Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/01/2011 6:19:25 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: All

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts


2 posted on 12/01/2011 6:23:03 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You can't invade the US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.~Admiral Yamamoto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

What important information is missing from this article?


3 posted on 12/01/2011 6:25:10 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
The amendment would permit the president to use the military for law enforcement purposes in the United States. This, of course, would present a radical departure from any use to which the military has been put in the memory of any Americans now living.

Littlerock, Arkansas...1957

4 posted on 12/01/2011 6:26:16 AM PST by Roccus (POLITICIAN...............a four letter word spelled with ten letters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

More revisionist nonsense from the Federalists (so-called conservatives). The “founders” wrote and signed the Constitution without the 5th AMENDMENT. It was the antifederalists who got what little protection we have written into the Constitution, for what it’s worth.

The Constitution was written and passed to enlarge centralized power. It’s primary aim was to consolidate federal power at the expense of the states—and they succeeded.

“A national government ought to be able to support itself without the aid or interference of the State governments, ...therefore it was necessary to have full sovereignty. Even with corporate rights the States will be dangerous to the national government, and ought to be extinguished, new modified, or reduced to a smaller scale.”
— Alexander Hamilton

” I have well considered the subject, and am convinced that no amendment of the confederation can answer the purpose of a good government, so long as State sovereignties do, in any shape, exist.”
— Alexander Hamilton

“I apprehend the greatest danger is from the encroachment of the States on the national government”
—James Madison

“Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty, and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.”
—James Madison

“Under the proposed Govt. the powers of the States will be much farther reduced. According to the views of every member, the Genl. Govt. will have powers far beyond those exercised by the British Parliament, when the States were part of the British Empire.”
— James Madison, June 29, 1787


5 posted on 12/01/2011 6:26:22 AM PST by Huck (LIBERTY is the object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
The last time the federal government regularly used the military for domestic law enforcement was at the end of Reconstruction in the South, in 1876.

The Bonus Army, From Wiki:

The Bonus Army was the popular name of an assemblage of some 43,000 marchers—17,000 World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups—who gathered in Washington, D.C., in the spring and summer of 1932 to demand immediate cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Its organizers called it the Bonus Expeditionary Force to echo the name of World War I's American Expeditionary Force, while the media called it the Bonus March. It was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant.

Many of the war veterans had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1945. Each service certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier's promised payment plus compound interest. The principal demand of the Bonus Army was the immediate cash payment of their certificates.

Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time, visited their camp to back the effort and encourage them. On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.

A second, smaller Bonus March in 1933 at the start of the Roosevelt Administration was defused with promises instead of military action. In 1936, Congress overrode President Franklin D. Roosevelt's veto to pay the veterans their bonus years early.

7 posted on 12/01/2011 6:38:17 AM PST by OrioleFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Can the president use the military to arrest anyone he wants, keep that person away from a judge and jury, and lock him up for as long as he wants?

A bill introduced by John McCain, up for a vote Tuesday supposedly, will do just that. Have a look at Senate Bill 1867, referred to as the National Defense Authorization Act bill. It was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Michigan) and John McCain (R-Arizona) and was scheduled for a vote by the full Senate on Tuesday.

13 posted on 12/01/2011 6:47:06 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Attacking Wall Street because you're jobless is like burning down Whole Foods because you're hungry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

The original purpose of Congress was to ensure their enforcement...


23 posted on 12/01/2011 7:56:39 AM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Our freedoms are the natural rights of mankind endowed upon us by our Creator.

It is not the Constitution or Government that grants us these rights.

A government of free men recognizes these rights. A tyrannical government does not recognize these rights.

Under our Constitution, any law Congress passes that doesn't recognize these rights SHOULD BE struck down by the courts.

The more rights that get trampled on by Congress - the more we move towards a tyrannical government and away from a government of free men.

65 posted on 12/01/2011 2:38:23 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson