Here are just a few scenes we'd Really like to see!



We hung this guy's ancestor for doing less damage than this Bozo did!



This postage is actually 2 cents (81 Stat 613) which is more than this jailbird is worth!



Facist "Billy" is proud of His National Flag!



BillyBob shakes the hand of His Heroe in the WhiteWaterGateHouse!



This one speaks for itself!

The Next one is a sad but true reality!




Billy "pork-it-all" Bob sticks it to Liberty!


If you don't like what you see then it is high time to fulfill your legal obligations under 10 USC 311!
10 USC Chapter13 Sec.311 (1988ed.). Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, (C)itizens of the several United States and of female (C)itizens of the several United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

FIRST AMENDMENT DOOMED WITHOUT SECOND
When the liberal media loses the Right to decide whether or not to print this or anything else, who will be there to care or to do anything about it?

Anytime any one Right is placed above another, or "modernized" by interpretation, all Rights are made less absolute. Socialist Democracy is a very difficult form of government to sustain. Our Constitution is a very eloquent and elegant set of rules by which we maintain a delicate balance between the Rights of the individual and the Rights of the State. One of those guarentee's that are largely ignored is that the several States are to have a Republic form of government. This does NOT include Socialistic democracy!

Our forefathers deliberately and wisely leaned heavily toward the side of the individual. These were men to whom freedom was a new and heady dream just being realized.

These men intended that no-one, ever, would place them or their descendants under any rule but the Rule of Law. The Rights they felt so strongly about were codified into the Constitution and Amendments. It seems plain that these Rights were meant to be left alone and inviolate.

Provision was made for adding and repealing Amendments; there is no provision for repealing Rights. As individuals, only certain classes of criminals may have their rights taken away. However, every abridgement by law, interpretation, administrative rule, or executive order has the effect of a partial repeal.

This weakening of Rights was not intended by the writers of the Constitution and its Amendments. This trend toward more Rights for the State and fewer Rights for the individual must not be allowed to continue.

When this Nation was formed, it was then, as now, a Nation under siege from within as well as without. We are also under siege in ways the early lawmakers could not have imagined. However, the rules they made then concerning Rights of the people still work as well as ever.

Suppose, just suppose, It was decided by those who would decide such things, that only the news fit to print would be printed? Of course, such an abridgement of the First Amendment would mean a successful attack against the media and all its might - or would it?

Is it not likely that some of the liberal media might see a suppression of certain "dangerous" information or ideas as a good thing? After all, just as some firearms are said to have no legitimate "sporting purpose", many publications, songs, movies, etc., have been deemed without social value.

To set the record straight, the First Amendment doesn't say a single word about the "social value" of publications, or any product of any media, any zany religion you could imagine, or any off-the-wall gathering of people you may choose to attend. The Second Amendment also doesn't say a single word about "sporting purposes".

The word used is "arms"; not a word about sport hunting or recreational uses of firearms. "Arms", then as now, means "weapons";if it had been intended otherwise, the Second Amendment might have read: "Sport shooting being recognized as important recreation, the people shall be permitted to own suitable sporting firearms, subject to local ordinance and regulation."

Imagine such a perversion of the First Amendment. Believe me, there are those who would control what is published subject to their "reasonable" censorship.

The Supreme Court--the last resort except for force of arms--just might be able or willing to prevent a revision or misinterpretation of the First Amendment. Or would it come down to defending Freedom of the Press with human lives? How many of those in the liberal media would have the courage to defend this Right? How many would simply shutup or flee into exile?

What if the attack came from a network of terrorists in a concerted effort to control what people were told? That would result in a great clamor and cry for protection. But who would defend the liberal media? Would the police and military be able or willing to drop everything else and rush to their aid? More likely they would have to mostly defend themselves.

Some of the larger media would be able to hire men and women able to protect First Amendment Rights. The major problem would be a matter of finding enough people with the heart to fight, kill, or die in defense of what is right. The ranks of those who didn't mind getting their hands dirty, and were adequately trained, would soon be exhausted.

If current trends toward Gun Control--a concerted attack on the Second Amendment--continues, the liberal media and those who think gun control is a good idea will learn why it was intended that we always have the Right to "Keep and Bear Arms".

Without the Second Amendment the rest of the words of the Constitution and the Amendments are just dreams. It took force of arms to win our freedom and it will take force of arms to keep it. At a time when our immediate enemies--Crime, Drugs, Corruption--are rampant at every level, it just doesn't make sense to move toward disarming the general population.

Oh, Ted Kennedy will still have his bodyguards: but he and the rest of us would be solely at the mercy of those who were still armed. Our basic Right of self-defense would be a sad joke on those who let things come to this pass.

Politicians and bureaucrats who try to disarm the population, historically have had good reasons for doing so--invariably to protect their own interests or philosophy.

Believing you are right is not necessarily the same thing as being right. I believe that we are being weakened as a Nation anytime the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is abridged. When the Right to self- defense is made to seem shameful or even criminal, we are being made weaker in our will to resist. A Nation of unarmed people will not long survive as a Nation of free people. Men and Women with the will to fight, but without the means, don't long survive lightly-armed infantry or even rabble.

The founders of this Nation did not know where future attacks on the Nation or the Rights of its citizens would strike. They also didn't know where the attacks would originate. They did know how to keep a Nation of Free men forever Free. This was their sole objective and they did an admirable job.

They are long dead. We must now do the job ourselves.

Freedom cannot survive without arms in the hands of the citizens, anymore than it can survive without a Free Press.It seems to me that a segment of our society which makes so much fuss about First Amendment Rights would be well advised to take a long look ahead and decide just who will protect those Rights if they are successful in their misguided efforts to undermine the Second Amendment.

Remember ... "Liberty was never won with a registered gun"


Get your own "FREE" Homepage from Geocities.

Return to Index Click Here


1