Posted on 12/10/2003 11:36:32 PM PST by yonif
If and when they declare the 2nd amd pertains today only to the national guard, or other such nonsense, they will learn that the Rule of Five is not the final rule, not the last trump card in the deck of liberty.
The founders put the 2nd amd into the BOR for a reason, and it had nothing to do with duck hunting.
The American people that love liberty are not going to take much more of this.
I wonder. If I knew for a certainty that muslum terrorists were going to crash an aircraft into the Supreme Court if I should do anything to bother to report it. It's beginning to appear that it would just be a case of one set of enemies of the American people doing battle with another competing batch of antiAmericans.
Maybe I'd send a letter. Sure hope our prompt and efficient postal service gets it delivered before the plane gets there.
I think we are past the point of no-return; all it will take to start citizen-against-citizen bloodshed is one overt act of Governmental tyranny: one radio talk-show host jailed for violating the CFR act; one citizen killed defending his/her 2nd amendment rights, etc. It is just a matter of time, IMHO.
If I knew for a certainty that muslim terrorists were going to crash an aircraft into the Supreme Court...
I was personally thinking that the next airliner hijack should crash into a joint session of Congress - in one fell swoop we rid ourselves of the Rats, the RINOs, the SCOTUS, and a whole pi$$pot full of career socialist bureaucrats.
He wimped out for political expediency and screwed the future of the entire nation.
But I better be careful now - such words might have the "appearance of corruption."
Absolutely correct. For what little it is worth, I was the originator of this, way back a year or more:
Silence, America!:
 Silence, America!: for Silence, America!. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
...tried to warn people; not enough were paying attention.
Now we'll all pay...
And usurpation has become more open, recently.
In the early 1990's, Rehnquist was in the minority when he supported Asset Forfeiture in a case. He was obviously upset by the court's ruling, because on national news that evening, he whined, "This law was not too unconstitutional!"
In that same decade, Justice Souter's opinion in a Pennsylvania teacher's union labor case, read something like this: "I know this is unconstitutional but I am voting this way for labor peace."
Lately we have open support favoring so-called "international law" over the Constitution; and, of course, yesterday's ruling. When Supreme Court members openly admit they are voting contrary to the constituion, we no longer have a constitution but a monarchy, or, in our case, an oligarchy of unelected idealogues. They get away with it because our entire national and state government system, and our press, is corrupt.
In his 1792 National Gazette editorial, "Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one", the real Philip Freneau wrote: ""As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particularly useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter . . . review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickerings, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle and modern ages; caricature them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined; and unfold one scene of the horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows . . . in order to render success the more certain, it will be of special moment to give the most plausible and popular name that can be found to the power that is to be usurped. It may be called, for example, a power for the common safety or the public good, or, "the general welfare" . . . If the people should not be too much enlightened, the name will have a most imposing effect. It will escape attention that it means, in fact, the same thing with a power to do anything the government pleases "in all cases whatsoever." To oppose the power may consequently seem to be ignorant, and be called by the artful, opposing the "general welfare," and may be cried down under that deception."
At least now you know why the government and press put so much time and resources into discrediting the militia movement during the 1990's. Even supposedly bright people, such as Rush Limbaugh, was in lockstep with the government and mainstream media on that one.
Gosh Rush! I can't believe you made such a dumb mistake. But you are in "good" company. Jane Pauley made an identical mistake several years ago on Dateline. You see, the amendment we normally call "the 1st Amendment" was actually the 3rd. The first two amendments failed ratification.
What I am trying to say is: "ALL 10 AMENDMENTS ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT. THE ORDER WAS, AND IS, IRREVELANT!
Geesh!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.