirs it is.

Hah! Very good! You don't mind if I...*borrow* that, do you?
Biker

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Let's not forget to say "Hi!" to the nice men from the NSA monitoring us "terrorists." Perhaps we should invite them over for a refreshing beverage?

 

[GRB]

Please don't include me in the "us terrorists". Thanks

 

[cropcirclewalker]

The United States Constitution is definitely a framework or base, it is also living and changeable - if you disagree with that you do not understand the Constitution at all. <snip>

If there is anything that gets my skivvies in a knot it is this comment. A "Living" constitution.

St. Peter was admonished not to build his church on a foundation of sand. Sand moves. Bedrock does not.

I understand, Mr. Bartley, that you are trying to say that in order to change the constitution it is necessary to make serious and difficult changes. I agree.

The bullflop that we have experienced in the last 100 years makes me sad. The lack of soberiety with which we changed it.

Look at prohibition.....Carrie Nation and other do-gooder dullards (mods, please excuse if I am using non acceptable name calling) knew they had no constitutional basis upon which to outlaw alcohol, so they made an amendment.

Bad Juju.

The price we have paid for their "tinkering" is inestimable.

When prohibition was repealed we hadda find something for the G-men to do, so we dreamed up the NFA 34. And the beat goes on.

Not that .gov pays any attention to the constitution anymore, anyway but if our rulers back in 1918 had enough sense, they could have kept us from a tremendous task of recovering our firearms rights.

Please.

The constitution is a listing of fundamental concepts. Fundamental concepts do not change.

The sky is blue. The grass is green. God gave us certain unalienable rights. Honesty is the best policy. Stay the heck out of your neighbor's business. No foreign entanglements. Liberty.

It only to like 5,500 words to lay out the fundamental principles.

The founders were probably the most intelligent and altruistic beings ever in any time and any place. Their work, without question (from me, anyway) has been the most perfect document created my mortal man.

Really, though, it was not a hard task if you just consider the basics.

Peace (God would smile down on us)

Honest Friendship (essentially universal)

Commerce (Capitalism at its finest)

Mind yer own business.

Pray tell, what is so hard to understand about the above?

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Sorry Glen, but I'm not the one making those decisions. The following is a flier passed out by the Phoenix FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (call the number on the flier to verify its authenticity):

Front page: http://keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg

Back page: http://keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

Notice that by participating in this discussion you might qualify as a "'defender' of US Constitution against federal government..." under the "Right-Wing Extremist" catagory. Of course I don't consider us terrorists, but according to this very frightening document, the federal government does. Doesn't this make you a bit nervous when our president defends torture, seeks to overturn the Posse Comitatus Act in order to fight a war on avian flu, and blatantly violates the Fourth Amendment and the FISA act? I wonder if we'll be bunkmates in Gitmo? I'll warn you up front that the second they start squeezing my gonads with the pliers, I'll probably start naming any name they want to hear.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Notice that by participating in this discussion you might qualify as a "'defender' of US Constitution against federal government..." under the "Right-Wing Extremist" catagory. Of course I don't consider us terrorists, but according to this very frightening document, the federal government does

Doubtful since the front of the document specifies that they are looking for groups that are "attempting to affect political or social change by criminal activity". Talking on an Internet forum is not criminal activity.

Whether you like it or not, there are more than a few groups who claim to be "defenders" of the Constitution who seem unable to use the political system that document established to make their changes and instead want to change things by violence. Now do you believe that the FBI considers you on the same level as those groups? If not, then what purpose does it serve to give that impression. If so, then what basis do you have for that assumption?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I yam leaning toward the impression of Mr. Lobotomy Boy. When I first read the sheets, I was chilled.

I swore an oath to protect and defend my constitution. The cowflop that I see going on now leads me to believe that the normal ordinary citizen could be at risk.

Hey, I gotta bad heart. Do you think when they haul me down to gitmo (I was there once before in the USN) that they will continue my medications that I get from the VA?

I love my constitution. I hold my present .gov in extreme low regard.

 

[kage genin]

If there is anything that gets my skivvies in a knot it is this comment. A "Living" constitution.

+1
All too often this "living document" argument is used to justify why violation of one of our rights is justified. Antis use it all the time to justify infringement of the 2nd amendment. If the founding documents of our country are fluid and changable, then so is the foundation of the country.

 

[odysseus]

That's an awesome post. Thanks.

If there is anything that gets my skivvies in a knot it is this comment. A "Living" constitution.

St. Peter was admonished not to build his church on a foundation of sand. Sand moves. Bedrock does not.

I understand, Mr. Bartley, that you are trying to say that in order to change the constitution it is necessary to make serious and difficult changes. I agree.

The bullflop that we have experienced in the last 100 years makes me sad. The lack of soberiety with which we changed it.

Look at prohibition.....Carrie Nation and other do-gooder dullards (mods, please excuse if I am using non acceptable name calling) knew they had no constitutional basis upon which to outlaw alcohol, so they made an amendment.

Bad Juju.

The price we have paid for their "tinkering" is inestimable.

When prohibition was repealed we hadda find something for the G-men to do, so we dreamed up the NFA 34. And the beat goes on.

Not that .gov pays any attention to the constitution anymore, anyway but if our rulers back in 1918 had enough sense, they could have kept us from a tremendous task of recovering our firearms rights.

Please.

The constitution is a listing of fundamental concepts. Fundamental concepts do not change.

The sky is blue. The grass is green. God gave us certain unalienable rights. Honesty is the best policy. Stay the heck out of your neighbor's business. No foreign entanglements. Liberty.

It only to like 5,500 words to lay out the fundamental principles.

The founders were probably the most intelligent and altruistic beings ever in any time and any place. Their work, without question (from me, anyway) has been the most perfect document created my mortal man.

Really, though, it was not a hard task if you just consider the basics.

Peace (God would smile down on us)

Honest Friendship (essentially universal)

Commerce (Capitalism at its finest)

Mind yer own business.

Pray tell, what is so hard to understand about the above?

 

[odysseus]

Now how's this for circular logic? Why also do they mention the UN?

I agree with Bartholomew Roberts, it's about your actions. Having an opinion on something is one thing, trying to bomb a building is quite another. However outside of all that, it's still interesting to note the groupings of people and what they feel is bad mojo. So the Fed feels not accepting the UN is right up there with the rest of them. Ouch.

Front page: http://keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg

Back page: http://keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

Notice that by participating in this discussion you might qualify as a "'defender' of US Constitution against federal government..." under the "Right-Wing Extremist" catagory. Of course I don't consider us terrorists, but according to this very frightening document, the federal government does. Doesn't this make you a bit nervous when our president defends torture, seeks to overturn the Posse Comitatus Act in order to fight a war on avian flu, and blatantly violates the Fourth Amendment and the FISA act? I wonder if we'll be bunkmates in Gitmo? I'll warn you up front that the second they start squeezing my gonads with the pliers, I'll probably start naming any name they want to hear.

 

[Ezekiel]

If the founding documents of our country are fluid and changable, then so is the foundation of the country.

"Duh!" As well it should be. Any unilateral acceptance of Amendments, in a vacuum, is grotesque. If you accept unilateral 2nd Amendment rights, then you are saying it is okay -- all Amendments being unilaterally defended -- to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. (Silly!)

As society changes, we must modify the "code": I just do not want the process to be easy or knee-jerk.

 

[SomeKid]

"Duh!" As well it should be. Any unilateral acceptance of Amendments, in a vacuum, is grotesque. If you accept unilateral 2nd Amendment rights, then you are saying it is okay -- all Amendments being unilaterally defended -- to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. (Silly!)

As society changes, we must modify the "code": I just do not want the process to be easy or knee-jerk.

The theatre is private property, and the 1A simply says "Congress shall make no law..."

The 2A is worded differently, and it is important. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

1 leaves room for private individuals to set their own conduct on their own property, 2 does not.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Doubtful since the front of the document specifies that they are looking for groups that are "attempting to affect political or social change by criminal activity". Talking on an Internet forum is not criminal activity.

Where, in this document, is "criminal activity" defined? If talking on the Internet is not now defined as a criminal activity (and you can't say that is the case empirically since you don't know what is and what is not defined as criminal activity when the administration holds people indefinitely without trials and without filing charges), how can you be so sure that the Hilary Clinton administration won't change the definition?

Your argument is akin to: "The Brownshirts burning the ghetto is of no importance since I am not a Jew." Be very careful when making such assumptions, because the National Socialists passed out documents very much like the FBI's "How to identify a terrorist," only the word "terrorist" was replaced with "Jew." Wouldn't it be unfortunate if your particular characteristics happened to fit that profile?

Ezekial mentions the example of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. What is worse: sounding a false fire alarm or telling people to stay in a burning theater because it really isn't on fire--there is simply a minor problem with the HVAC system?

Folks, I smell smoke. We might want to keep our eyes open.

 

[1911 guy]

Our Constitution is NOT a "living" document.

We have seen what happens when .gov fools with it. The "living document" bullcrap was dreamed up to act as a direct assault on the second ammendment, claiming we were too civilized to need an armed populace anymore. Tell that to New Orleans.

The Constitution is a delineation of power, defining what powers the federal gov't has and leaving all others to the states. This has been kicked pillar to post and is no longer recognized in our courts. If you think the Constitution is a living document, remember that the reasons we all choke down blood pressure meds come from jackasses with that same opinion who happen to wear black robes. Anyone who takes an originalist approach to the Constitution is labeled archaic, a religeous zealot or anti-(fill in the blank).

 

[Harve Curry]

Well I still beleive in the United States of America.
I beleive in the fundamental practice of good faith and good will, and at the same time I know that evil exists.
Reread my first post, it's summary is about a resource not being used.
I have'nt read that notice some of you are talking about and probably won't.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The theatre is private property, and the 1A simply says "Congress shall make no law..."

The 2A is worded differently, and it is important. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

1 leaves room for private individuals to set their own conduct on their own property, 2 does not.

That argument also ignores the reality that it is legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater -- if there is a fire. What is not legal is to cause a panic through falsely proclaiming that there is a fire. Since the intent of the 1st Amendment was (and, I presume, still is) to prevent the government from persecuting people for expressing opinions contrary to government dogma, I do not see this as an inherent conflict.

 

[xd9fan]

I heard a great explenation here.

If you think it might be time, run inside your home, unlock your rifle, load it, then bring it with you when you stand on your lawn.

If your neighbors call the police, it is not time. If they get theirs it is.

I do like this post!!! (the only problem I see with this is that there are differant grades of sheeple....who takes the first step thing??)

 

[Old Dog]

Hawkmoon is quite correct.

That argument also ignores the reality that it is legal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater -- if there is a fire. What is not legal is to cause a panic through falsely proclaiming that there is a fire. Since the intent of the 1st Amendment was (and, I presume, still is) to prevent the government from persecuting people for expressing opinions contrary to government dogma, I do not see this as an inherent conflict.

Jefferson's speeches and writings were pretty clear with regard to the intent of the 1st Amendment ...

"[Montesquieu wrote in his Spirit of the Laws XII,c.12:] 'Words carried into action assume the nature of that action. Thus a man who goes into a public market-place to incite the subject to revolt incurs the guilt of high treason, because the words are joined to the action, and partake of its nature. It is not the words that are punished, but an action in which words are employed. They do not become criminal, but when they are annexed to a criminal action: everything is confounded if words are construed into a capital crime, instead of considering them only as a mark of that crime.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.

"The following [addition to the Bill of Rights] would have pleased me: The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty or reputation of others, or affecting the peace of the [United States] with foreign nations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:450, Papers 15:367

 

[azredhawk44]

Since the intent of the 1st Amendment was (and, I presume, still is) to prevent the government from persecuting people for expressing opinions contrary to government dogma, I do not see this as an inherent conflict.

On the same logical route, it is therefore the purpose of the second ammendment to prevent the government from persecuting people who train in arms for the eventuality that they may need to use them, either in personal defense, defense of the state from a foreign power, or in defense of the citizenry from the state by insurrection.

Somehow, I don't see either piece of logic holding up in court.

In fact, that FBI flier points out that if you are a member of a right-wing group engaged in paramilitary training, you are probably a terrorist.

As opposed to a left-wing group engaged in paramilitary training? Wouldn't that be most of the FBI, DEA, ATF, NSA, CIA et. al?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Where, in this document, is "criminal activity" defined?

The term doesn't need to be defined in the document because most people with an ounce of common sense understand the term to mean "things that are against the law" or as it is more commonly known "criminal".

If talking on the Internet is not now defined as a criminal activity (and you can't say that is the case empirically since you don't know what is and what is not defined as criminal activity when the administration holds people indefinitely without trials and without filing charges), how can you be so sure that the Hilary Clinton administration won't change the definition?

Yes, I can say empirically that talking on the Internet is not a criminal activity. That I even have to argue this point says a lot about the ridiculous degree of hyperbole people are using to bolster their arguments.

The administration has held one American citizen, Padilla, without charges for several years before finally charging him. This is admittedly bad, though I would also point out that numerous courts upheld this decision and we aren't privy to all the information they received regarding his case. In any case, you have plenty of good evidence to make a case without making leaps to things like "The government thinks anyone who defends the Constitution is a terrorist".

That isn't what the document you have a copy of says and the fact you don't seem to understand an important distinction in basic written English worries me.

Your argument is akin to: "The Brownshirts burning the ghetto is of no importance since I am not a Jew." Be very careful when making such assumptions, because the National Socialists passed out documents very much like the FBI's "How to identify a terrorist," only the word "terrorist" was replaced with "Jew." Wouldn't it be unfortunate if your particular characteristics happened to fit that profile?

Once again, the profile mentions "criminal activity". There are no shortage of people who support the Constitution and remain unmolested by the FBI. Why do you think that is? I'd also add that if you can't make your point with the facts available without invoking Godwin, then you should probably stop arguing it until you can; because you aren't doing your cause any favors by declaring the sky is falling when it isn't. When you cry "Wolf!" over things like this, people start ignoring you when you point out REAL problems (like detaining American citizens for two years with no charges)

 

[HonorsDaddy]

"Duh!" As well it should be. Any unilateral acceptance of Amendments, in a vacuum, is grotesque. If you accept unilateral 2nd Amendment rights, then you are saying it is okay -- all Amendments being unilaterally defended -- to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. (Silly!)

As society changes, we must modify the "code": I just do not want the process to be easy or knee-jerk.

It is perfectly acceptable, and legal, to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, if there is a fire.

Would you like to try another angle by which you may pretend to support the 2nd Amendment while assisting its destruction?

Yes - that was meant to be inflamatory and insulting. As you've been a member here since 2003, you have no excuse for making that fire in a theater comment in ignorance - i KNOW there have been a dozen or so posts explaining this simple concept to you.