Applying the 2A Litmus Test

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

Please remember this simple 2A Litmus Test when you vote in November:

If a Candidate does not UNCONDITIONALLY support the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, then they do NOT fully support the Constitution - *PERIOD*! Such a person is unfit for Public Office.

[SpecialK 193]

If they were against the 2nd Amendment and wanted to change the Constitution with an Amendment I would say they were fit for office, but since politicians these days create laws that go against the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) I will agree with you 100%.

 

If anti's just wanted to change the 2nd Amendment (good luck with that ) then I wouldn't find them repulsive. It is their total lack of regard for the Constitution that sickens me.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

If they were against the 2nd Amendment and wanted to change the Constitution with an Amendment I would say they were fit for office, but since politicians these days create laws that go against the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) I will agree with you 100%.

 

If anti's just wanted to change the 2nd Amendment (good luck with that ) then I wouldn't find them repulsive. It is their total lack of regard for the Constitution that sickens me.

 

EXACTLY SK! But currently (and hopefully for all time) the Second Amendment to the Constitution *IS* part of the Bill of Rights. And as long as it is, ANY candidate who refuses to unconditionally support it is effectively saying "I do NOT support the entire Constitution of the U.S. - just the parts *I* approve of." In my opinion, that fact alone makes them unfit to hold Public Office. You may disagree with part of the Constitution. As you noted, you can work to try to CHANGE it. What you CAN'T do is SWEAR to uphold and support the Constitution while ignoring its dictates. Well - you can, but then you are unfit to hold office. IDK it seems simple to me.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

If they were against the 2nd Amendment and wanted to change the Constitution with an Amendment I would say they were fit for office, but since politicians these days create laws that go against the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) I will agree with you 100%.

 

If anti's just wanted to change the 2nd Amendment (good luck with that ) then I wouldn't find them repulsive. It is their total lack of regard for the Constitution that sickens me.

 

 

Here is a thought. Would anyone have an objection if I said " If a Candidate does not UNCONDITIONALLY support the *FIRST* Amendment, then they do *NOT* support the Constitution, and are unfit for public Office - *PERIOD*!???

 

I am pretty sure it is the same thing. The Bill of Rights is an integral part of the constitution, it cannot be ignored.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

Here is a thought. Would anyone have an objection if I said " If a Candidate does not UNCONDITIONALLY support the *FIRST* Amendment, then they do *NOT* support the Constitution, and are unfit for public Office - *PERIOD*!???

 

I am pretty sure it is the same thing. The Bill of Rights is an integral part of the constitution, it cannot be ignored.

 

I find it strange that the SECOND Amendment has somehow been relegated to (forgive the obvious pun), "second class" status. Don't you?

[SpecialK 193]

I personally would like to see the 1st Amendment altered as well as the 2nd. I think it should be clarified as an Amendment that the 1st Amendment does not cover certain things such as threats to others lives. I would also like to see the 2nd Amendment updated to be clear that it applies to all citizens (and legal residents) 100% and cement the Shall Not Be Infringed with wording that in no way could be "interpreted." So, I do not support the 1st or 2nd Amendment UNCONDITIONALLY does that mean I am not fit for public office?

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

I personally would like to see the 1st Amendment altered as well as the 2nd. I think it should be clarified as an Amendment that the 1st Amendment does not cover certain things such as threats to others lives. I would also like to see the 2nd Amendment updated to be clear that it applies to all citizens (and legal residents) 100% and cement the Shall Not Be Infringed with wording that in no way could be "interpreted." So, I do not support the 1st or 2nd Amendment UNCONDITIONALLY does that mean I am not fit for public office?

 

SK, in order to raise your hand and swear that you will uphold and defend the Constitution, you must support it AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS. Nowhere in my statement would I suggest that you don't have the right to try to CHANGE it. But there is a PROCESS for that. If you do NOT intend to support it UNCONDITIONALLY as it currently stands WHILE you are working to change it, then the answer is NO, you would not be fit to hold office. That is one of the things that is MOST wrong with our leadership today. They believe that supporting the Constitution of the UNITED STATES is *OPTIONAL* - it is *NOT*!

 

Don't get the wrong impression, I am not saying that you are wrong in wanting to work to make the changes you believe are necessary. That is most DEFINITELY your right. But please explain to me how someone can make an honest CONTRACT with the citizens of the United States to UPHOLD and DEFEND the Constitution, *IF* they have no intention to actually do so. I honestly believe that this is MORE than just an argument over semantics. When I cast my vote, I shouldn't have to wonder if my choice of Candidate has his fingers crossed behind his/her back. Do you see what I mean?

 

Of course, this is an IDEAL we should strive for, not something I seriously expect to happen in my limited lifetime. :-)

[SpecialK 193]

I'm with you 100%, just like arguing and playing devils advocate . I personally would love to see an Amendment to the Constitution that adds enforcement to the Constitution. I would also like it to say that what it says is what it means! And yes I know that would mean the 2nd Amendment would mean everything from sling shots to RPG's would be legal for citizens to own, but honestly if that were the case and the only way to stop or regulate it would be an Amendment to the Constitution do you really think that all the states couldn't come together with an Amendment that said RPG's for personal use are not okay?

[BRaptor 68]

I'm with you 100%, just like arguing and playing devils advocate . I personally would love to see an Amendment to the Constitution that adds enforcement to the Constitution. I would also like it to say that what it says is what it means! And yes I know that would mean the 2nd Amendment would mean everything from sling shots to RPG's would be legal for citizens to own, but honestly if that were the case and the only way to stop or regulate it would be an Amendment to the Constitution do you really think that all the states couldn't come together with an Amendment that said RPG's for personal use are not okay?

 

But then, should the Constitution exclude personal ownership of RPG's? Remember, 2A rights weren't origionally drafted just for personal protection reasons. The 2A was designed to provide The People with the ultimate government opression-release valve. Yes, I'm talking about revolution. The 2A is for the situation when The People come together and decide that the political system has devolved to the point of utter failure, non-representation, oppression and infringement of rights. The 2A was designed to keep enough of the weapons (even the "big, bad ones") in the hands of the populace to revolt, put their lives where their mouths are and actually stand a chance of defeating an over-powerful Federal Force. Yes, assistance from foreign countries was anticipated, but The People have to be able to put up enough of a fight to get a foreign country to invest in the chance that they would win.

 

I'm not settled on the answer if common citizens should be permitted or barred from owning fully automatic weapons, RPG's, artillary etc. Yes, it's a pretty radical view, but think about it...the US Constituion was an EXTREMELY radical document.

[Malsua 1,422]

But then, should the Constitution exclude personal ownership of RPG's? Remember, 2A rights weren't origionally drafted just for personal protection reasons. The 2A was designed to provide The People with the ultimate government opression-release valve. Yes, I'm talking about revolution. The 2A is for the situation when The People come together and decide that the political system has devolved to the point of utter failure, non-representation, oppression and infringement of rights.

 

Sorta like now? The founders revolted over much lower taxes and less personal invasion than is commonplace today.

 

The 2A was designed to keep enough of the weapons (even the "big, bad ones") in the hands of the populace to revolt, put their lives where their mouths are and actually stand a chance of defeating an over-powerful Federal Force. Yes, assistance from foreign countries was anticipated, but The People have to be able to put up enough of a fight to get a foreign country to invest in the chance that they would win.

 

I'm not settled on the answer if common citizens should be permitted or barred from owning fully automatic weapons, RPG's, artillary etc. Yes, it's a pretty radical view, but think about it...the US Constituion was an EXTREMELY radical document.

 

There exists a point where power becomes too concentrated. One man with control of Nuclear Weapons is clearly over that line. One man with a BB gun is on the other side of that line. At some point you have to draw a line. I'm not certain that fully automatic weapons should be on the Nuclear weapon side. They can cause havoc shot into a crowd but they aren't inherently more deadly than a someone taking aimed shots from the trunk of a blue 1990 Caprice with a stolen Bushmaster X-15.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

Sorta like now? The founders revolted over much lower taxes and less personal invasion than is commonplace today.

 

 

 

There exists a point where power becomes too concentrated. One man with control of Nuclear Weapons is clearly over that line. One man with a BB gun is on the other side of that line. At some point you have to draw a line. I'm not certain that fully automatic weapons should be on the Nuclear weapon side. They can cause havoc shot into a crowd but they aren't inherently more deadly than a someone taking aimed shots from the trunk of a blue 1990 Caprice with a stolen Bushmaster X-15.

 

Good points all. Keep in mind, what I am saying here is, you must unconditionally support the Second Amendment as part of the Constitution. I am NOT saying you must support the unconditional use of any weapon under any circumstance. As Braptor pointed out, were we to be under attack by terrorists, or our own government, certain weapons could become appropriate, that otherwise might not. In either case, the SPIRIT of the Second Amendment remains true "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

Scott Bach made the excellent point that the Constitution is *NOT* self-enforcing. That means it is a "guide book". We the people STILL have a say in how the Constitution is applied. That is the reason for the three branches of government. That is why we have a Supreme Court. The system is not perfect, but it allows the Constitution to give "structure" to the backbone of the Nation, while at the same time being a living document that gives the backbone the flexibility it needs to react to its environment.

 

HOWEVER, anyone running for office *MUST* be willing to UPHOLD and DEFEND the Constitution IN ITS CURRENT FORM, while working for whatever change they believe the people want. In the end, the PEOPLE get to decide. Of course, this assumes that the system is working as it should. It is our job as citizens to elect the kind of people who will insure that it does. *THAT* is OUR job. Hopefully, we will do a GOOD job tomorrow. Please vote.

[SpecialK 193]

But then, should the Constitution exclude personal ownership of RPG's? Remember, 2A rights weren't origionally drafted just for personal protection reasons. The 2A was designed to provide The People with the ultimate government opression-release valve. Yes, I'm talking about revolution. The 2A is for the situation when The People come together and decide that the political system has devolved to the point of utter failure, non-representation, oppression and infringement of rights. The 2A was designed to keep enough of the weapons (even the "big, bad ones") in the hands of the populace to revolt, put their lives where their mouths are and actually stand a chance of defeating an over-powerful Federal Force. Yes, assistance from foreign countries was anticipated, but The People have to be able to put up enough of a fight to get a foreign country to invest in the chance that they would win.

 

I'm not settled on the answer if common citizens should be permitted or barred from owning fully automatic weapons, RPG's, artillary etc. Yes, it's a pretty radical view, but think about it...the US Constituion was an EXTREMELY radical document.

 

Do citizens need the right to personal RPG's to fight a revolution? You do not need a majority of weapons or the "big, bad ones" to stir the pot. There are enough guns (well I never like to think that personally ) for Americans to revolt against the government as is. It is just a matter of having enough pissed off people want to actually do it. Let me run some numbers for you. There are approx. 900K law enforcement persons in the USA this include local, state and federal levels. Now lets just for the sake of argument add in all the Armed Forces (assuming they would fight on the side of the federal government, which I find very damn hard to believe that all would side with them, plus the fact that many of these persons as stationed overseas) the total possible amount of fighters for the federal government is around 3.3million then. That is only 1% of the total population. So even if only 2% of the population decided to rise up for whatever reason they would be out numbered 2 to 1.

 

What's our unemployment rate at the moment by the way? 9.2% I believe...

 

If you are still thinking that this sheer force of out numbering power the citizens would have doesn't mean anything because the police and military have the "big, bad guns" then why is Iraq and Afghanistan still going on? We have technology that makes them look like they are shooting sling shots at US no?

 

I am all for the 2nd Amendment as it was meant in the first place, a way for us to fight the government is need be. I would however support amendments to the constitution that 1) says the right to bear arms means just that and no restrictions is what shall not be infringed means and 2)RPG's are not an arm that falls under the previous amendment and can be regulated as seen fit. We don't need RPG's to fight the government, we we might, but we can get those in the course of battle instead of having them stocked up in our basements already

[GRIZ 3,369]

I am pretty sure it is the same thing. The Bill of Rights is an integral part of the constitution, it cannot be ignored.

 

Which is precisely why we have to be careful and not become one issue voters. There are many politicians out there that put on a charade of conservatism while the rest of their agenda is very much socialist. Need examples?

 

In the 3rd Congressional District Adler wouldn't take a stand on national health care until just before the vote. He needs conservatives to vote for him so once the Democrats knew they had enough to pass it he was given "permission" from the party to vote against it. His vote against it had no result on the final outcome. That's why its called politics. The rest of the time he votes party line but he can say he voted against healthcare.

 

The State Senator who brought up the "$500 Carry permit" is another. If you look at his voting record there isn't a tax or big government issue he can't vote for. He can bring up a "$500 carry permit" because:

 

1. he needs conservative votes and can champion himself as a 2A supporter

2. he know it has no chance of passing in NJ at the present time

 

I brought up this senator's voting record on another forum and was advised by a moderator that the senator was "one of us (a 2A supporter" and his record on any other issue was not to be discussed.

 

Another problem with "supporting the 2A in its presnt form" is it is ultimately the Supreme Court who will decide what it or any other amendment actually says.

 

The 2A is important to me but not at the cost of everything else. A politician with a NRA A rating who's for higher taxes, big government, and more intrusion into your life vs one with a NRA B and is against all those things. I'll take the B rated guy any day.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

I am pretty sure it is the same thing. The Bill of Rights is an integral part of the constitution, it cannot be ignored.

 

Which is precisely why we have to be careful and not become one issue voters. There are many politicians out there that put on a charade of conservatism while the rest of their agenda is very much socialist. Need examples?

 

In the 3rd Congressional District Adler wouldn't take a stand on national health care until just before the vote. He needs conservatives to vote for him so once the Democrats knew they had enough to pass it he was given "permission" from the party to vote against it. His vote against it had no result on the final outcome. That's why its called politics. The rest of the time he votes party line but he can say he voted against healthcare.

 

The State Senator who brought up the "$500 Carry permit" is another. If you look at his voting record there isn't a tax or big government issue he can't vote for. He can bring up a "$500 carry permit" because:

 

1. he needs conservative votes and can champion himself as a 2A supporter

2. he know it has no chance of passing in NJ at the present time

 

I brought up this senator's voting record on another forum and was advised by a moderator that the senator was "one of us (a 2A supporter" and his record on any other issue was not to be discussed.

 

Another problem with "supporting the 2A in its presnt form" is it is ultimately the Supreme Court who will decide what it or any other amendment actually says.

 

The 2A is important to me but not at the cost of everything else. A politician with a NRA A rating who's for higher taxes, big government, and more intrusion into your life vs one with a NRA B and is against all those things. I'll take the B rated guy any day.

 

I don't think you will get an argument from me. I don't believe I said anything about this being a one issue election, only that you can't be AGAINST the Constitution, and FOR it at the same time. Eventually, you have to make a choice. And besides, the Second Amendment does not *GRANT* the right to keep and bear arms, it is only supposed to PROTECT the already EXISTING right. And forgetting for a minute about protecting oneself from the government, what about the right to self-defense? Do we need any entity to tell us that we have the right to protect ourselves and our families. Of course not. The Second Amendment is there to tell the Government not to do ANYTHING to interfere with that right.. That is about all it says. It seems pretty obvious to me, but the founders knew that it wouldn't be obvious to everyone for all time, so they included it. Smart people!!! :-)

[GRIZ 3,369]

I don't believe I said anything about this being a one issue election

 

I know you didn't say anything about a one issue election but many gun owners are fooled by the smoke and mirror politicians who "act" like 2A supporters.

[SpecialK 193]

Just curious Frank are you okay with the banning of nuclear arms for the average citizen? Nuclear arms would be covered under the 2nd Amendment as they are arms. This is what brings me back to my earlier points the 2nd Amendment means what it says and it shouldn't have to have clarification, but it does. So, once we clarify that it means what it means then we would need Amendments to say that Nuclear, Biological and other WMD's are not covered and can be regulated or restricted. If you are against nuclear weapons or citizens to the point that you support laws that restrict them, then you are against the 2nd Amendment.

[Bob B 103]

[bry@n 195]

anybody know where the ocean county poeple stand in this?

 

I know how my town people feel but not sure on the county people.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

Just curious Frank are you okay with the banning of nuclear arms for the average citizen? Nuclear arms would be covered under the 2nd Amendment as they are arms. This is what brings me back to my earlier points the 2nd Amendment means what it says and it shouldn't have to have clarification, but it does. So, once we clarify that it means what it means then we would need Amendments to say that Nuclear, Biological and other WMD's are not covered and can be regulated or restricted. If you are against nuclear weapons or citizens to the point that you support laws that restrict them, then you are against the 2nd Amendment.

 

SK, I think you are confusing unconditional support for a part of the Constitution, as saying support for unconditional weaponry. I do not equate the two. The Second Amendment does NOT say the right to keep and bear arms is unconditional, rather that you HAVE an unconditional right to keep and bear arms - two VERY different things. I think you can see the difference.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

Funny - it seems so CLEAR to me. :-)

[SpecialK 193]

SK, I think you are confusing unconditional support for a part of the Constitution, as saying support for unconditional weaponry. I do not equate the two. The Second Amendment does NOT say the right to keep and bear arms is unconditional, rather that you HAVE an unconditional right to keep and bear arms - two VERY different things. I think you can see the difference.

 

"...shall not be infringed..."

 

1.

infringedpast participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)

1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".

2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy". More »

Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

 

The 2nd Amendment does in fact say the right to keep and bear arms is unconditional. See above mainly the underlined.

 

What you are saying is that it isn't unconditional, so with that reasoning every law that NJ has in effect is fine as they are all just conditions to exercising your right to keep and bear arms. These conditions are however infringements on the 2nd Amendment and therefore all unconstitutional. Do I agree with back ground checks, yes I do, but do I feel they are Constitutional, not I do not. This is why I keep saying the Constitution needs to be updated(to include things such as back ground checks and no nukes for my neighbor). It is a living document, not something that is supposed to sit around collecting dust.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

"...shall not be infringed..."

 

1.

infringedpast participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)

1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".

2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy". More »

Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

 

The 2nd Amendment does in fact say the right to keep and bear arms is unconditional. See above mainly the underlined.

 

What you are saying is that it isn't unconditional, so with that reasoning every law that NJ has in effect is fine as they are all just conditions to exercising your right to keep and bear arms. These conditions are however infringements on the 2nd Amendment and therefore all unconstitutional. Do I agree with back ground checks, yes I do, but do I feel they are Constitutional, not I do not. This is why I keep saying the Constitution needs to be updated(to include things such as back ground checks and no nukes for my neighbor). It is a living document, not something that is supposed to sit around collecting dust.

 

I am afraid that we are going to have to agree to disagree,SK. Just as it is reasonable to unconditionally support the FIRST Amendment, and still prohibit yelling fire in a crowded room, it is possible to unconditionally support the Second Amendment, even though *REASONABLE* restrictions are allowed. What *ISN'T* reasonable, is a young man sitting in PRISON for 7 years, for moving from Colorado to New Jersey with a couple of 17 round magazines in his possession!!!!!! *THAT* is an abomination!

 

You are correct, the Constitution *IS* a living document, as *I* said previously, but there is a PROCESS already in place for making changes. That process is being ignored in favor of CRIMINALLY INTRUSIVE state and local laws which IGNORE the Constitution, and *DO* infringe upon our rights. If a candidate considers honesty a positive attribute (yeah, I know - good luck with THAT), they cannot raise their hand and swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, if they secretly intend to ignore the parts they don't like. What they can do, is agree to unconditionally ABIDE by the spirit and letter of the Constitution (as it stands), WHILE they use the process already in place, to introduce an amendment. Otherwise, they are being dishonest, and in *MY* opinion, we already have enough dishonest politicians, we don't need any more.

[SpecialK 193]

Exactly we will have to agree to disagree the same way we have to do the same to many other interpretations of the Constitution. This is why I say we need Amendments to clarify these updates. Case law is not in the Constitution, but it is what we use as law when it comes to fighting court cases. Fine when the Supreme Court makes a ruling on the Constitution then have it so the Congress has to update the Constitution, so the new law is in black and white. The way the system is now the average citizen has to know the written law and every court case that has ever happened to know what the law is.

 

No one would have to agree to disagree if it were in Black and White. So, lets add the reasonable restrictions that the majority can agree on to the Amendments instead of just assuming everyone has the same idea of what reasonable is.

[kenw 293]

Do citizens need the right to personal RPG's to fight a revolution? You do not need a majority of weapons or the "big, bad ones" to stir the pot. There are enough guns (well I never like to think that personally ) for Americans to revolt against the government as is. It is just a matter of having enough pissed off people want to actually do it. Let me run some numbers for you. There are approx. 900K law enforcement persons in the USA this include local, state and federal levels. Now lets just for the sake of argument add in all the Armed Forces (assuming they would fight on the side of the federal government, which I find very damn hard to believe that all would side with them, plus the fact that many of these persons as stationed overseas) the total possible amount of fighters for the federal government is around 3.3million then. That is only 1% of the total population. So even if only 2% of the population decided to rise up for whatever reason they would be out numbered 2 to 1.

You're talking like this modern insurrection would be tactically similar to "The Revolution", where force was met with force, when we live in a technologically advanced society, and the government has control of the technology.

 

Guns won't matter, except for a handful of meaningless local skirmishes. There would be a complete shutdown of the flow of all goods and services. Communication would be brought to a screeching halt, the gas pumps would be turned off, airports and ports would be shut down and fortified, the international flow of money would cease, and on and on... Who needs to use guns, when you could just sit back and throw the switch on the power grid, turn off the internet, shut down transportation of food and supplies, turn off cell phones and land lines, seize monetary assets and shut down the banks, and just wait for the insurrection to burn itself out?

 

This isn't the 1700's, when the oppressors were across an ocean and the differences in the capabilities of both sides were negligible, this is the 21st century, and the assets available to the "oppressors" are an insurmountable obstacle to any sort of armed revolt, no matter what the comparable size of the actual available forces would be.

[Bob B 103]

This is a great thread. I have thouroughly enjoyed reading the very thoughtful and insightful comments.

 

I just wanted to point out that Frank's definition of "Living Document" seems to be "changeable through the appropriate process" and doesn't seem to be the most common meaning of the term.

 

Justice Scalia said in a speech in 2005 that:

“The Constitution is not a living organism… it is a legal document, and like all legal documents, it says some things and doesn’t say others.”

(Read the whole speech here: http://www.cfif.org/...onal-speech.htm).

 

The Constitution can be changed by Congress, or the States. It cannot (by design) be changed by the Executive or Judicial Branch (although the Judicial Branch has succeeded in creating for itself, that authority).

 

The term "Living Document" or "Living Organism" is something that law professors and justices came up with in order to teach their students and give themselves a view of the Constitution that would allow them to interpret it in accordance with todays social environment and needs (as they see them). It was never intended for the Judiciary to have that kind of power, and in my view, has resulted in some surprising decisions. It lead to four out of nine Supreme Court Justices opining that the Second Amendment, even though it says what it says and means what it says, isn't a restriction on government, as long as there is some other need of society that counters the argument, i.e. "health, safety and welfare." This, of course ia a perversion.

 

Consider this paragraph from Justice Souters speech at Harvard a few years ago (one who subscribes to the "living organism" theory:

 

Let me ask a rhetorical question. Should the choice and its explanation be called illegitimate law making? Can it be an act beyond the judicial power when a choice must be made and the Constitution has not made it in advance in so many words? You know my answer. So much for the notion that all of constitutional law lies there in the Constitution waiting for a judge to read it fairly.

(Read the whole speech here: http://news.harvard....souters-speech/)

 

My point is, be careful when using the term "Living" when applied to the constitution, it doesn't mean "amendable" it means "bendable." "Amendable" good, "bendable" bad!

 

If you read both speeches, you will have heard both arguments from the best possible source of both arguments, and you may then decide for yourselves.

[Malsua 1,422]

You're talking like this modern insurrection would be tactically similar to "The Revolution", where force was met with force, when we live in a technologically advanced society, and the government has control of the technology.

 

Guns won't matter, except for a handful of meaningless local skirmishes. There would be a complete shutdown of the flow of all goods and services. Communication would be brought to a screeching halt, the gas pumps would be turned off, airports and ports would be shut down and fortified, the international flow of money would cease, and on and on... Who needs to use guns, when you could just sit back and throw the switch on the power grid, turn off the internet, shut down transportation of food and supplies, turn off cell phones and land lines, seize monetary assets and shut down the banks, and just wait for the insurrection to burn itself out?

 

This isn't the 1700's, when the oppressors were across an ocean and the differences in the capabilities of both sides were negligible, this is the 21st century, and the assets available to the "oppressors" are an insurmountable obstacle to any sort of armed revolt, no matter what the comparable size of the actual available forces would be.

 

I think the quickest way for a president to get himself the Nicolae Ceauşescu treatment would be to turn off cell phones, sieze monetary assets, shut down the banks and transportation. It wouldn't be tolerated. There is enough inertia in the system that any decree with the above measures would be treated as high treason and disobeyed on many levels. Fuel would flow, food would flow, information would flow and such a "leader" would get shot in the courtyard with his wife. I am not referring to Obama here. I am talking about a treasonous president(of any country) who would do the above to his people. All "waiting it out" would mean is that people could get to the capital to watch the execution up close and personal.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

First let me say that Bob's evaluation of my use of the phase "living document" is straight on. I do *NOT* believe it is bendable. The founders established a process by which it can be changed if necessary. The fact that the option has been used so rarely speaks VOLUMES about the quality of the original document as written.

 

Second, I personally do not believe that the American people would be defenseless. You are ignoring the fact that many people in both law enforcement *AND* the military, would fight on the side of the people. Having appropriate defenses would indeed help. Not having *ANY* defenses would HURT.

[SpecialK 193]

The founders established a process by which it can be changed if necessary. The fact that the option has been used so rarely speaks VOLUMES about the quality of the original document as written.

 

I would have to say the fact that it hasn't been changed as often speaks volumes of the scum of this country that have found it easy to make laws that go against it with no repercussions. Why change it when you can bend it?

 

Now only if people would wake up and follow the supreme law of the land then we'd be good to go.

[tommy3rd 132]

I have a stupid question...if someone is unfit for office, is there anything we the people can do besides try to vote the person out of office?

In theory, all those politicians who do not support the second amendment are actually violating Article VI of the constitution, right?

I know they were voted into office, so they have to be voted out but is that the only way?

 

Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

SK, yes - that too.

 

tommy - There are impeachment proceedings, but I think that would be a hard sell. Voting them out, and making sure people know WHY you are voting them out, is probably the most effective way. I believe as you do that they have their fingers crossed behind their backs when the swear to uphold the Constitution. It is legitimate for them to TRY to make changes using the process the founders provided for the purpose, but it is NOT OK for them act in ways contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. The problem is, as SpecialK so aptly pointed out is, they have been allowed *WAY* too much latitude in "interpreting" just exactly what the spirit, intent, and letter of the Constitution *IS*!