BTW:
WTC & Pentagon attacks
Here's the best collection of photographs I've found:
America Under Attack - Photographs: An Inside View </font size></font color>
</font size>
Posted on 09/17/2001 10:04:45 AM PDT by KDD
SLEEPLESS VIGILANCE By Worth Baldwin WBWORDSMTH@cs.com"You have the highest of human trusts committed to your care. Providence has showered on this favored land blessings without number, and has chosen you as the guardians of freedom, to preserve it for the benefit of the human race. May He who holds in His hands the destiny of nations make you worthy of the favors He has bestowed, and may He enable you, with pure hearts and hands and sleepless vigilance, to guard and defend to the end of time the great charge He has committed to your keeping." - Andrew Jackson
THE "LETTERS OF MARQUE" CLAUSE:
ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Americans should never read the U.S. Constitution. They should study it. Our Constitution was specifically and brilliantly designed to keep our government under control and keep us free. In fact, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are so exquisitely crafted that millions of Americans (including myself) believe that, like the Bible, the U.S. Constitution was Divinely inspired (however, unlike the Bible, it was not Divinely authored. That's why it can be amended, although experience has proven that we usually regret doing so).
One of the primary freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution (as well as the constitutions of most states) is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Most Americans are undoubtedly aware of the Second Amendment, which states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". This simple, clear, and eloquent statement should be more than adequate to deter any attempt to restrict our liberty. Tragically, we all know that the enemies of American freedom have used every underhanded rhetorical device they can think of to distort the meaning of the Second Amendment. In recent years, they have resorted to an extremely dangerous and diabolical device called the "sporting purposes test". Under this twisted anti-Constitutional philosophy, ownership of certain weapons can be prohibited if they are found by the government to be "unsuitable for sporting purposes." The Gun Grabbers contend that, since citizens still have access to "sporting" weapons, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has not been violated.
Of course, the "sporting purposes" test is pernicious for several important reasons. First, it trivializes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by implying that this essential liberty exists only so that we can engage in sport hunting activities, participate in competitive shooting matches, punch holes in paper targets, and plink at tin cans and other rubbish. All lovers of life and liberty instinctively know better. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was given to us by God to facilitate our self-defense against criminal attack, whether by common thugs or oppressive governments.
Second, the "sporting purposes" test allows governments to restrict or prohibit access to the very types of military arms that would be most useful for defense against either street crime or despotism.
And third, the "sporting purposes" test was invented by the Nazis! The Nazi origin of this concept has been thoroughly documented by the excellent pro-gun group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), in a new book entitled Gun Control - Gateway to Tyranny. In this book, JPFO translates the German gun control laws enacted by Hitler's Nazi regime into English, and then compares the Nazi gun control laws side-by-side with the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended. According to JPFO, this analysis proves conclusively that our current gun control laws were patterned after those used by Hitler's Nazis. One specific aspect of the Nazi firearms law that was appropriated by the authors of GCA '68 is the "sporting purposes" test.
Of course, our Founding Fathers would strongly disapprove of such nonsense. During the debates surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment, there is no mention whatsoever of "sporting purposes" (indeed, the shooting sports as we know them today did not exist when the Bill of Rights was ratified). However, the Founders did emphasize over and over again that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was intended to guarantee that American citizens would always have access to military type weapons, so that we could both deter the establishment of oppressive governments and destroy such regimes if deterrence failed.
Examples of this philosophy abound. Thomas Jefferson said that "The strongest reason for the people to retain the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Jefferson also stated that "It is the right and duty of an American to be at all times armed", and advised his fellow citizens to "...let your gun be the constant companion of all your walks." Tench Coxe, fund raiser and financial backer of the American Revolution, prominent Federalist spokesman, and close friend of James Madison, wrote that "The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. Every terrible implement of the soldier is the birth-right of an American." There can be no doubt that our Founding Fathers intended for us to own and operate military weapons, so that we could effectively defend our country and our liberty.
But how far should we take this concept? Was Coxe speaking rhetorically about "every terrible implement of the soldier" being our birth-right? Did the Founders mean to limit the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to small arms, possibly supplemented by other man-portable weapons like hand grenades? Is there any evidence in the Constitution that the Founders had even bigger weapons in mind?
The staggering answer to this question is "yes", and it is found under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which defines the powers of Congress. Among many other things, Article 1, Section 8 authorizes Congress to "...grant letters of marque and reprisal." This statement, which was part of the Constitution even before the Bill of Rights was adopted, provides penetrating insight into the original intent of the Founding Fathers with regard to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
So what's a "letter of marque and reprisal?", you ask. Well, according to my American Standard Dictionary (1968 pre-political correctness edition), a "letter of marque and reprisal" (usually called simply a "letter of marque") is "a license granted by a state to a private citizen to capture the merchant ships of another nation". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that private citizens don't venture forth to capture other nations' ships armed with only a flintlock musket. To capture other ships on the high seas, you must own and operate an armed ocean-going vessel. Indeed, many private citizens have operated their own warships, and made good livings raiding and plundering enemy merchant ships with the full blessing of Uncle Sam. Such ships were called "privateers", which my dictionary defines as "a privately owned warship commissioned by a government to fight or harass enemy shipping". According to the Funk & Wagnall's Encyclopedia, the U.S. Government employed privateers during both the American Revolution and the War of 1812. During the Civil War, Congress authorized the President to commission privateers, but this power was not exercised. The Confederacy, however, being critically short of warships, did make use of privateers.
It is therefore evident that the Founders of this nation intended for private citizens, operating their own warships, to augment our Navy in time of war. At the time the Constitution was written, the warship was the most elaborate, sophisticated, and formidable weapon system on earth. Even today, warships remain among the most potent packages of mobile military capability and firepower.
The American Founders trusted individual citizens to own and operate any and all military weapons, up to and including warships. When Tench Coxe said that our birth-rights as Americans include "every terrible implement of the soldier", he meant it literally.
In this context, the fact that we are now seriously debating whether American citizens should be allowed to own relatively low-powered small arms such as AK-47s, AR-15s, UZIs, and handguns demonstrates how far we have already come down the road to total tyranny.
The next time some ignoramus tells you that our Founding Fathers never envisioned "military assault weapons" in the hands of private citizens, you can reply that they most certainly did, up to and including privately owned warships operating on the high seas. When they ask you to prove it, you will have your chance to introduce another citizen to the other "right to arms" protection provided in our Constitution: the "letters of marque" clause.
BTW:
WTC & Pentagon attacks
Here's the best collection of photographs I've found:
America Under Attack - Photographs: An Inside View </font size></font color>
</font size>
CAPITALISM AT ITS FINEST... A Modest Proposal for Citizen's War
(the "Free Republic Libertarian Caucus" already posted the above-linked detailed proposal thread Friday, debated it with ex-military FReepers over the weekend, and now is urging this proposal forward for formal submission to Congress)... but we thank you for your support!!
More to come in the days ahead....
LOL...shoulda known.
Thanks for the link.
Nope. I know the the Treaty of which you are thinking; but while it was considered, it was never signed by the US.
If there is not a signed, binding Treaty, prohibiting these Letters, the Congress may issue them at any time.
(Even if there were such a treaty, I believe it would only be binding in respect to the Parties in contract -- no such Treaty protections would extend to son-signatories such as Bin Laden).
Ready the Letters of Reprisal.
Nope. I know the the Treaty of which you are thinking; but while it was considered, it was never signed by the US.
If there is not a signed, binding Treaty, prohibiting these Letters, the Congress may issue them at any time.
(Even if there were such a treaty, I believe it would only be binding in respect to the Parties in contract -- no such Treaty protections would extend to non-signatories such as Bin Laden).
Ready the Letters of Reprisal.
1.) I do not believe that this renunciation was ever codified in Treaty (i.e., the Washington Naval Treaty);
2.) Even if they were, I don't believe that any of these Treaty protections extend to non-signatories (i.e,. Bin Laden); and
3.) World War II pretty much completely voided the Washington Naval Treaties anyway.
Here's the plot summary from Amazon:
John Stanbridge, the Speaker of the House in James W. Huston's exciting and exceptionally timely first thriller, isn't exactly Newt Gingrich ("He was of average height with dark brown hair that was stiff and unruly. He wore it parted on the side, but the only time his hair looked neat was in the morning when it was still wet") but he is a hawkish, confrontational Republican who can't stand the idea that President Edward Manchester--a Democrat and a pacifist--is Commander in Chief of America's armed forces.
So when Indonesian terrorists hijack a new American supercargo vessel and torture the captain and crew on live TV, Stanbridge is delighted to discover a clause in the Constitution that lets Congress go behind the president's unwilling back and authorize military action on its own. This leads to a Constitutional crisis, which lawyer Huston describes crisply, as well as some air and sea military action, on which former jet pilot Huston also brings a lot of personal expertise to bear. There's even a love story, involving top aides of the Speaker and the president, ensuring that Balance of Power will soon be playing at a movie theater near you. --Dick Adler --
Here is the broken link: http://www.firearmsfreedom.net/brunnermotion.html
Luke 22:36 (KJV) --Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Got sword? (M1 Garand ==>CMP)
No mercy, no quarter!
May the jihadists burn in hell for eternity!
Help speed them on their way!
Molon Labe!
Poll: bin Laden's skull can be best used as an ....
There's evidence that Congress can modify any treaty using simple legislation, since treaties are given only equal, if not lesser, standing with legislation in Article 6, section 2. 
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.