Tyranny: The Threshold Has Already Been Crossed

Keep and Bear Arms ^ | 25 March 2002 | Jerry Jones

[Pistias]

Felons? The criminally insane? The unskilled?

[Republic]

One question: Is it too late for the Republic and for Constitutional advocates? Can we prevail and can the nation survive?

I think we can prevail. We were challanged to do just that. The famous words, "A Republic, if you can keep it...." rings in truer today than ever before. And we can keep it. Thank GOD for the internet, the perfect means for the masses to communicate and formulate ways to fight the good fight. We have done it here. And we always WILL continue to do so. That is what we are about, in the end.

[Sender]

The really ironic thing is that the leftist wackos actually believe that it is they who will take up arms to save the Constitution from us. Go figure.

[OWK]

Felons?

You betcha. Self defense is a right. Convicted felons who have served their terms, are equally entitled to arms for their defense. Anyone who cannot be trusted with arms for his own defense, should not be out of prison to begin with.

The criminally insane?

See above.

The unskilled?

Unskilled by who's determination?

The state's?

No thanks.

[thrcanbonly1]

As long as a hundred of us remain alive we will never be subject to tyrannical domination, because it is not for glory or for riches or honours that we fight, but for freedom alone which no worthy man loses except with his life. Taken from the “Declaration of Arbroath” 1320

[Polonius]

Of course the Constitution is a grant of powers to the federal government. However, the issue is whether, in theory, the states have (or should have) the authority to provide citizens with fewer protections than the federal government. A case could be made — and granted, it may be a stretch — that between Article IV, Section 4 ("The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government") and Article VI, the states would not have the authority to take away citizens' Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Then again, the issue of states and individual rights is not clear in the context of the Constitution. Article I, Section 10 spells out some rights states don't have, and Amendment 10 grants all other powers to the states, but this doesn't answer the question of what rights, if any, the states are bound to recognize. I would argue that allowing the states to recognize fewer rights of their citizens would be an ultimately destructive doctrine, because it would trade a single tyrant at the federal level for many tyrants within the states, as well as fatally undermining the idea of inalienable rights.

[4CJ]

"You should never be restricted from carrying a firearm. Unless by a private property owner."

Bingo - the 2^nd the way it was designed by the founders.

[Bryan]

I learned on March 10, 1990 that for all practical purposes the Fourth Amendment does not exist. The cops can write an anonymous letter to themselves, tell a bunch of lies under oath, get a search warrant that isn't supported by probable cause, serve the search warrant with drug-sniffing dogs and a battering ram and submachine guns and body armor and video cameras, seize $1,400 in cash that they don't have probable cause to seize, get ordered by a federal judge to return the money immediately, sit on the money for another ten days, and finally give it back under threat of a jail sentence for contempt.

And I still couldn't sue them. It was all an "honest mistake," so they have immunity.

[OWK]

Welcome to 1984

[Jim Robinson]

"I don't advocate taking up arms, although it is interesting that the Founding Fathers took up arms against the King for far less than we currently endure. One day, if marches, recalls and civil disobedience do not bring the government back into line with the Constitution, armed conflict will be necessary."

The thread was pulled because the article calls for civil disobedience and then brings up the possibilty of armed conflict being necessary. As you know, Free Republic does not advocate violence or an overthrow of the government. We also do not allow FR to be used for promoting illegal activities. Our protests are not civil disobedience. We've been very careful to abide by the law in all of our activism projects. If people on this thread start calling for armed conflict or other illegal acts, the thread will be permanently deleted. Otherwise I will let it stand. Thanks, Jim

[FrogMom]

BFLR

[Ohioan]

It is never too late to achieve again, what has been achieved before. While traditional Americans remain in large numbers, Liberty will be within our grasp.

This does not mean that it will be easy to achieve.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Polonius]

What's your opinion on the Bill of Rights as it relates to the states?

[bvw]

The Second as a check against tyranny is mighty, but not complete. Even were the Second to be fully honored, and the right to bear arms unrestrained, there are forms of tyranny that can and do develop.

Not all the ten amendments have been able to hold that tyranny at bay -- for laws are mere words, unsubstantial without men to act upon them.

Yet even a population fully armed, and a number willing to use those arms against tyranny cannot not succeed against an established tyranny. The tyrannized Dutch fought a very long war against Spain -- generations came and went in that war. Spain was far the less than our modern Federal tyrants power in extent, in numbers, in every measure, far the less.

Fools the rebels at arms against the Federal behemoth -- fools not without good cause, but fools to even hope much less act in a vain way. Only the vanity of a fool is served in such waste.

There is one rule of close warfare in such circumstance and it has in History been successful again and again when applied.

That rule is simple. Well known. Seemingly the most trivial, and its inherent wisdom ignored for that simplicity. It is simple! Applied with persistance, however it is overwhelming, unbeatable.

If you can't beat them, join them.

[45Auto]

"The Constitution is no stronger than a people's determination to insist upon its faithful observance." - quote from a forgotten source - taped to my office wall.

[4CJ]

Thank you for the clarification.

[bvw]

The Constitution was the loving expression of the regard that the Founders had for the free people of the United States of America and all those who held to those same princibles of Liberty.

If it is nigh forgotten by the current behemoth Federal tyranny, then let us join ourselves and our children to that behemoth to chew it up from its innards. Taking care to pass to our children what their true hertitage is, for in time to make it anew.

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP