Re: [CTRL] $h!tcan the 2nd Amendment: That Would Never Happen Here ...

1999-08-10 Thread Ronald L. Wilson.

 -Caveat Lector-

ABOUT VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS--
 THEY MAUL THE 2ND AND 4TH AMENDMENTS
BUT YELL LIKE CRAZY IF ANYONE SAYS
BRIBERY OF POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS OR
GOVERNMENT WORKERS IS WRONG.

REMEMBER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
IT'S NOT  BRIBERY--IT'S FREE SPEECH !!!

DECLARATION  DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om



[CTRL] $h!tcan the 2nd Amendment: That Would Never Happen Here (fwd)

1999-08-09 Thread MICHAEL SPITZER

 -Caveat Lector-

Capitol Hill Blue

   Published: August 7, 1999
   Author: Charles Bloomer

"That Would Never Happen Here"


Frequently in my discussions with my friends about the right to
keep and bear arms, I bring up the concept of defense against a
tyrannical government. The Founding Fathers understood well that
it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for an
authoritarian dictatorship to develop and try to assert control
over an armed populace. Seems to be a simple concept - fairly
straightforward. But my friends see it differently. While they
may agree in principle - that subduing an armed population would
be difficult - they think I'm wrong about the possibility of a
tyrannical government in America. Almost every one of them says
"That would never happen here". "America is built on the concept
of freedom", they say. "We have a constitution that prevents the
government from getting out of control".

Ah, yes. We have a constitution. We have the most successful
constitution in the history of civilization. It is truly a work
of art. Our constitution was written by inspired men who were
tired of being oppressed by unaccountable monarchs and their
tyrannical governments. This timeless document was written by men
that wanted to be free, who believed that our rights to life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable, granted by
the Creator, not by other men or government. Implementing the
constitution and adhering to its concepts would protect us from
the tyrannical, oppressive rule by authoritarian controllers.

My friends all agree that our Constitution is a great thing.

The discussion continues. "What if," I ask, "What if the
government decided to ignore the Constitution?" I get the same
answer - "That would never happen here". "What if the government
decided that respecting the Bill of Rights was selective? That
they could ignore some of the rights specified?" Again, "that
would never happen here."

Or would it?

In fact, it has happened, and continues to happen. Our government
routinely, arrogantly, knowingly betrays our rights. Let's look
at some examples. One could make a lifetime study of all the
violations of the Constitution, so we will confine ourselves to
the Bill of Rights, in no particular order.

The Second Amendment -- the one that says "…the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - is
infringed frequently. Current estimates are that there are over
20,000 gun control laws on the books. 20,000 laws that interfere
with an American's right to keep and bear arms. 20,000 gun laws,
and a government that tries regularly (and sometimes succeeds) to
pass more laws that further infringe on your right to buy, own,
or carry a gun.

Amendment IX is totally ignored. "The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny
or disparage others retained by the people." Our government does
not believe we have any rights unless it grants them to us. Do
you have a "right" to drive? To build on your property? No. You
must go to the government and get permission to do either of
those.

Your Fifth Amendment rights are selectively enforced. We have
taken the protection against self-incrimination to its absurd
extreme. Our government frees confessed criminals because they
confessed. But what about the other provisions of this Amendment?
"[N]or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation." So, if the government wants to
build a new highway where your house is, they have to compensate
you in a just manner (we'll not go into a definition of "just").
But what if they decide to take your property without due process
or just compensation? "That would never happen here." Wrong
again. It happens all the time. American property owners are
denied the use of their property by the Endangered Species Act
and wetlands preservation regulations, among others, without
compensation, just or otherwise. Your private property is not
yours, after all. The government tells you what you can and can't
do on that property. And if you don't pay the government "rent"
(property taxes), your property will be confiscated.

The Tenth Amendment, States' Rights, has taken a pounding for
nearly 150 years. Individual states do not have the right to
secede from the Union. Increasingly, they do not have the right
to do anything that the Federal government does not want them to
do. This Amendment was intended to keep government closer to the
people and easier to control. It was intended to limit Federal
power. It is blatantly ignored in the guise of "interstate
commerce" and "general welfare". Education, health and "human
services", housing and urban development, etc., etc., all are
considered interstate commerce or general welfare issues by our
government. All that despite the fact that none of those things
is ever mentioned in the Constitution as a Federal prerogative.