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"