Skip to comments.It’s Not Just Your Guns; It’s America We’re Losing
Posted on 01/11/2013 4:42:09 AM PST by IbJensen
This might come as a surprise to a lot of you, but Im not a gun person never have been, never will be. And you can stop reading right there and be angry, but you know better so read on. The one thing that I have always been and always will be, is a freedom person.
I believe in all of the freedoms and liberties given to us by the Bill of Rights something that very few Americans currently understand.
One group of people who completely understand our rights are the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and the elected officials of the Democratic Party. That understanding should scare you because they fully know the freedoms we were given when the Bill of Rights and Constitution were written, and have actively worked to take them away.
Today, Vice President Joe Biden announced that the President would unilaterally act using an executive order, SOMETHING HE PROMISED NEVER TO DO WHEN HE RAN FOR OFFICE FOUR YEARS AGO, to limit your Second Amendment rights.
He is attempting to act on the tragedies of the past year to limit the rights of the republic to be free and protect itself The Second Amendment, which, for those of you have forgotten, says the following:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This Amendment was written because our founding fathers wanted us to have the same footing as the government to have the same weapons and defensive capabilities so that our own leaders wouldnt take advantage of our people. Its a when all else fails, clause.
America has internally become weak because of a long time of peace. Somewhere in between the Civil War and now, we have forgotten what it was like to fight for our rights. We have taken for granted the fact that we have been able to work together to accomplish great things in not only Americas history, but the worlds. When you get comfortable and settle in to your every day life, you let your defenses down thats when things go horribly wrong.
Whats happening now is a result of us being fat and happy. We havent been threatened on our home turf in over a century but that doesnt mean that we couldnt be again.
What the President is doing is taking away that final when all else fails, ability to protect our rights. The people of this nation have spoken, and stupidly, they have chosen to take hand outs and continue to be fat, happy, and lazy
We brushed over the fact that only months ago, we were fed lies on Benghazi, not to cover up what happened there, but in an attempt to begin to limit our First Amendment freedom of speech. Remember the outcries of the Democrats when they were blaming a video for the attacks we were told that we needed to start to scale back what we could talk about to protect ourselves. That didnt work
So when they failed we were hit with another tragedy in Connecticut, and they have moved on to trying to take your guns If that doesnt work, there are a pile of other rights that they can try to take, and Im sure they will
They will continue to do so until we finally say ENOUGH! But lets face it, America said FORWARD! in the last election
This isnt the America that the Founding Fathers intended to have; this isnt the America that I was brought up to believe in; this is a new America, with less freedom than we have ever had. An America where people can live without working and an America where the stupid prevail.
Its time to act folks. It was time to act 4 years ago, and it was time to act in November, but that didnt work either.
Call your representatives in Congress, call Attorney Generals in your home States, and call your friends and neighbors to do the same.
Youre about to finally and definitively lose your freedoms and youre about to finally and definitively lose your America.
The time is now to be smarter than they think you are.
You can never restrain a determined foe like Obama and this central socialist power grabbing government by pacifism, only by his ready acknowledgement that any aggression incurred by him will be met an equal or greater response. And that response will cost something; it always has and always will. God grant that there will always be those people,whether gun persons or not, who are willing to pay the price. I am!
Obama apparently asked for the law limiting secret service protection to be repealed and provided for life.
Is that paranoia? I would love to know how many death threats he receives on a daily basis.
Realty is that very, very few people will contact their representatives. Very sad.
It is the active military that should be contacted. Ask them why they have failed to uphold their sacred oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Ask them why they blindly serve the Usurper.
Supreme Court cases that cite natural born Citizen as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
As I have been predicting for a long, long time now, but do not be surprised if a second American civil war starts down the road.
“They will continue to do so until we finally say ENOUGH! But lets face it, America said FORWARD! in the last election ”
The sad reality is that we truly is a very badly divided country. Plus the last election was, let’s face it, was STOLEN.
I think the decaying, decadent city known as Washington, D.C. now resembles Madrid in 1936.
The administration and the environs of Washington are rife with those who are communists or their traveling companions.
Yeah. The writer's lack of understanding of that most important, most fundamental, truth pretty much soured me on the piece by the second paragraph.
The impeachment charge would be failure for each one to uphold his sworn oath of office.
Talk about a high crime....that is the highest crime (short of treason) against the American republic.
No, but my Obamaphone was! /s
Good Lord, Tim.
The BoR merely enumerates the rights. The rights exist without their enumeration. The BoR gives us .... nothing. God gives us those rights.
I've been drilling this into the heads of my liberal coworkers now since the election. The Bill of Rights is an affirmation of rights that have always existed. They are not a rule book by which our government is to abide. They are an enumeration of that which is literally inalienable and not capable of being taken away by the government. They are the unassailable property of the people. Period.
This article is somewhat halfhearted in my opinion. The author SEEMS to get it, but he falters on crucial points, the greatest of which is the absence of any mention of God and His role in the liberty of a free people.
We've strayed so far from God. These are the times that try men's souls.
Sadly, I don't think it will every happen unless FR keystrokes turn into bullets. Yeah, we are all going to get stressed out and upset, stock up on the latest prepper supplies, but we are tied at the wrist to a bunch of Godless idiots voters who happily take the handouts and lies being thrown their way from DC and MSM - and now "WE THE (FREE) PEOPLE" are outnumbered.
Single Sluts and welfare moms want their free condoms, and when they forget, we will pay to kill their babies - because it is their right not to be burdened with responsibility for their freewheeling actions. At least gays are cheap, as they don't need contraception and don't have abortions. All the black folk (93% voted for Obama) are just out for revenge and to help the brother.
Red States need to be talking about 10th Amendment and Secession RIGHT NOW. Dickheads like Cuomo and Bloomberg will lead NY right to the gates of Hell, and the voters will be happily skipping to his pied piper tunes! New Yorkers are a bunch of limp-wristed pantywaists!
Sadly, we have lost the ballot box as a cure for our ailing country, and we are going down. The "United" States is no more. I don't share any morals and values anymore with Communist Northerner States: NJ, NY, CT, MA, MI, OH, DE, ME, RI, MI, or the left coast CA - freedom and liberty need to continue on without them... somewhere.
Yogi Berra's quote now presents words of wisdom: "When you see the fork in the road, take it."
In response to what Obama via Biden said yesterday to the NRA, I ordered a new Glock 26 this morning from Buds.
“Down the road”? I think not. We are in the midst of a Civil War, Good vs Evil, Right vs Left. Anyone who does not believe this is a fool.
The sad reality is that we truly is a very badly divided country. Plus the last election was, lets face it, was STOLEN.
That is the truth. It has gone beyond the tolerance levels of some people, but how many? We are a fractured society and sadly, generational conditioning through a media mind meld and educational indoctrination have created a culture of collective dependence with a palate for socialism. When Obama cried out for ' a civilian force just as large and powerful' as the military....he knew that such an army has always existed in America. It is the American people. He knows he cannot complete the transformation of America into a socialist state until that army, the one of the free and the brave, is fully subjugated.
Every appointment, every nomination, every single act and order are all designed to subjugate Americans and overthrow our way of life. Obama, Congress, and the Supreme Court are failing the American people.
Once upon a time in America, people were being oppressively taxed and had no real voice in their governance. It was deemed 'taxation without representation'. History tells us how they responded. Today, we find ourselves facing the exact same scenario.
How will the American people of today respond? Will they seek to preserve the only form of government in the history of mankind that recognizes an inidividual's divine rights and prohibits their infringement, or will they surrender those rights and liberties in exchange for the promise of comfort and security at the hand of a benevolent ruler?
“Sadly, I don’t think it will every happen unless FR keystrokes turn into bullets. Yeah, we are all going to get stressed out and upset, stock up on the latest prepper supplies, but we are tied at the wrist to a bunch of Godless idiots voters who happily take the handouts and lies being thrown their way from DC and MSM - and now “WE THE (FREE) PEOPLE” are outnumbered.”
It was really a mix of BOTH those who are blind, deaf, and dumb, and the use of MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD.
A sure sign we are rather BADLY DIVIDED as a country.
What will most likely happen, is any second civil war will result in the break-up of the USA.
“Down the road”? I think not. We are in the misdest of a Civil War, Good vs Evil, Right vs Left. Anyone who does not believe this is a fool.
He tries to pull this stunt, and I'd bet there will be even more - and they'll have to be taken more seriously.
“Down the road”? I think not. We are in the midst of a Civil War, Good vs Evil, Right vs Left. Anyone who does not believe this is a fool.
On another note:
Obama signs protection bill for former presidents
Published January 10, 2013
| Associated Press
Washington President Obama has signed into law a bill granting lifetime Secret Service protection to former presidents and their wives.
The measure Obama signed Thursday applies to presidents elected after Jan. 1, 1997, specifically Obama and former President George W. Bush. It reverses a 1994 law that ended Secret Service protection 10 years after a president leaves office. Under that law, the Homeland Security secretary could extend such protection on a temporary basis.
This all reminds me of from a historic perpective of the couple of years leading up to the “shooting war” of the first civil war.
There were plenty of people on here and other websites and boards that claimed ideological purity by either not supporting Romney or just throwing a vote away on a candidate that had no chance to win, just to send a message.
Well, the message was sent, loud and clear. Too many people on our side were none to enthusiastic in opposing Obama because Romney would “destroy the party”. Well, you know what, Obama is destroying the country with the aide of people that sat on their duffs because Romney was a mormon, his hair was too nice, he appeared to polished, he didn’t attack Obama enough, he was too rich..
So no I won’t shut up.
People need a daily reminder of how idiotic it is/was to sit at home and do nothing when we had the opportunity to end this full out assault on freedom and liberty. More of us were pumped up to buy a friggin chicken sandwich than we were to elect a man that would lead us in a much different direction.
I fear 2014 will be too late.
If you don’t like what I have to say, fine but please don’t tell me to stop.
Have fun with that.
Let me know how that works out for you, as far as saving America.
Sorry for all the repeats!
EXACTLY! WELL SAID!
Do I really need a sarc tag?
Won't own a gun. FAIL. (Every true American should).
Pretty much ignored the rest.
Fatuous, narcissistic, sociopathic Obama doesn’t fear for prior presidents. He fears for his own feckless traitorous neck.
Secret ‘no-fly zone’?
Pilot seeks answers after arrest
Pilots returned, one by one, to Bermuda High Soaring in Jefferson, S.C. By about 5 p.m. on July 26, 2012, the lift had died and everyone had returned to the gliderporteveryone except Robin Fleming. No one remembered hearing from Fleming since 1:30 or 2 p.m., and Jayne Ewing Reid, co-owner and chief tow pilot of the glider club and commercial operation, was worried.
She called pilots who lived in the region and asked them to try to contact Fleming on their handheld radios. She flew the clubs Piper Pawnee in the direction of Flemings last known radio call, but found no evidence of the missing glider or its pilot.
This is when you get that feeling that somethings not right, she said. Fleming always called if he landed out. Worried that something had happened to Fleming, an avid glider pilot and instructor at Bermuda High, Jayne Ewing Reid and business partner Frank Reid decided to file a missing airplane report. Neither suspected that Fleming was in trouble with the law.
Fleming, 70, had been arrested for breach of peace after flying his Rolladen-Schneider LS8-18 sailplane noiselessly over the H.B. Robinson Nuclear Generating Station at an altitude of 1,518 feet mslby his estimates, about 1,000 feet over the power plants domeon his way to search for lift at nearby Lake Robinson.
No airspace restrictions were printed on sectional charts; no notam marked the area off-limits. When a woman at Hartsville Regional Airport relayed over the Unicom that law enforcement wanted him to land, he had flown to that airport and landed, greeted by a swarm of law enforcement vehicles.
Nonetheless, Fleming spent the night awake in a cell with 11 other inmates. The next afternoon, still in custody, he discovered the details of the charges: flying very close to the nuclear plant dome in a no fly zone, escalated a multi-jurisdictional call out to a homeland security situation, ordered several times to land, causing the disturbance throughout the community.
He finally left the detention center 24 hours after his arrest, exhausted and eager to clear his name. The charges were dropped the next month, but now Fleming wants to make sure no other pilots are subjected to a similar ordeal...
Not entirely true: The Bill of Rights gives us legal guarantees of rights.
Ok, you have to understand that a rejection of Romney is not a plea for ideological purity -- but a plea against homogenous ideology as Obama.
They are both socialists, and Statists.
Indeed, the primaries and Republican National Convention were dirty -- with "democrat-style" manipulations:
The teleprompter incident, where the 'result' of the votes appeared before the vote had finished.
The bus-driver incident, where an entire delegation was forced to miss the rule-change vote.
The proposed rule changes themselves, which showed the statist/totalitarian heart of the GOP's elite.
The retroactive rule-change in the primaries to deny Ron Paul supporters delegates (and gave them to Romney) because they successfully rules-lawyered delegates.
Are those the sorts of things we want in our leadership? Are those things even what "conservatism" is about?
If by 'conservatism' you mean "keeping things the same", then yes, it is what conservatism is about.
Well, the message was sent, loud and clear. Too many people on our side were none to enthusiastic in opposing Obama because Romney would destroy the party.
That was doomed to happen: the republican party stood for nothing, and so fell.
Well, you know what, Obama is destroying the country with the aide of people that sat on their duffs because Romney was a mormon, his hair was too nice, he appeared to polished, he didnt attack Obama enough, he was too rich..
None of that is why I did not vote Romney; I did not vote for Romney because he is the same as Obama: a socialist. Ideologically the only difference is that Romney is a Fabian-socialist (incrementalism) and Obama is more of a holistic-actor.
People need a daily reminder of how idiotic it is/was to sit at home and do nothing when we had the opportunity to end this full out assault on freedom and liberty.
Really? When I was in the Army, in `08/`09, it was made perfectly clear to me that there would be no challenge of Obama's qualifications; this has been borne-out across the civilian-world as well. Those in power have no respect for the Law (see LTC Lakin's courts martial), and this will not likely change with mere elections. (Even if we got a 'god' President, the congress has no problem passing contra-constitutional laws [see the NFA and GCA], and the courts have no compunction against allowing it [see Wickard, Raich, Kelo, and/or Affordable Care Act]).
More of us were pumped up to buy a friggin chicken sandwich than we were to elect a man that would lead us in a much different direction.
NO! ROMNEY WOULD NOT PUT US ON A MUCH DIFFERENT DIRECTION. THE MOST HE WOULD DO IS MAKE SUPERFICIAL CHANGES: A KINDER, GENTLER (MORE ACCEPTABLE) TYRANNY.
If you dont like what I have to say, fine but please dont tell me to stop.
I've not told you to stop; but your whole argument for a socialist is disgusting.
“The writer’s lack of understanding of that most important, most fundamental, truth pretty much soured me on the piece by the second paragraph.”
He also wrote this:
“We havent been threatened on our home turf in over a century ”
Apparently he missed the World Trade Center, The Pentagon attack, and flight 93...
“This all reminds me of from a historic perpective of the couple of years leading up to the shooting war of the first civil war.”
Hmmm.... with the “gun controllers” taking on the role of “the new abolitionists”?
And, in the same vein, could the Supreme Court’s “Heller decision” become the Dred Scott of the twenty first century?
An interesting twist of history...
“Let me know how that works out for you, as far as saving America.”
Well, America seems to be goin’ the way it’s goin’, regardless of what anyone (at least on this forum) talks about doing to “save” it.
I imagine there were similar discussions held not long after the Titanic hit the iceberg...
I wuz gonna say it, you saved me the effort, quite well too.
However, the Grand Old Stupid Party won’t learn a damn’d thing from it, the will take the exact opposite message from it, “Our candidate was just not “centrist” enough last time, let’s get an even more liberal ass hole next time”.
That’s gonna be one heck of a challenge though, to find someone with an “R” behind his/her name, more liberal than Romney.
I make an exception for blind people, other than that I pretty much agree.
Welcome to F.R.
okay.. not an argument for socialism, but an argument against the coming dictatorship. I have no idea where Romney was proposing a tyranny, but the government is becoming tyrannical and having a person propose a smaller federal government with less power is always preferred.
You can USE UPPERCASE TEXT all you want and use whatever logical pretzels you desire but the fact still remains that if we were to have elected Romney instead of allowing Obama to remain in office, we would not be discussing gun confiscation, but tax policy and economic growth which was my original statement.
I happen to agree about the rules garbage at the RNC but it was what it was and we had two logical choices and some decided that Obama was better. I disagree that Romney was a socialist, he wasn’t, but Obama ran as one (as well as a gun banner) and we had a choice. Now we no longer have that choice.
Thank you, Graybeard58; it's always good to know when a job's been done "quite well." :)
Good to see you around.
I'm a Constitutionalist and, out of respect for my father's wishes, abstained from testing the "law" -- you see, in NM the State Constitution specifically prohibits any law abridging the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense; even barring the counties and municipalities from regulating "in any way" and incident of the right to keep and bear arms -- by taking a firearm with me into the city's courthouse.
Some people would say it is a stupid thing to do; most people do not realize that the police (and security) have "no affirmative obligation to provide for a particular private citizen's safety." (According to several US Supreme Court rulings. -- and did you know that you may be compelled, even if not accused of a crime, to be present in a courthouse: this is called jury duty. -- If then, there is no guarantee for the juror's safety, it is obvious that disarming the juror is immoral.
And there are many "laws", rules, regulations like this.
Do you oppose, and I mean more than just complaining or grumbling, them?
It’s getting to the point where I wish Iran or Norks would nuke DC - to save America.
easy - Chris Christie R NJ; recently said he is looking forward to running for POTUS in 2016.
I have no idea where you are taking this discussion but thank you for your service.
Like I said in the first post -- those in power have little respect for the law. Indeed, the 'law' cannot be respectable if (a) it is so morally corrupt so as to deny real, God-given rights, (b) conflict with the authority which gave the power to authorize it, or [and I did not raise this issue yet] (c) be selectively enforced.
A & B are both in my first post, B the primary in my last post.
In order to get the law back to being respectable; you and I and hundreds of other people need to push back against its abuse... and those that are abusing it need to pay (whether that will be monetary/financial, security, or with blood is a question that I am not addressing) -- it must be disadvantageous for an official to act in unjust manner.
The US Code provides an interesting duo:
18 USC § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Until the Law is just and valid -- meaning also the Constitution is Supreme -- the parties matter little; for it is they who, along with the judiciary, show such despite to the Constitution.