This a true story and well worth the 13 minutes to watch it.

voxvocispublicus.homes...thens.html

Yup the end is by the means

That was a fairly easy proposition in those days...today it would have a very different ending.

Today, under the auspices of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (Patriot Act 2001), the Chain of Command (Local, County, State then Federal) would swing into action and the Government would have forces on the ground in very short order...forces that would have no choice but to do as they are directed by their superiors...regardless of how they feel about the situation.

The Government have access to the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, Army Reserves, NSA, DEA, FBI, Federal Marshal's, State Police and Sheriff Departments, plus no doubt a myriad of other LEO groups that I don't know about. The minute someone took up arms against a Government institution, regardless of how corrupt it was...they would immediately be branded as terrorists and the full weight of the above would be dumped on them like a ton of bricks. Unfortunately, that is exactly what would happen, very quickly, unless it could be shown to the President that the actions of the corrupt Government officials justified Second Amendment action on the part of the citizens...and even then I would doubt that it would go in favour of the righteous protestors.

To invoke the rights and intents of the Second Amendment, I think it would take a massive action on the part of many hundreds of thousands of citizens, with a common goal, lead by a single organisation (maybe like the NRA) to take a legal stand against what can be shown to be political tyranny by one of more parts of the Government. However, because of the way the Patriot Act, TITLE II--ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES and TITLE IX--IMPROVED INTELLIGENCE, is framed, I doubt very much that the necessary work to get such an organisation, or militia, together would come to fruition. It would be nipped in the bud very quick by the Department of Homeland Security.

A couple of interesting reads:

THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE IDEOLOGY OF SELF-PROTECTION

Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment

It is indeed a travesty of rights that the final say on whether or not a Government or Government Officials are being tyrannical lies wholly and solely with the Government...the very group that the Second Amendment seems to allow a militia to rise up against in such times. These days it is the Courts who will decide whether or not an uprising against a tyrannical Government is justified...and of course, the Government "own" the Courts.

If the standing Government decrees that a person or group of persons falls under the category of "Terrorist"...then it matters not what those people say, because they will not have the power of the Government behind them.

Bugger...I got a bit carried away there methinks...but it has been an interesting search for information because I am surprised to find that much of the intent and purposes of the Second Amendment come from English Common Law, which is the basis for the laws here in Australia. Interesting...sets one to thinking.



Cheers, Vince

And we still are subjects !!!!

Well said Vince.

In my humble opinion the only hope we might have is that the military will take its oath of allegiance to heart and defend the Constitution.

Quote::

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Of course I am probably dreaming but it sounds good.

Also, from a man much smarter than I---

Quote::

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

St. George Tucker.

Lester wrote:

...In my humble opinion the only hope we might have is that the military will take its oath of allegiance to heart and defend the Constitution. wrote: Quote:: "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The highlighted section of the oath is the part that, regardless if they feel they are defending the Constitution, is the part that brings everything undone.

The Oath, as I read it, actually contradicts itself insomuch as the invocation of the Second Amendment is concerned. On one hand they swear to uphold the Constitution, whilst on the other hand they are agreeing to obey the very people that the Second Amendment gives protection against.

I am not an expert on US Politics or your Constitution and Bill of Rights, I can only take things on face value from a layman's powers of comprehension and point of view. So, maybe if I am wrong (very probable) someone with more knowledge of these things can set me straight.

My head hurts.

Cheers, Vince

Having taken that oath my interpretation is that defending the Constitution comes first, then notes domestic enemies, which could be anybody including, congress and the president. Therefore voiding the second section. But, as you note I also am not a legal whiz, I only know that I have more trust in Private Joe Blow doing what's right.

Quote::

The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.

So, as I understand it I may obey only legal orders, and any order that violates the Constitution or Bill of Rights would not be a legal order.

I have discussed this very issue with a person (who is very close to me) recently retired as a full Colonel from the Army. He advises that there are two types of military, the elite political military and the real guys, the guys with field service. Guys like Eisenhower, and Patton, and MacArthur. He advises that there might be a short struggle with the elite, but that he doubted that any officer with field experience would violate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Then there is oathkeepers.org/oath/

Hard to say what really might happen, absolutely nothing surprises me anymore.

I reckon it'll be a relatively minor incident - like the Athens one - that'll kick off a major confrontation between overbearing "progressive" government & Constitutional conservatives.
NB: I don't think progressive just means Democrat.

"People crushed by law, have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous."-Edmund Burke
The "I was only following orders." defense may have helped to soothe the conscience's of those on trial at Nuremberg, but it didn't hold much water with those passing judgement on them. I believe and pray that the officers in our armed forces would have better insight and judgement than to fall into that same trap. To blindly follow illegal and immoral orders, given by politicians, would be as heinous as the orders themselves.
Great post!
Don

Vince wrote:

Lester wrote: ...In my humble opinion the only hope we might have is that the military will take its oath of allegiance to heart and defend the Constitution. wrote: Quote:: "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." The highlighted section of the oath is the part that, regardless if they feel they are defending the Constitution, is the part that brings everything undone. The Oath, as I read it, actually contradicts itself insomuch as the invocation of the Second Amendment is concerned. On one hand they swear to uphold the Constitution, whilst on the other hand they are agreeing to obey the very people that the Second Amendment gives protection against. I am not an expert on US Politics or your Constitution and Bill of Rights, I can only take things on face value from a layman's powers of comprehension and point of view. So, maybe if I am wrong (very probable) someone with more knowledge of these things can set me straight. My head hurts. Cheers, Vince

I agree with Lester and to make the point that I believe in when I took that oath is that the oath is in three parts. The most important part is that which is first written. To defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic....

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ...

and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The last thing that an oath taker should break is the first part. IM
HO

Right on Dark- using a colloquialism from my ancient youth.

No person in American is as important as the Constitution or Bill of Rights, no matter what their Momma told them. It must be defended at all costs, and against every do gooder politician.

Really pis--d off today Barry kept me up last night worrying, and I don't know why.

At least I have a place to spout off at where folks have a brain. Praise God!

I read it the same way Ron...although I think that the powers that be will lok at it in reverse...the "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." will be foremost to them and I feel will take priority...unfortunately.

But definitely, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the first part...defending the Constitution against all enemies...is the most important part because without that, there is nothing.

Cheers, Vince